T Nation

Crime Is Terrorism


Sheriff Candidate Believes Crime Is Terrorism

Lee Rogers
IntelStrike
April 24, 2008

The blurring of lines between crime and terrorism continues. According to section 802 of the Patriot Act http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html, minor criminal offenses can be interpreted as terrorism by government officials. The recent implementation of Operation Sudden Impact
http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/apr/14/striking-02/ in Memphis and surrounding areas had various people from federal, state and local law enforcement agencies go on a fishing expedition searching for terrorists. The operation resulted in the issuance of several traffic tickets, the confiscation of a small amount of drugs but failed to catch any terrorists. It was nothing more than a martial law training operation because the real terrorists are actually funded by high level government black operations. The U.S. House of Representatives last year passed HR 1955 the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1955 which if gets signed into law will give the government a blank check to potentially classify certain belief systems as terrorism. As horrible as all of these things are, we now have a candidate running for Sheriff in Florida�??s Orange County using the slogan �??Crime is Terrorism�??. Malone Stewart proudly displays this slogan on his web site http://www.malonestewart.com/ and in his campaign signs. There is no question that the lines between criminality and terrorism are quickly being erased and if this continues the government will just accuse people who don�??t like what they are doing of being terrorists and haul them away to FEMA run death camps.

Below is a photo of one of Mr. Stewart�??s campaign signs a reader sent to us which shows clearly that he is running his campaign using the slogan �??Crime is Terrorism�??.

Obviously crime is not terrorism, but if we have people in positions of authority that buy into the terror war fraud and believe that crime is terrorism, we are in a great deal of trouble. The Military Commissions Act http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s3930enr.txt.pdf
which was passed into law in 2006 allows the government to strip people of their citizenship and hold them indefinitely with no due process if they are accused of being a terrorist. What better way to hold American citizens who are protesting against the government than by utilizing the powers in the Military Commissions Act combined with what�??s in the Patriot Act and eventually with what�??s in HR 1955. Assuming HR 1955 gets passed, the government will literally have the power to jail American citizens indefinitely for having a belief system that the government disapproves of.

Mr. Stewart�??s campaign slogan automatically disqualifies him from being taken seriously as a candidate for Sheriff. The war on terror is a fraud designed to setup a police state and to get everybody spying on one another with the notion that everybody is a potential terrorist. It is clear that Mr. Stewart has bought into this idea with this ridiculous campaign slogan. If anybody reading this resides in Florida�??s Orange County we encourage you not to support this man for Sheriff. Crime is not terrorism.

You had me agreeing until this:

[quote]jlesk68 wrote:
because the real terrorists are actually funded by high level government black operations. [/quote]

We have to be very careful with the powers we grant to fight terrorism. Tying this into conspiracy nonsense is a step backwards for our freedoms.

Sound like to me he just wants to get on television.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
You had me agreeing until this:

jlesk68 wrote:
because the real terrorists are actually funded by high level government black operations.

We have to be very careful with the powers we grant to fight terrorism. Tying this into conspiracy nonsense is a step backwards for our freedoms.
[/quote]

And how do you suppose we go about being careful? did president bush ask any of us before he signs his “anti terrorist” legislature? nobody says;“you know mr. president, maybe enough is enough for now and let’s see how things go for a bit before we push through any more executive powers” because even if someone did, he would just do what he wants anyway, cus he is “the decider”. by the people for the people indeed.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
You had me agreeing until this:

jlesk68 wrote:
because the real terrorists are actually funded by high level government black operations.

We have to be very careful with the powers we grant to fight terrorism. Tying this into conspiracy nonsense is a step backwards for our freedoms.
[/quote]

I would also like to add: What powers HAVENT we “granted” to governor bush?

[quote]Fullback33 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
You had me agreeing until this:

jlesk68 wrote:
because the real terrorists are actually funded by high level government black operations.

We have to be very careful with the powers we grant to fight terrorism. Tying this into conspiracy nonsense is a step backwards for our freedoms.

