Tea Party supporter convicted of raping his 7-year-old daughter

its pretty scary that we give people like this guns and and a uniform and send them off to represent our country. How can a member of the military not honor the commander in chief?

Some scum bag rapes his daughter,he should be executed!
What I don't understand is why bring his politics into it?
I'm sure there are many Obama supporters committing vile crimes everyday but I would never hold that against him as it has nothing to do with him.
What is it with you liberals and the tea party? Why do you fear it so much?
I don't support and never have supported the tea party,I see them as nothing but a fringe group being used by the media to help divide the country.
The Democrats make them out to be some evil group of devil worshipers or some such weirdness and the Republicans give them far more power then their true numbers deserve using them as an excuse to do nothing.

In all reality it's a handful of people feed up with being over taxed and the money being thrown away.
The OWS crowd probably even has higher numbers of far more committed people but take the media away and it's nothing.
The way I see it both groups have good points and both groups are being used to divide the nation. As is any idiot who brings politics into such a vile crime,for what shock value to try to prove those who don't think like you are bad people?

You understand perfectly why his politics were brought into it. To discredit the Tea Party. The media stops at nothing. We will win when we realize this isn't like war, this is war.

Tim, I see his political view as a key to this issue. It is not intended to discredit anyone, but instead to inform people that these sanctions exist. I truthfully am shocked when I hear there are groups of citizens armed and ready to fight. I have friends that are patriots and we discuss this often. I would not believe they existed otherwise. As far as the tea party goes, correct me if I am wrong, they encourage groups like this to join their ranks.

What is this a war against?

You are wrong. What do you mean, "groups like this"? Groups of people you can stereotype as fringe extreamests and crazies, prone to raping young girls? The Tea Party groups, of which I am not a member, encourage people who desire the government to follow the constitution to join or support them. By what do you mean that his political views are key to the issue. What issue? Raping your own daughter? It is transparently obvious that you mean to discredit and sully the Tea Party by linking his crime to an unrelated supposition. It is a dirty smear tactic, more common to liberals than not, but very predictable. You are a fraud, Amee if you consider your piece anything other than the attack of the Tea Party that it is.

Yes politics seems to be thrown at everything regardless. It matters 0 whether a murderer or rapist is Republican or Democrat there are evil people in all parties and groups. There are horrible Priests, Nuns, etc...no group is completely empty of those that do bad things. If a priest molests a boy does that mean that everything he teaches is bad or wrong? That would mean a priest telling someone they shouldn't commit murder and being a child molester means that committing murder might just be an ok thing to do because a child molester said it so you can't trust it.

Being a bad person or doing evil doesn't make everything you say or do wrong. Painting with an overly broad brush...so tired of it. Someone in the Tea Party does something racist so they are automatically all racist and everything they say or do is wrong? Seriously that doesn't even make sense.

What has Obama done to deserve honor or respect? You may think he has done much if you support him but not everyone does. Should we honor and respect people like Joseph Stalin or Adolf Hitler or some other that isn't quite as bad just because they were leaders of a country and that means they should automatically be respected?(I know the Hitler and Stalin examples are extreme and I certain don't think either Romney or Obama are that bad, but they are the easiest most expedient examples I can think of)

Respect and honor are deserved by those who earn it. They should not receive it just because they are "The President". I personally don't think much of anything he has done or said deserves honor or respect. You have a right to your opinion but I disagree wholeheartedly.

From my perspective signing the NDAA and supporting things like the Patriot act which are completely antithetical to the Constitution that the President and those in Government are supposed to uphold. I don't think it makes sense to respect one who thinks nothing of the Constitution because I believe he does not. There are things to respect about Obama and Romney..if you believe they are trying the best they can to make this country what it should be. I don't personally think they are evil and want the country to be a horrible place to live or anything like that..I don't know them personally so I don't know for sure on everything but they most likely are doing what they think is right. I can respect that I suppose, but that's about it.

That being said because of the beliefs and stances they hold on many issues I don't respect or honor those beliefs or stances. I will not support unconstitutional laws and acts just because of a title. Do you seriously think a soldier should do what the President says regardless of what it is. The President is supposed to uphold the Constitution if he orders a soldier to do something that violates it they should not comply and that is all the soldiers are saying.

John, I think what you mean is, that you respect the office of the President without question. But the individual in that office must earn your respect... correct? I'm at a loss as to why you would have a problem with either the NDAA or the Patriot Act, unless you're engaging in money-laundering, or some other kind of terrorism. The Patriot Act is all about tracing the money to terrorist organizations, and money-laundering in general. The thing that most people have a problem with is that the government will surveil communications coming from outside the US, to ascertain if they concern the two subjects just mentioned. If not, it goes right through. NDAA was just the Defense funding for 2012, which by the way is stipulated to be done in the Constitution. (I knew you probably knew that, but we have folks from Rio Lindo reading this too.)

