U.S. Government Is The Real Terrorist: While Smearing Liberty Lovers As Terrorists, DHS Lets Actual

U.S. Government Is The Real Terrorist: While Smearing Liberty Lovers As Terrorists, DHS Lets Actual Terrorists Into America Paul Joseph Watson Infowars.com May 13, 2014 Federal agency created “hands off” list to give suspected terrorists VIP treatment The revelation that the Department of Homeland Security maintains a “hands off” list of individuals with terrorist ties, allowing them unfettered entrance to the United States, is even more grievous considering the fact that the federal agency has repeatedly smeared ordinary Americans as violent extremists. “The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) secretly assembled a terrorist “hands off” list that permitted individuals with terrorist ties unfettered entrance into the United States, according to document released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa),” reports the Washington Free Beacon, adding that, “Jamal Badawi, a Canadian Islamist leader who has praised suicide bombing and is close to Hamas and Hezbollah,” was one such individual afforded DHS protection.

The records of hundreds of terror suspects were also purged as a result of a deliberate DHS policy at the behest of former Secretary Janet Napolitano.

As we reported in January, it also emerged that Muslim Brotherhood members with ties to terrorism traveling through Minneapolis Airport, New York’s John F. Kennedy Airport and Dulles Airport in April 2012 were handed “port courtesies,” with the State Department telling the DHS to ensure the men “not be pulled into secondary upon arrival at a point of entry.”

To make matters worse, while turning a blind eye or indeed protecting suspected terrorists, the DHS has since its inception embarked on a public relations campaign to demonize Americans as violent extremists for little more than holding certain political beliefs.

Perhaps the most egregious example emerged in 2012 when a leaked study (PDF) produced by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism at the University of Maryland, and funded by the DHS to the tune of $12 million dollars, largely ignored Islamic terrorism while concentrating on the threat posed by Americans who are “reverent of individual liberty,” in addition to;

- Americans who believe their “way of life” is under attack; - Americans who are “fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)”; - People who consider themselves “anti-global” (presumably those who are wary of the loss of American sovereignty); - Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority”; - People who “believe in conspiracy theories that involve grave threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty.”

While the DHS was compiling a “hands off” list of suspected terrorists who were to be given VIP treatment and allowing such individuals to enter the U.S. on a red carpet, the federal agency was simultaneously funding reports which characterized conservatives, libertarians and basically any American who cherishes liberty as dangerous radicals.

Let’s also not forget the fact that the DHS is responsible for the release of around 68,000 convicted illegal immigrants each year.

Given that suspected terrorists are now being deliberately allowed into the United States unimpeded while politically active Americans are being smeared as violent extremists, the Department of Homeland Security has become so bloated and corrupt that it now actually represents a security threat to the country, which is ironic given that it was created with the express purpose of protecting America from terrorism in the aftermath of 9/11.

Former Cia / Nsa Director Michael Hayden: “We Kill People Based On Metadata” Tim Brown May 12, 2014

Former Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency Director Michael Hayden admitted that the agency has often used metadata for killing people. The claim came during a recent debate at John Hopkins University on the NSA's untethered surveillance programs, which came to light via the revelations of Edward Snowden. The statement comes around the ABC Reports: Hayden made the remark after saying he agreed with the idea that metadata – the information collected by the NSA about phone calls and other communications that does not include content – can tell the government "everything" about anyone it's targeting for surveillance, often making the actual content of the communication unnecessary. "[That] description… is absolutely correct. We kill people based on metadata. But that's not what we do with this metadata," said Hayden, apparently referring to domestic metadata collection. "It's really important to understand the program in its entirety. Not the potentiality of the program, but how the program is actually conducted."

"So NSA gets phone records, gets them from the telephone company, been getting them since October of 2001 from one authority or another, puts them in a lockbox… and under very strict limitations can access the lockbox," Hayden said and then described a hypothetical situation in which a number connected to a terrorist could be run against the metadata already collected to help investigators find additional leads in the name of national security.