And how do you suppose we go about being careful? did president bush ask any of us before he signs his “anti terrorist” legislature? nobody says;“you know mr. president, maybe enough is enough for now and let’s see how things go for a bit before we push through any more executive powers” because even if someone did, he would just do what he wants anyway, cus he is “the decider”. by the people for the people indeed.[/quote]

I don’t know if you are familiar with the checks and balances built in the system but they are still alive and well.

in our main tv-news here in austria they said our ID in the future will be a microchip. and they told us how great it is.

I never was into all this conspiracy-shit. now honestly I am. The sheriff is just a glimpse of what our future will look ilke.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Fullback33 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
You had me agreeing until this:

jlesk68 wrote:
because the real terrorists are actually funded by high level government black operations.

We have to be very careful with the powers we grant to fight terrorism. Tying this into conspiracy nonsense is a step backwards for our freedoms.

And how do you suppose we go about being careful? did president bush ask any of us before he signs his “anti terrorist” legislature? nobody says;“you know mr. president, maybe enough is enough for now and let’s see how things go for a bit before we push through any more executive powers” because even if someone did, he would just do what he wants anyway, cus he is “the decider”. by the people for the people indeed.

I don’t know if you are familiar with the checks and balances built in the system but they are still alive and well.
[/quote]

Are you denying that executive power hasn’t increased alot in bush’s administration? Bush can do anything he wants all in the name of anti terrorism. His power goes unchecked and unbalanced you could say. I wonder what you think we could do to stop him if he wanted to do something that the public doesnt want. like say, a war for example…

[quote]Fullback33 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Fullback33 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
You had me agreeing until this:

jlesk68 wrote:
because the real terrorists are actually funded by high level government black operations.

We have to be very careful with the powers we grant to fight terrorism. Tying this into conspiracy nonsense is a step backwards for our freedoms.

And how do you suppose we go about being careful? did president bush ask any of us before he signs his “anti terrorist” legislature? nobody says;“you know mr. president, maybe enough is enough for now and let’s see how things go for a bit before we push through any more executive powers” because even if someone did, he would just do what he wants anyway, cus he is “the decider”. by the people for the people indeed.

I don’t know if you are familiar with the checks and balances built in the system but they are still alive and well.

Are you denying that executive power hasn’t increased alot in bush’s administration? Bush can do anything he wants all in the name of anti terrorism. His power goes unchecked and unbalanced you could say. I wonder what you think we could do to stop him if he wanted to do something that the public doesnt want. like say, a war for example…

[/quote]

At this point, absolutely nothing…which should scare every single one of us.

I am not sure why some seem to not be phased at all by it.

This is why I honestly believe our children will be fighting Civil Wars way more than any abroad. Too many are way too relaxed about what Bush has done in office during his term. They are too busy waving pom-poms to notice the potential for abuse.

Yeah, it’s all Bush…

You all need some history lessons.

Unitary Executive:

Fight with Congress over military authority:

Executive Privilege:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/RL30319.pdf

A few articles critical of Bush, but with some historical comparisons to chew on - step aside from the “Bush is obviously worst” statements and just evaluate for yourself, particularly against Wilson and FDR:

http://campaigningforhistory.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/stretching-executive-power-in-wartime/

http://www.hnn.us/articles/19113.html

A few highlights on civil liberties:

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/timeline.html

And if you’re all fired up about the expansion of the Federal Government’s power, go back and start with Wilson, and then go up to Roosevelt - the expansions that happened then completely dwarf any subsequent expansions of federal power by the executive branch.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Yeah, it’s all Bush…

You all need some history lessons.

Unitary Executive:

Fight with Congress over military authority:

Executive Privilege:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/RL30319.pdf

A few articles critical of Bush, but with some historical comparisons to chew on - step aside from the “Bush is obviously worst” statements and just evaluate for yourself, particularly against Wilson and FDR:

http://campaigningforhistory.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/stretching-executive-power-in-wartime/

http://www.hnn.us/articles/19113.html

A few highlights on civil liberties:

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/timeline.html

And if you’re all fired up about the expansion of the Federal Government’s power, go back and start with Wilson, and then go up to Roosevelt - the expansions that happened then completely dwarf any subsequent expansions of federal power by the executive branch.