The problem, as I see it, is the difference in ideology between the two, as far as your comment about "They are trying the best they can to make this country what it should be.", with the operative phrase being "what it SHOULD BE". With what Obama has already shown, he wants this country to be a third world nation with greatly inflated taxes, making it possible to have at least 60% of the population on the government dime in one way or another(Obamacare), so that he and the rest of the Democrats can then say, "If you don't vote for the Democrats, those nasty old Republicans will take this away from you, and you'll have to actually work for the money you receive." Coleman Young, another notable Democrat in Detroit history, used to do the same thing in Detroit. Since Detroit is about 80% black, and about 80% Democrat, he could be counted on to always do two things. If he didn't get what he wanted for whatever pet project he had going, first he'd blame the white folk out in the 'burbs, and then he'd say,"Well, if you're(Detroit Common Council) not going to give me what I want, then we'll just have to layoff police and fire personnel." and he'd get whatever he wanted, because he was messing with people's security. This man was mayor of Detroit for 20 years.(1975-1995) You would think, in that amount of time, he could have cleaned up the city, after the riots back in 1967, and develop more of the infrastructure necessary for people to want to move into the city to live(read that 'tax base'). But he was too busy trying to develop a downtown area, that only now is starting to show signs of revitalization. But I digress, I'm way off the subject. Just suffice it to say that Obama thinks he can start another Democratic dynasty like FDR had with the New Deal, with Obamacare. If you look back in history, you'll find that even FDR's own advisors told him his programs weren't working. LBJ did it too, with the "The Great Society". The only thing that got out of the depression/recession was a war. That's the only kind of government spending that actually works, because politicians are not businessmen.

cfmurray, you are incorrect about the Patriot Act, and the NDAA.
The Patriot Act is NOT about tracing money to terrorists or money laundering. It is about limiting what the citizens of this nation can do, taking away our privacy, our right to move around as we want.
Section 215 of the Patriot Act authorizes the government to obtain "any tangible thing" relevant to a terrorism investigation, even if there is NOTHING showing that the "thing" pertains to suspected terrorists or terrorist activities. This provision is contrary to our Constitution and laws notions of search and seizure, which requires the government to show reasonable suspicion or probable cause before undertaking an investigation that infringes upon a person's privacy.

Section 206 of the Patriot Act, also known as "roving John Doe wiretap" provision, permits the government to obtain intelligence surveillance orders that identify neither the person nor the facility to be tapped. This provision is contrary to Constitution and laws of our nation of search and seizure, which require government to state with particularity what it seeks to search or seize.

The Patriot Act authorized what is called Delayed-Notice Search Warrants; this is where the investigators get a warrant that allows them to enter your home or place of business, while you are not there, go through your belongings and take what it wants and not tell you about it for up to a year or more with extensions.

The Department of Justice website stated the Patriot Act was necessary to “conduct investigations without tipping off terrorists.” Yet, a July 2009 report from Director James Duff, of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, it was reported that in 2008 alone there were 763 “sneak and peek” warrants issued and of those 763 warrants only 3 were for terrorism while 474 were for drug crimes, 53 for fraud, 25 for escapees from prison, 12 for sex offenders, 14 for murder, and even Food and Drug received more warrants than terrorism with 5. The focus and intent of this portion of the act is not focused at terrorists but inward toward our own citizens having nothing to do with terrorism.

Patriot Act has as a part called National Security Letters (NSL): that, according to a Congressional Research paper dated September 8, 2009, “expanded the circumstances under which an NSL could be used” and that the FBI had “used NSLs in violation of applicable NSL statutes, Attorney General Guidelines, and internal FBI policies.”
According to this very same report the standard/purpose for these letters were predominately for “int’l terrorism or clandestine intelligence.” And since we are also aware of the prohibition of the government collecting intelligence against its own citizens we must also assume that unless there was a nexus to terrorism or foreign sources in these investigations there should not be any NSL’s against our own citizens.
NSL’s are used to obtain information about anyone from establishment where that person is suspected of having an account. It could be from banks, tax information, retail purchases, phone or email records, etc. all without providing any evidence of wrongdoing or intent to commit a crime only that you are suspected, a much lesser standard.

In 2008 alone over 24,744 letters were used on thousands of Americans. All the data collected from these investigations are maintained indefinitely on large government mainframes where they will be kept indefinitely even if no evidence of wrongdoing was found. There are currently over 1.5 billion records on file with the theory that it can be searched for pattern analysis of potential wrongdoing in the future. (This is called Data Mining), And the predominant target/focus of the NSL’s issued during 2008? You guessed it - American citizens. Many of those investigated did not do anything wrong but fit a profile based on data mining or other criteria collected by the vast and ever growing mountain of data. Things as simple as the books someone may wish to read, or purchases that are in some way odd (to the investigator) that may relate again to some profile that has been created. And the list keeps growing of Americans viewed by our government as suspect.

Electronic Surveillance: Another aspect of the Patriot Act was an expansion of the power for the federal government to intercept communications (in whatever form) The National Security Agency (NSA) is tasked with electronic surveillance and is supposed to only intercept calls when one or both parts of the communication is foreign. But, according to a NY Times article, intelligence officials themselves have stated there has been a “significant and systemic” over-collection problem of purely domestic communications. When we look at who the government has identified as potential terrorists – especially by the DHS, - where else are they going to look.
It was stated in a Washington Post article that the Bush administrated claimed they arrested more than 400 people in terrorism investigations and convicted more than half of those.
The truth is most of the investigations were/are not terrorist related and in fact from 11/01 to 11/04 only 39 individuals were convicted of crimes related to terrorism with an average sentence of only 11 months. If you know your sentencing levels then the majority of these were not even felony infractions but were most likely misdemeanors. According to a Syracuse University study that with all the government’s effort in stepping up terrorism related convictions the number of terrorism prisoners with sentences of 5 years or more has not risen at all above the pre- 9/11 levels and the convictions made were more commonly for passport violations, fraud, making false statements and conspiracy with average sentences of only 4 months.