"What it cannot do are all those things that‌ allows someone to create your social network, your social interactions, your patterns of behavior. One could make the argument that could be useful, [or] that could be illegal, but it's not done," he said. "In this debate, it's important to distinguish what might be done with what is being done."

I wonder just how many people are feeling ok about all that bulk metadata being collected, which the NSA says Americans have nothing to worry about.

According to Georgetown University Law Center professor David Cole, who laid out the details of the kinds of information obtained by the government through the use of metadata: Of course knowing the content of a call can be crucial to establishing a particular threat. But metadata alone can provide an extremely detailed picture of a person's most intimate associations and interests, and it's actually much easier as a technological matter to search huge amounts of metadata than to listen to millions of phone calls. As NSA General Counsel Stewart Baker has said, "metadata absolutely tells you everything about somebody's life. If you have enough metadata, you don't really need content." When I quoted Baker at a recent debate at Johns Hopkins University, my opponent, General Michael Hayden, former director of the NSA and the CIA, called Baker's comment "absolutely correct," and raised him one, asserting, "We kill people based on metadata."

Cole referenced the USA Freedom Act in his article. Though he laid out many positive things about the bill, he eventually wrote, "Even with all these reforms, however, the USA Freedom Act only skims the surface. It does not address, for example, the NSA's guerilla-like tactics of inserting vulnerabilities into computer software and drivers, to be exploited later to surreptitiously intercept private communications. It also focuses exclusively on reining in the NSA's direct spying on Americans. As Snowden's disclosures have shown, the NSA collects far more private information on foreigners— including the content as well as the metadata of e-mails, online chats, social media, and phone calls— than on US citizens."

He also warns "the biggest mistake any of us could make would be to conclude that this bill solves the problem."

The issue of the use of drones and assassinations, which would be determined from metadata gathered by the NSA, came up last year during Senator Rand Paul's (R-KY) filibuster over the confirmation of John Brennan to head the CIA. Paul was specifically asking Attorney General Eric Holder and Barack Obama is they believed they had the authority to assassinate American citizens on US soil. While some like South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham thought Paul's filibuster was "ridiculous," others of us understood that there are serious constitutional issues and very dangerous implications for this kind of thinking. Lest you think that Brennan and company wouldn't think of doing such things, understand that John Brennan advised Barack Obama on his kill list as Obama's first assassination czar. Brennan would not limit the scope of assassinations to the battlefield, nor to places like Afghanistan.

However, some may think Brennan's claim seems to be out of line with the answer AG Holder gave to Senator Paul. Holder wrote, "'Does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on an American soil.' The answer is 'No.'" Let's just be careful and parse out the fact that Holder referenced the "president" and his "authority," not that of John Brennan. I realize that Brennan is to act upon the authority of the president. However, whose authority was being acted on when the CIA was involved in what they were doing in Benghazi?

Hmmm? John Brennan is a convert to Islam and he now is the director of the CIA, having been confirmed, even with the largest "No" votes in US history. He was sworn in using the Constitution without the Bill of Rights, not a Bible. He has been at the center of the controversy over the Benghazi scandal when it was learned that the Brennan sent letters in an attempt to silence witnesses and agents, even threatening agents' families, and he is known for being a "bully of epic dimensions."

One thing is for certain, we cannot trust this administration when it comes to anything it says or does.

What we can do is assume that everything they say is a lie and act accordingly. If these things were going on under Hayden's watch (He was NSA head from 1999 to 2005 and CIA director from 2006 to 2009) during the Bush years, what makes us think anything less corrupt is taking place during the current regime?