[/quote]

I wasn’t alive for FDR or Wilson. Hell, I barely got out the womb for Reagan. I am making noise about Bush because that is what is happening NOW. I can’t change what happened over 40 years ago. Why downplay that?

[quote]Professor X wrote:

I wasn’t alive for FDR or Wilson. Hell, I barely got out the womb for Reagan. I am making noise about Bush because that is what is happening NOW. I can’t change what happened over 40 years ago. Why downplay that?
[/quote]

No need to downplay anything - similarly, no need to overplay anything either. People merely need to understand the historical context of presidential powers and also to put where we are today in its proper historical perspective.

Another note - look who is abusing civil liberties again: mostly state and local governments. They particularly like to seize property to pay for all of their promised social spending, and of course union wages.

I’ve long held that local governments are more likely to abuse the rights of individuals, because there is a lot less attention paid to local governments. Here’s Memphis seizing vehicles from suspected johns: http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/apr/23/solicitations-can-cost-car/

I had a story about Chicago doing that last year. And look at red-light cameras and abuses in parking tickets and speeding tickets, eminent domain takings, etc. Here’s a very interesting blog that keeps track of local police and forfeiture takings under the drug laws: http://www.fear.org/police.html - it’s a little out of date, but very informative nonetheless.

Then there’s that raid against those polygamists in Texas ( http://www.reason.com/blog/show/126168.html ; http://www.volokh.com/posts/1208964908.shtml ), which was apparently based on a false report from some crazy woman in Colorado: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/apr/23/phone-number-polygamist-case-linked-colo-woman/

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Professor X wrote:

I wasn’t alive for FDR or Wilson. Hell, I barely got out the womb for Reagan. I am making noise about Bush because that is what is happening NOW. I can’t change what happened over 40 years ago. Why downplay that?

No need to downplay anything - similarly, no need to overplay anything either. People merely need to understand the historical context of presidential powers and also to put where we are today in its proper historical perspective.[/quote]

Putting it in its proper context is to avoid deflecting the blame concerning issues going on RIGHT NOW by trying to make some issue about what happened half a century ago.

[quote]Fullback33 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Fullback33 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
You had me agreeing until this:

jlesk68 wrote:
because the real terrorists are actually funded by high level government black operations.

We have to be very careful with the powers we grant to fight terrorism. Tying this into conspiracy nonsense is a step backwards for our freedoms.

And how do you suppose we go about being careful? did president bush ask any of us before he signs his “anti terrorist” legislature? nobody says;“you know mr. president, maybe enough is enough for now and let’s see how things go for a bit before we push through any more executive powers” because even if someone did, he would just do what he wants anyway, cus he is “the decider”. by the people for the people indeed.

I don’t know if you are familiar with the checks and balances built in the system but they are still alive and well.

Are you denying that executive power hasn’t increased alot in bush’s administration? Bush can do anything he wants all in the name of anti terrorism. His power goes unchecked and unbalanced you could say. I wonder what you think we could do to stop him if he wanted to do something that the public doesnt want. like say, a war for example…

[/quote]

it has regained some power that was eroded away in the last 30 or so years but it is still weaker than it was.

The thought Bush can do anything he wants is laughable.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Another note - look who is abusing civil liberties again: mostly state and local governments. They particularly like to seize property to pay for all of their promised social spending, and of course union wages.

I’ve long held that local governments are more likely to abuse the rights of individuals, because there is a lot less attention paid to local governments. Here’s Memphis seizing vehicles from suspected johns: http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/apr/23/solicitations-can-cost-car/

I had a story about Chicago doing that last year. And look at red-light cameras and abuses in parking tickets and speeding tickets, eminent domain takings, etc. Here’s a very interesting blog that keeps track of local police and forfeiture takings under the drug laws: http://www.fear.org/police.html - it’s a little out of date, but very informative nonetheless.