When those who are placed in positions of trust use that position to take the tools devised to protect Americans from foreign enemies and turn them inward toward the very citizens they are supposed to protect there is only one outcome - tyranny.

I was taught two very important lessons by my Father as I was growing up. The first is “Tell me WHO your friends are and I will tell you WHAT you are” and second, one I think we have all heard, “Actions speak louder than words.” When I look at the actions the government has taken against its own people using the tools given to them to fight a foreign enemy I think of the second phrase.

Michael LeMieux is a retired U.S. Army intelligence and imagery analyst, and has served combat tours in Kuwait and Afghanistan with the 19th Special Forces. He is a Purple Heart recipient for injuries received in Afghanistan. Mr. LeMieux is the author of Unalienable Rights and the denial of the U.S. Constitution, published by Publish America and a regular writer for Republic Magazine.
www.constitutiondenied.com

4th Amendment: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
There are two governmental limitations stated in this amendment.
1. The citizens are to be secure in their person, home, papers, and property, from unreasonable searches and seizure. In other words they have the privacy to go about their lives without worrying whether the government will invade them. This amendment was to ensure that the government does not trespass on the people nor take anything from the people without following correct legal procedure.
2. The government is restrained from taking either person or property without first getting a warrant, and only after proving probable cause.

This amendment is not a grant of right, but solely a limitation on the government to ensure that they do not trespass beyond their enumerated powers.

Thomas Jefferson stated: "Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing a people to slavery." And that: “Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.”

I can draw no other conclusion than that of Thomas Jefferson; that what is being plied upon the American population is a method of control and it has nothing to do with crime and everything to do with control. And the premise of crisis, public safety, and welfare of the people is nothing more than well plied bovine scatology.
"When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

And I have not even started on NDAA, much like the Patriot Act, there is NOTHING patriotic or honest about it, and the controls issued by it are on American citizens and those legally allowed to be here.

Think about it: Obama LIED to everyone when he said he would "veto" it because of the acts in it against American citizens within our own country WHILE ALL the TIME HE WAS FIGHTING FOR THOSE VERY ACTS to be USED AGAINST AMERICANS WITHIN OUR COUNTRY TO BE PUT/left INTO THE NDAA.
"Amidst all of the controversy surrounding the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the Obama administration attempted to paint itself as an oppositional force against the bill, threatening to veto it if it passed. Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich., left), CO-AUTHOR of the bill, says that Obama, and his administration, in fact heavily lobbied to have removed from the bill's language that would have protected American citizens from some of the bill’s provisions, such as indefinite detention without trial."

Lawyers for the Obama administration confirmed that, in their (legal) view, U.S. citizens are in fact legitimate military targets.

Then there is this: In the years Obama has been in office, he and his administration has routinely cited the "Authority" of the United Nations over the US Constitution, the United States of America which is who he was elected to represent.
President Obama sent a letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner in which he boldly asserted the “Authority” of international powers over and above the US Constitution, again he was elected to represent the USA, NOT the UN.
Obama, Panetta, and Dempsey openly declared that they no longer represent the American people and instead are representatives for a global dictatorship (UN) that has usurped the sovereignty of the United States.
By the way - if you do not recognize it, those are treasonous actions by the man currently occupying the presidential office.

Will stop here, let me know if you want more.

cfmurray, you are incorrect about the Patriot Act, and the NDAA.
The Patriot Act is NOT about tracing money to terrorists or money laundering. It is about limiting what the citizens of this nation can do, taking away our privacy, our right to move around as we want.
Section 215 of the Patriot Act authorizes the government to obtain "any tangible thing" relevant to a terrorism investigation, even if there is NOTHING showing that the "thing" pertains to suspected terrorists or terrorist activities. This provision is contrary to our Constitution and laws notions of search and seizure, which requires the government to show reasonable suspicion or probable cause before undertaking an investigation that infringes upon a person's privacy.

Section 206 of the Patriot Act, also known as "roving John Doe wiretap" provision, permits the government to obtain intelligence surveillance orders that identify neither the person nor the facility to be tapped. This provision is contrary to Constitution and laws of our nation of search and seizure, which require government to state with particularity what it seeks to search or seize.

The Patriot Act authorized what is called Delayed-Notice Search Warrants; this is where the investigators get a warrant that allows them to enter your home or place of business, while you are not there, go through your belongings and take what it wants and not tell you about it for up to a year or more with extensions.

The Department of Justice website stated the Patriot Act was necessary to “conduct investigations without tipping off terrorists.” Yet, a July 2009 report from Director James Duff, of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, it was reported that in 2008 alone there were 763 “sneak and peek” warrants issued and of those 763 warrants only 3 were for terrorism while 474 were for drug crimes, 53 for fraud, 25 for escapees from prison, 12 for sex offenders, 14 for murder, and even Food and Drug received more warrants than terrorism with 5. The focus and intent of this portion of the act is not focused at terrorists but inward toward our own citizens having nothing to do with terrorism.

Patriot Act has as a part called National Security Letters (NSL): that, according to a Congressional Research paper dated September 8, 2009, “expanded the circumstances under which an NSL could be used” and that the FBI had “used NSLs in violation of applicable NSL statutes, Attorney General Guidelines, and internal FBI policies.”
According to this very same report the standard/purpose for these letters were predominately for “int’l terrorism or clandestine intelligence.” And since we are also aware of the prohibition of the government collecting intelligence against its own citizens we must also assume that unless there was a nexus to terrorism or foreign sources in these investigations there should not be any NSL’s against our own citizens.
NSL’s are used to obtain information about anyone from establishment where that person is suspected of having an account. It could be from banks, tax information, retail purchases, phone or email records, etc. all without providing any evidence of wrongdoing or intent to commit a crime only that you are suspected, a much lesser standard.