The Johns Hopkins Foreign Affairs Symposium Presents: The Price of Privacy: Re-Evaluating the NSA VIDEO BELOW www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV2HDM86XgI

Why Elites And Psychopaths Are Useless To Society

by Brandon Smith May 13, 2014

The ultimate and final goal of evil is to obscure and destroy our very conception of evil itself, to change the inherent moral fiber of all humanity until people can no longer recognize what is right and what is wrong. Evil is not a wisp of theological myth or a simplistic explanation for the aberrant behaviors of the criminal underbelly; rather, it is a tangible and ever present force in our world. It exists in each and

every one of us. All men do battle with this force for the entirety of our lives in the hope that when we leave this Earth, we will leave it better and not worse.

When evil manifests among organized groups of people in the halls of power, power by itself is not always considered the greatest prize. The true prize is to mold society until it reflects the psychopathy that rots at the core of their being. That is to say, the elites, the oligarchy, the mad philosopher kings want to make us just like they are: proudly soulless. Only then can they rule, because only then will they be totally unopposed.

The problem is humanity is not only hardwired with a dark side; we are also hardwired with a conscience — at least, most of us are.

The vast studies of psychiatrist Carl Gustav Jung prove an in-depth and intricate inborn set of principles common to every person, regardless of time or place of birth and regardless of environmental circumstances. In some circles we refer to this as “natural law.” All people are born with a shared moral compass that is often expressed in various religious works throughout the ages. It is a universal voice, or guide, that we can choose to listen to or to ignore. Organized psychopaths have struggled with the existence of this inborn compass for centuries.

They have tried using force and fear. They have tried abusing our natural inclinations toward family and tribalism. They have tried corrupting the very religious institutions that are supposed to reinforce our consciences and teach us nobility. They have tried psychotropic substances and medications to paralyze our emotional center and make us malleable. They have tried everything, and they have failed so far. How do I know they have failed? Because you are able to read this article today.

Two methods remain prominent in the arsenal of elites.

Convince Good People To Do Evil In The Name Of ‘Good’ This strategy is still effective, depending on the scenario encountered. Elitists are very fond of presenting mind games to the public (in TV, cinema, books, etc.), which I call “no-win scenarios.”

These games are hypothetical dilemmas that require the participant or viewer to make a forced choice with only two options: The participant can strictly follow his conscience, which usually means assured destruction for himself and others; or he can bend or break the rules of conscience in order to save lives and achieve a “greater good.”

Watch the propaganda tsunami in the show “24,” for example, and tally how many times the hero is faced with a no-win scenario. Then tally how many times he ignores his moral imperative in order to succeed. The message being sent is clear: Solid morality is not logical. Morality is a luxury for those who do not have to concern themselves with immediate survival. In other words, the world needs bad men to fight other bad men.

Of course, real life is not television; and there has never been nor will there ever be a legitimate example of a no-win scenario. There are no dilemmas that require good people to knowingly sacrifice conscience or destroy innocent lives in order to succeed. There are no dilemmas with only two available solutions. All social dilemmas are fluid, which means that solutions are shifting, but infinite.

Just because you cannot see the way out does not mean the way out does not exist. To fight monsters, we do not need to become monsters. Survival is meaningless unless we can prove ourselves worthy of life. This does not mean one should not fight back against evil. On the contrary, one should always fight back. But if we fight without a code of principles and honor, then we will have lost before the battle begins.

Convince Good People That There Is No Such Thing As ‘Evil’ People Any action, no matter how horrifying, can be rationalized by the intellectual mind or the mathematical mind. This is why we are born with an emotional and empathic side to our natures. Those who embrace evil often seek to soften their image through the use of cold rationalization. They appeal to our desire to feel logically responsible and to boost our intelligent self-image.

I was recently sifting through some mainstream articles when I came across this jewel entitled “Why Psychopaths Are More Successful.”

The article summarizes the theories behind a new “science self-help book” entitled The Good Psychopath’s Guide To Success. Co-author and Oxford psychology professor, Kevin Dutton, states that he “wanted to debunk the myth that all psychopaths are bad.” He wrote: I’d done research with the special forces, with surgeons, with top hedge fund managers and barristers. Almost all of them had psychopathic traits, but they’d harnessed them in ways to make them better at what they do.