Then there’s that raid against those polygamists in Texas ( http://www.reason.com/blog/show/126168.html ; http://www.volokh.com/posts/1208964908.shtml ), which was apparently based on a false report from some crazy woman in Colorado: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/apr/23/phone-number-polygamist-case-linked-colo-woman/ [/quote]

Excellent point about the abuses of local government.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Putting it in its proper context is to avoid deflecting the blame concerning issues going on RIGHT NOW by trying to make some issue about what happened half a century ago. [/quote]

Putting it in its proper context is to point out that we’ve managed to avoid “Civil Wars” under far worse conditions, and is also to note that none of the things we’re currently complaining about with regard to Bush is really revolutionary change, but each is rather a small change that has built up over various presidencies,or the increased use of something developed over previous presidencies.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Fullback33 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Fullback33 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
You had me agreeing until this:

jlesk68 wrote:
because the real terrorists are actually funded by high level government black operations.

We have to be very careful with the powers we grant to fight terrorism. Tying this into conspiracy nonsense is a step backwards for our freedoms.

And how do you suppose we go about being careful? did president bush ask any of us before he signs his “anti terrorist” legislature? nobody says;“you know mr. president, maybe enough is enough for now and let’s see how things go for a bit before we push through any more executive powers” because even if someone did, he would just do what he wants anyway, cus he is “the decider”. by the people for the people indeed.

I don’t know if you are familiar with the checks and balances built in the system but they are still alive and well.

Are you denying that executive power hasn’t increased alot in bush’s administration? Bush can do anything he wants all in the name of anti terrorism. His power goes unchecked and unbalanced you could say. I wonder what you think we could do to stop him if he wanted to do something that the public doesnt want. like say, a war for example…

it has regained some power that was eroded away in the last 30 or so years but it is still weaker than it was.

The thought Bush can do anything he wants is laughable.[/quote]

I said he can do anything he wants in the name of anti terrorism. Instead of just saying what i say is laughable, maybe you should tell me specifically why what I said is untrue.

And tell me why the president needs all these powers? The thing that has truly been eroded is the united states constitution. Executive power is inflating and as it increases we come closer and closer to what the framers wanted to prevent at all costs, which is another king.

[quote]Fullback33 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Fullback33 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Fullback33 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
You had me agreeing until this:

jlesk68 wrote:
because the real terrorists are actually funded by high level government black operations.

We have to be very careful with the powers we grant to fight terrorism. Tying this into conspiracy nonsense is a step backwards for our freedoms.

And how do you suppose we go about being careful? did president bush ask any of us before he signs his “anti terrorist” legislature? nobody says;“you know mr. president, maybe enough is enough for now and let’s see how things go for a bit before we push through any more executive powers” because even if someone did, he would just do what he wants anyway, cus he is “the decider”. by the people for the people indeed.

I don’t know if you are familiar with the checks and balances built in the system but they are still alive and well.

Are you denying that executive power hasn’t increased alot in bush’s administration? Bush can do anything he wants all in the name of anti terrorism. His power goes unchecked and unbalanced you could say. I wonder what you think we could do to stop him if he wanted to do something that the public doesnt want. like say, a war for example…

it has regained some power that was eroded away in the last 30 or so years but it is still weaker than it was.

The thought Bush can do anything he wants is laughable.

I said he can do anything he wants in the name of anti terrorism. Instead of just saying what i say is laughable, maybe you should tell me specifically why what I said is untrue.

And tell me why the president needs all these powers? The thing that has truly been eroded is the united states constitution. Executive power is inflating and as it increases we come closer and closer to what the framers wanted to prevent at all costs, which is another king.[/quote]

In no way can he do anything he wants, I don’t know how you can make such a statement. The rule of law exists.

You only think it is all Bush because the TV tells you it is all Bush. Congress has to approve most everything he does, and they do. If you want to snivel, snivel about congress being a bunch of fuckfaces, Bush is gone in a year. They(Politicians, Democrats and Republicans, knowingly or not) all suck, and they are slowly erroding our freedoms, eventually we will either be in a civil war, or an oppressive shithole.