In 2008 alone over 24,744 letters were used on thousands of Americans. All the data collected from these investigations are maintained indefinitely on large government mainframes where they will be kept indefinitely even if no evidence of wrongdoing was found. There are currently over 1.5 billion records on file with the theory that it can be searched for pattern analysis of potential wrongdoing in the future. (This is called Data Mining), And the predominant target/focus of the NSL’s issued during 2008? You guessed it - American citizens. Many of those investigated did not do anything wrong but fit a profile based on data mining or other criteria collected by the vast and ever growing mountain of data. Things as simple as the books someone may wish to read, or purchases that are in some way odd (to the investigator) that may relate again to some profile that has been created. And the list keeps growing of Americans viewed by our government as suspect.

Electronic Surveillance: Another aspect of the Patriot Act was an expansion of the power for the federal government to intercept communications (in whatever form) The National Security Agency (NSA) is tasked with electronic surveillance and is supposed to only intercept calls when one or both parts of the communication is foreign. But, according to a NY Times article, intelligence officials themselves have stated there has been a “significant and systemic” over-collection problem of purely domestic communications. When we look at who the government has identified as potential terrorists – especially by the DHS, - where else are they going to look.
It was stated in a Washington Post article that the Bush administrated claimed they arrested more than 400 people in terrorism investigations and convicted more than half of those.
The truth is most of the investigations were/are not terrorist related and in fact from 11/01 to 11/04 only 39 individuals were convicted of crimes related to terrorism with an average sentence of only 11 months. If you know your sentencing levels then the majority of these were not even felony infractions but were most likely misdemeanors. According to a Syracuse University study that with all the government’s effort in stepping up terrorism related convictions the number of terrorism prisoners with sentences of 5 years or more has not risen at all above the pre- 9/11 levels and the convictions made were more commonly for passport violations, fraud, making false statements and conspiracy with average sentences of only 4 months.

When those who are placed in positions of trust use that position to take the tools devised to protect Americans from foreign enemies and turn them inward toward the very citizens they are supposed to protect there is only one outcome - tyranny.

I was taught two very important lessons by my Father as I was growing up. The first is “Tell me WHO your friends are and I will tell you WHAT you are” and second, one I think we have all heard, “Actions speak louder than words.” When I look at the actions the government has taken against its own people using the tools given to them to fight a foreign enemy I think of the second phrase.

Michael LeMieux is a retired U.S. Army intelligence and imagery analyst, and has served combat tours in Kuwait and Afghanistan with the 19th Special Forces. He is a Purple Heart recipient for injuries received in Afghanistan. Mr. LeMieux is the author of Unalienable Rights and the denial of the U.S. Constitution, published by Publish America and a regular writer for Republic Magazine.
www.constitutiondenied.com

4th Amendment: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
There are two governmental limitations stated in this amendment.
1. The citizens are to be secure in their person, home, papers, and property, from unreasonable searches and seizure. In other words they have the privacy to go about their lives without worrying whether the government will invade them. This amendment was to ensure that the government does not trespass on the people nor take anything from the people without following correct legal procedure.
2. The government is restrained from taking either person or property without first getting a warrant, and only after proving probable cause.

This amendment is not a grant of right, but solely a limitation on the government to ensure that they do not trespass beyond their enumerated powers.

Thomas Jefferson stated: "Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing a people to slavery." And that: “Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.”

I can draw no other conclusion than that of Thomas Jefferson; that what is being plied upon the American population is a method of control and it has nothing to do with crime and everything to do with control. And the premise of crisis, public safety, and welfare of the people is nothing more than well plied bovine scatology.
"When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

And I have not even started on NDAA, much like the Patriot Act, there is NOTHING patriotic or honest about it, and the controls issued by it are on American citizens and those legally allowed to be here.

Think about it: Obama LIED to everyone when he said he would "veto" it because of the acts in it against American citizens within our own country WHILE ALL the TIME HE WAS FIGHTING FOR THOSE VERY ACTS to be USED AGAINST AMERICANS WITHIN OUR COUNTRY TO BE PUT/left INTO THE NDAA.
"Amidst all of the controversy surrounding the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the Obama administration attempted to paint itself as an oppositional force against the bill, threatening to veto it if it passed. Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich., left), CO-AUTHOR of the bill, says that Obama, and his administration, in fact heavily lobbied to have removed from the bill's language that would have protected American citizens from some of the bill’s provisions, such as indefinite detention without trial."

Lawyers for the Obama administration confirmed that, in their (legal) view, U.S. citizens are in fact legitimate military targets.

Then there is this: In the years Obama has been in office, he and his administration has routinely cited the "Authority" of the United Nations over the US Constitution, the United States of America which is who he was elected to represent.
President Obama sent a letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner in which he boldly asserted the “Authority” of international powers over and above the US Constitution, again he was elected to represent the USA, NOT the UN.
Obama, Panetta, and Dempsey openly declared that they no longer represent the American people and instead are representatives for a global dictatorship (UN) that has usurped the sovereignty of the United States.
By the way - if you do not recognize it, those are treasonous actions by the man currently occupying the presidential office.

Will stop here, let me know if you want more.

cfmurray, you are incorrect about the Patriot Act, and the NDAA.
The Patriot Act is NOT about tracing money to terrorists or money laundering. It is about limiting what the citizens of this nation can do, taking away our privacy, our right to move around as we want.
Section 215 of the Patriot Act authorizes the government to obtain "any tangible thing" relevant to a terrorism investigation, even if there is NOTHING showing that the "thing" pertains to suspected terrorists or terrorist activities. This provision is contrary to our Constitution and laws notions of search and seizure, which requires the government to show reasonable suspicion or probable cause before undertaking an investigation that infringes upon a person's privacy.

Section 206 of the Patriot Act, also known as "roving John Doe wiretap" provision, permits the government to obtain intelligence surveillance orders that identify neither the person nor the facility to be tapped. This provision is contrary to Constitution and laws of our nation of search and seizure, which require government to state with particularity what it seeks to search or seize.

The Patriot Act authorized what is called Delayed-Notice Search Warrants; this is where the investigators get a warrant that allows them to enter your home or place of business, while you are not there, go through your belongings and take what it wants and not tell you about it for up to a year or more with extensions.

The Department of Justice website stated the Patriot Act was necessary to “conduct investigations without tipping off terrorists.” Yet, a July 2009 report from Director James Duff, of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, it was reported that in 2008 alone there were 763 “sneak and peek” warrants issued and of those 763 warrants only 3 were for terrorism while 474 were for drug crimes, 53 for fraud, 25 for escapees from prison, 12 for sex offenders, 14 for murder, and even Food and Drug received more warrants than terrorism with 5. The focus and intent of this portion of the act is not focused at terrorists but inward toward our own citizens having nothing to do with terrorism.

Patriot Act has as a part called National Security Letters (NSL): that, according to a Congressional Research paper dated September 8, 2009, “expanded the circumstances under which an NSL could be used” and that the FBI had “used NSLs in violation of applicable NSL statutes, Attorney General Guidelines, and internal FBI policies.”
According to this very same report the standard/purpose for these letters were predominately for “int’l terrorism or clandestine intelligence.” And since we are also aware of the prohibition of the government collecting intelligence against its own citizens we must also assume that unless there was a nexus to terrorism or foreign sources in these investigations there should not be any NSL’s against our own citizens.
NSL’s are used to obtain information about anyone from establishment where that person is suspected of having an account. It could be from banks, tax information, retail purchases, phone or email records, etc. all without providing any evidence of wrongdoing or intent to commit a crime only that you are suspected, a much lesser standard.

In 2008 alone over 24,744 letters were used on thousands of Americans. All the data collected from these investigations are maintained indefinitely on large government mainframes where they will be kept indefinitely even if no evidence of wrongdoing was found. There are currently over 1.5 billion records on file with the theory that it can be searched for pattern analysis of potential wrongdoing in the future. (This is called Data Mining), And the predominant target/focus of the NSL’s issued during 2008? You guessed it - American citizens. Many of those investigated did not do anything wrong but fit a profile based on data mining or other criteria collected by the vast and ever growing mountain of data. Things as simple as the books someone may wish to read, or purchases that are in some way odd (to the investigator) that may relate again to some profile that has been created. And the list keeps growing of Americans viewed by our government as suspect.

Electronic Surveillance: Another aspect of the Patriot Act was an expansion of the power for the federal government to intercept communications (in whatever form) The National Security Agency (NSA) is tasked with electronic surveillance and is supposed to only intercept calls when one or both parts of the communication is foreign. But, according to a NY Times article, intelligence officials themselves have stated there has been a “significant and systemic” over-collection problem of purely domestic communications. When we look at who the government has identified as potential terrorists – especially by the DHS, - where else are they going to look.
It was stated in a Washington Post article that the Bush administrated claimed they arrested more than 400 people in terrorism investigations and convicted more than half of those.
The truth is, as we have seen above, most of the investigations were not terrorist related and in fact from 11/01 to 11/04 only 39 individuals were convicted of crimes related to terrorism with an average sentence of only 11 months. If you know your sentencing levels then the majority of these were not even felony infractions but were most likely misdemeanors. According to a Syracuse University study that with all the government’s effort in stepping up terrorism related convictions the number of terrorism prisoners with sentences of 5 years or more has not risen at all above the pre- 9/11 levels and the convictions were more commonly for passport violations, fraud, making false statements and conspiracy with average sentences of only 4 months.
When those who are placed in positions of trust use that position to take the tools devised to protect Americans from foreign enemies and turn them inward toward the very citizens they are supposed to protect there is only one outcome - tyranny.

I was taught two very important lessons by my Father as I was growing up. The first is “Tell me WHO your friends are and I will tell you WHAT you are” and second, one I think we have all heard, “Actions speak louder than words.” When I look at the actions the government has taken against its own people using the tools given to them to fight a foreign enemy I think of the second phrase.

Michael LeMieux is a retired U.S. Army intelligence and imagery analyst, and has served combat tours in Kuwait and Afghanistan with the 19th Special Forces. He is a Purple Heart recipient for injuries received in Afghanistan. Mr. LeMieux is the author of Unalienable Rights and the denial of the U.S. Constitution, published by Publish America and a regular writer for Republic Magazine.
www.constitutiondenied.com

4th Amendment: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
There are two governmental limitations stated in this amendment.
1. The citizens are to be secure in their person, home, papers, and property, from unreasonable searches and seizure. In other words they have the privacy to go about their lives without worrying whether the government will invade them. This amendment was to ensure that the government does not trespass on the people nor take anything from the people without following correct legal procedure.
2. The government is restrained from taking either person or property without first getting a warrant, and only after proving probable cause. This, however, is only as valid as the judge is honest.

This amendment is not a grant of right, but solely a limitation on the government to ensure that they do not trespass beyond their enumerated powers.

Thomas Jefferson stated: "Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing a people to slavery." And that: “Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.”

I can draw no other conclusion than that of Thomas Jefferson; that what is being plied upon the American population is a method of control and it has nothing to do with crime and everything to do with control. And the premise of crisis, public safety, and welfare of the people is nothing more than well plied bovine scatology.
"When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

And I have not even started on NDAA, which I have been studying since they conceived of the idea ans someone made it public - but much like the Patriot Act, there is NOTHING patriotic or honest about it, and the controls are on American citizens and those legally allowed to be here.

Think about it: Obama LIED to everyone when he said he would "veto" it because of the acts in it against American citizens within our own country WHILE ALL the TIME HE WAS FIGHTING FOR THOSE VERY ACTS to be USED AGAINST AMERICANS WITHIN OUR COUNTRY TO BE PUT INTO THE NDAA.
Amidst all of the controversy surrounding the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the Obama administration attempted to paint itself as an oppositional force against the bill, threatening to veto it if it passed. Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich., left), CO-AUTHOR of the bill, says that Obama, and his administration, in fact heavily lobbied to have removed from the bill's language that would have protected American citizens from some of the bill’s provisions, such as indefinite detention without trial.
Lawyers for the Obama administration confirmed that, in their (legal) view, U.S. citizens are in fact legitimate military targets.

Then there is this: In the years Obama has been in office, he and his administration has routinely cited the authority of the United Nations over the US Constitution, the United States of America.
President Obama sent a letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner in which he boldly asserted the “Authority” of international powers over and above the US Constitution.
Obama , Panetta, and Dempsey openly declared that they no longer represent the American people and instead are representatives for a global dictatorship (UN) that has usurped the sovereignty of the United States.
By the way - if you do not recognize it, those are treasonous actions by the man currently occupying the presidential office.

Will stop here, let me know if you want more.

Okay, being down here in Brasil now, I don't get all the news... I'll give you those. But did you completely miss Title 3? I'll be the first to admit that the current administration can't be trusted any farther than you can throw it. But the ORIGINAL INTENT was for terrorism only. With this administration, different president, different values, a whole different can of worms. Did you have to post the same answer 3 times though?

well written - thank you

That was my first thought, itobin.

Vinnyz, I think his politics becomes a part of it for several reasons. He is ex-military and he is part of an armed militia. That is very concerning to most people. He is part of a group that boldly states they will not obey orders from the President. As itobin said, that is a conflict of the core of military belief systems. It doesn't mean that all tea party members are like this. But his beliefs play a role here.

Jonathan, I do not know how this has anything to do with the President.

Martin, thank you.

Amee, If you read through the list of things that this group won't do, you'll find that every one of the actions they refuse to do, are directly forbidden by the Constitution to do as well. These individuals are only stating that they will follow the Constitution to the letter. They're looking out for your rights as well as mine. If they didn't get the distinct impression that the current administration was considering doing the things they listed above, there would be no need for a group like theirs. The fact that this one individual went off the reservation, and committed such a heinous act, has nothing to do with politics. He is a sick individual and needs to be in prison for a very long time. Yes, in the military, disobeying a superior officer is very definitely counter to core beliefs, having served 21 years myself. But there are also contingencies built into those core beliefs, for commanders who go off the reservation, and commit acts against the US people, that are clearly unconstitutional. The fact that these individuals are armed is comforting to me, as they can stand their ground, and have the means to enforce it. They're not saying that they're going to overthrow the government. They only want to protect the freedoms given to us, by the Constitution. If the truth were known, the reason you have many of these groups now, is that the politicians have diverted away from the core values that started this country.

One other thing, the effort to rope the Tea Party in on this, is just another attempt at slandering them. There has never been one DOCUMENTED CASE of violence or discrimination from any of the Tea Party rallies, from actual Tea Party members. These attempts to villify them, just show how afraid the other side is, because they can see the handwriting on the wall. Increasing numbers of people aren't going to sit by, and let any group of politicians spend this country into oblivion.

cfmurray you put things so much better than me good job. :)

But how does what they are willing or not willing to do get justified? I mean... I don't understand. You say politicians have diverted away from the core values.. ok. But shouldn't that be changed by legal mechanisms and not threats of violence?

Amee, "You say politicians have diverted away from the core values.. ok. But shouldn't that be changed by legal mechanisms and not threats of violence?"

What you do NOT understand is that many of those currently occupying positions within the three branches of our government are doing illegal things under OUR US Constitution (taught you a bit about it yesterday) and OUR laws. Just because those illegal things have been done in the past does not give legitimacy to them, in fact (similar to murder laws) there is NO time limit on Domestic enemy actions against the US Constitution - they were not legal in the past, and are still not legal.
So here hope this helps you to better understand what those serving within our federal government can, and most importantly, CANNOT do.

Article VII of the U.S. Constitution itself: “The ratification of the conventions of nine States shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the same.” This says that the States made the Constitution, the federal government for specific purposes.

So what was the purpose of drafting and ratifying the U.S. Constitution? Very simply, the purpose was to define and limit the authority of the Federal government.

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” Madison Federalist 45.

Article VI Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution specifies that the authority delegated to the Federal government is supreme: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in PURSUANCE thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
But while the U.S. Constitution and laws made in pursuance thereof are the supreme law of the land, this is entirely different than the Federal government being supreme in everything it does.
(“pursuance thereof” means “according to” or “comporting with” as is clarified with the Tenth Amendment which was precisely added to assure and codify the interest of those concerned with the possibility of federal intervention and says, “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, our prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”.)

“Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.” Marbury v. Madison, Justice John Marshall

To be sure that the federal government’s authority was limited to the powers enumerated within the U.S. Constitution, many states ratification was contingent upon amendments being passed including what became the 10th Amendment (which Jefferson considered the “foundation” of the Constitution): “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people“

Preamble to the Bill of Rights: “THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.”

Domestic Enemies of the USA: "Domestic enemies pursue legislation, programs against the powers of the US Constitution. They work on destroying and weakening the Rights of the People guaranteed by the Constitution. Plus they create laws, amendments, bills, executive orders that goes against the restraint on the three branches of our government by the Constitution"

Remember the framers of the US Constitution were extremely intelligent and educated for any time. They made our Constitution to protect our natural rights, to define the duties and limit the power of those who serve within our government, created blocks within our government, separation of powers vertically and horizontally (“Vertically”: our ruling institutions are defined by federalism, or the division of power between the national, state, and local governments. Horizontally”: the three ruling institutions of the federal government itself are separated and co-equal.) Then the Constitution is the “Supreme Law of the land.” No one branch is superior to it; all three branches have a DUTY TO ABIDE BY IT. While each of the three branches plays a unique role in the passage, execution, and interpretation of laws, all of the branches must work together in the governing process. The people are the final protection of our government, our way of life.

OK, got that point? Next point: So if those who serve within our government are required to "preserve, protect and defend" (president) or "support and defend (everyone else) the US Constitution" because it is America. The US Constitution says what each branch duties are, and does NOT allow them to do another branches duties, or to assign another to do those duties.

Amee, Nobody's suggesting overthrow of the government. But there are limits to what you can ask the military to do. These people only want to keep the politicians honest(somewhat). They're alright for now, but if they continue to take away peoples' freedoms, it has to stop somewhere. What do you think the government is doing when it says,"Either you pay this tax, or we'll take your house..." That sounds pretty violent to me.

Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY White country and ONLY into White countries.
The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.
Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY White country and ONLY White countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-Whites.
What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?
How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?
And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?
But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the White race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.
They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-White.
Anti-racist is a code word for anti-White.

cf, I appreciate your input here. I really do. To someone that could not imagine being a part of something like this, this story is terrifying. Does it mean that I, or anyone else, sees this as how the Tea Party behaves? No. Not in raping children. But the bigger message here is the fact that there are armed citizens that are willing to go to this level. He is a part of that mentality. Law enforcement found grenade launchers in his home. This is scary business. I get what you are saying, but it does not concern me any less. Why are people so afraid of the President? Hate groups have risen by exponential levels since he took office.

cf, it wouldn't let me respond above. This says that the members of this organization are current military and law enforcement.

What difference does that make?? The fact that they know how to use firearms properly and responsibly? Just because they belong to a group like this, does not mean that they intend to overthrow the government, unless the government goes completely off the reservation, as in doing many of the same things that are mentioned above.

1. IAW (In Accordance With) the 2nd Amendment.
2. IAW the 4th Amendment.
3. IAW the 6th Amendment.
4. IAW the 6th Amendment.
6. IAW the 6th Amendment, as well as the 14th Amendment-Sec. 1.
7. IAW the 6th Amendment, as well as the 14th Amendment-Sec. 1.
8. Foreign Troops being used on US citizens is a violation of US sovereignty, and grounds for charges of treason.
9. IAW the 4th Amendment.
10. IAW the 1st Amendment.

Kinda looks like they're not so RADICAL after all, huh? It looks to me, as though they're trying to preserve the country, as our forefathers intended. The fact that one guy lost it, makes you think you can use all the emotionally charged language you possibly can to smear the Conservative portion of the electorate.

That is not true. You need to step back and look at it from my perspective... the person that wrote it. As I researched that article, I was shocked! The crime was disgusting, of course! But the armed militia shocked me. I think it does other people, too. I did not say anything derogatory here. I was very careful about that. I quoted exactly from their website.

You can be angry or defensive or logically and clearly spell out an explanation. Pretend you are talking to a second grader. Tell them why this is right.

"Armed Militia"?

Once again you are showing that you do NOT know the laws of our land, our nation. 2nd Amendment, what it says, what it means.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

In the early years of this nation, the militia was made up of every able-bodied man in the area. When cattle rustlers made off with part of the herd, a posse of militia was gathered from among the locals, and they set off to bring the scoundrels back.

When our nation was threatened by the British, the Continental Army could in no way resist the might of the Empire. It was the ordinary citizenry who gathered their own arms and responded to the call of the nation. They fought in every major battle, and many minor ones, all the way through the civil war. There were entire units made up of only militia “volunteers”. The very essence of the militia is the community, for one is more apt to fight harder for his neighbor than for a stranger.

What our forefathers and others said:

No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson, proposal for Virginia's constitution of 1776.

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good. George Washington, in a speech to Congress, January 7,1790.

”We, the people, are the rightful masters of both congress and the courts - not to overthrow the constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution” Abe Lincoln

My belief has always been ... that wherever in this land any individual’s Constitutional Rights are being unjustly denied, it is the obligation of the federal government - at point of bayonet if necessary - to restore that individual’s Constitutional rights, Ronald Reagan, Press conference 17 May 83

One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offence to keep arms, and by substituting a regular army in the stead of a resort to the militia. The friends of a free government cannot be too watchful, to overcome the dangerous tendency of the public mind to sacrifice, for the sake of mere private convenience, this powerful check upon the designs of ambitious men. Joseph Story, Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States (1840)

”In recent years it has been suggested that the Second Amendment protects the "collective" right of states to maintain militias, while it does not protect the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms. If anyone entertained this notion in the period during which the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were debated and ratified, it remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis”. Stephen P. Halbrook, "That Every Man Be Armed", 1984

The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both. William Rawle, "A View of the Constitution of the United States of America" (1829)

On War:
If we let people see that kind of thing, there would never again be any war. Senior Pentagon official, explaining why the U.S. military censored footage showing Iraqi soldiers sliced in two by U.S. helicopter fire.

”Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece?
Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood.
But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Voice or no voice the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country”. Hermann Wilhelm Göring, during his trial in Nuremberg

The catch-all phrase "the war on terrorism", in all honesty, has no more meaning than if one wants to wage a war against "criminal gangsterism". Terrorism is a tactic. You can't have a war against a tactic. It's deliberately vague and non-definable in order to justify and permit perpetual war anywhere and under any circumstance. Congressman Ron Paul, Republican, 14th district Texas, from a speech given on the house floor, 2007

Whogault, although I respect your input, I do not consider this a smear against the Tea Party. From what I have seen the Tea Party, for the most part are a group of people that have a strong set of beliefs based on the Constitution. Although I may not agree with their position on some issues, I definitely do not slam them in the article.

The fact is.. he was a member. He was a member of an armed militia. To leave those issues out would take away from the value of the story in my opinion.

Since I wrote it, I think I am most qualified to state my intention.

I am sorry you feel that way. I really am.

With all due respect, Amee, I find it hard to believe that you wrote an article whose headline identifies an alleged criminal activity that was committed by someone you identify as a "TEA PARTY SUPPORTER", and you claim that your intention was not to link, and by so doing smear the Tea Party with this individual's act. Really? Then what was the purpose of using his alleged association with the Tea Party in the headline? Were I to submit an article whose headline was " DEMOCRAT STABS AND KILLS WIFE IN FRONT OF HIS YOUNG CHILDREN" ( said event actually is a true event ) or OBAMA SUPPORTER AND LONG TIME UNION MEMBER HAS AFFAIR WITH HIS 16YEAR OLD COUSIN ( made up, I think ) you would not for a second think I was trying to discredit by association Democrats, Obama, and unions? If you are intellectually honest, then the answer would be, of course, yes. There is no other reason for that association to be mentioned other than to infer that it had something to do with the actors actions.

Amee, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. You're supposed to be a journalist, or are you just a glorified blogger with absolutely no journalism training whatsoever? If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, you can call it a zebra, but you're not foolin' anyone but yourself. The fact that you use comments like "this guy was in an armed militia", "They support the Tea Party", and "Dyer is part of a controversial group called Oath Keepers that includes current and former law enforcement and military members who take an oath to obey the Constitution rather than the president." How did you think people were going to react?? It's not an "either/or" thing. They will support and defend the Constitution, AND obey orders from the commander (campaigner)-in-chief...until he diverges from the Constitution. Then, they'll stick with the Constitution. The fact that they're "armed" is immaterial, unless you think they going to come gunning for you. lol You would have done better to end your article with, "McKinney said the behavior was meant to intimidate people at the court." What followed that was liberal BS.

I have no worries, I am quite armed myself, thank you. I don't fear defending myself or my family. No problem.

What I fear is knowing there are groups of people that are currently members of the military and law enforcement that are a part of something like this. Just like I said in another post, explain this to me so it makes sense. People fear the unknown. To me, and many people, this is unknown. Here is your chance. Tell me why this shouldn't be shock and awe and should instead be simple common sense.

And the fact that they are armed is the core of the entire issue. This man had a grenade launcher in his home. Is that something most Americans do, have or would consider having?

Really, the clucking here is you... you aren't making sense. I am being patient because I really am waiting for someone to help me understand.

No Amee, the core of the issue, is that there was an individual, who regardless of political affiliation, raped his daughter, and thankfully is going to jail for a very long time. If you had served in the military, you'd have a much better understanding of this situation, and how people can distinguish between right and wrong. I don't remember the circumstances, but there was a woman reporter not unlike yourself, who was interviewing(I believe) someone from the NRA.(Where they teach people to use firearms responsibly.) The reporter was saying that by teaching a youngster how to use a firearm, it was going to turn him into some gun-waving lunatic. To which the NRA rep responded, "Using that logic, by teaching women about sex, it turns them all into street-walkers" We all know,{or should know) that neither situation is correct or true. Before you condemn, how about doing some investigative work, and ACTUALLY TALKING to some of these individuals, to find out what it's actually all about, rather than just parroting the liberal mantra that all guns are bad.