Now, three important questions need to be asked of Dutton. First, what exactly is his definition of success? Second, if such people are “better” at what they do because of their psychopathic traits, who exactly are they “better” than? Is he suggesting that a non-psychopath could not be just as good a surgeon? Wouldn’t it be preferable to be good surgeon without psychopathy, one who still cares about the well-being of his patients rather than just his own success? And third, if a person can be accomplished in a field without abandoning his conscience as a psychopath does, what good is psychopathy to anyone?

You see, elitist academics like Dutton are not interested in answering such questions in an honest way because their goal is not necessarily to outline a legitimate argument for the usefulness of psychopaths.

What they really want is to make psychopathy a morally acceptable ideal in the mainstream.

Dutton does this by asserting the false notion that there are such things as good psychopaths and bad psychopaths, thereby creating a superficial dichotomy he essentially pulled from thin air. Dutton cites several character traits he defines as being common to good psychopaths.

Psychopath Volume Control: Dutton argues that a good psychopath has the ability to turn up or turn down his level of perceived empathy in order to avoid burning bridges with those around him. What Dutton fails to mention (or just doesn’t understand) is that this “volume control” is very common to the average psychopath. In fact, psychopaths tend to be quite adept at reading the emotional states of others and adapting to their moods to appear more human. This is how psychopaths end up in marriages, with families and in positions of respect in a community. This is how psychopaths become leaders.

Catastrophes arise, however, when the psychopath decides he is comfortable enough that he no longer needs to hide his inability to feel conscience or remorse. There is nothing special or good about a morally bankrupt person who happens to be good at disguise.

Fearlessness: Dutton’s claim that psychopaths are fearless is simply absurd and is not based in any practical psychology that I know of. Psychopaths are afraid all of the time. What they fear most is losing what they believe belongs to them. This could be money, power or even unlucky people caught in their web. This fear might drive them to take risks in order to accomplish certain goals. But let’s be clear: Only those who take risks because they love what they do have truly overcome fear. Psychopaths are incapable of true love.

Lack Of Empathy: This is the root of the movement toward rationalized moral relativism — the argument that empathy gets in the way of success and sometimes gets in the way of the “greater good.”

Dutton claims that lack of empathy gives the psychopath focus, making him skilled in high-pressure situations. In a hostage situation, he says, he would much rather have a psychopath as his negotiator. Of course, he does not consider that his captors would likely be the same kinds of psychopaths he so praises in his book.

One would conclude by reading Dutton’s position that high-pressure jobs require a lack of empathy.

And of course, the jobs with the highest pressure are those in political and military leadership. The philosophy of applying positive assumptions to psychopathic qualities is the highest dream of the elite.

If you and I could be convinced to see their gruesome behavior as fully necessary to the greater good, then they will have ascended to a place beyond accountability. They become like the old gods of Olympus, dealing death and destruction above the judgment of mere mortals; and we will have handed them that godhood.

Self-Confidence: I think Dutton is confused over the difference between confidence and narcissism.

The average psychopath is often self-obsessed, which means he is willing to do anything to get what he wants. This drive might be impressive, but it is not a product of the kind of self-awareness required to gain real self-confidence. A parasitic tick is not necessarily self-confident when he digs into the flesh of a dog; all he knows is that he desperately wants the blood underneath.

A Kingdom Of Psychopaths In his collected writings entitled “The Undiscovered Self,” Jung theorized according to his work with hundreds of patients that some 10 percent of the human population at any given time has latent psychopathic characteristics, with a much smaller percentage living as full-fledged psychopaths. He surmised that this latent psychopathy will often stay hidden or unconscious for most people, unless their social environment becomes unstable enough to bring out their darker side.

The purges in the early days of communist Russia and Stalinism, for example, brought out the very worst in many normally harmless citizens. Neighbor turned against neighbor, and betrayal for personal gain became the norm. The collectivist hive became an incubator for psychopaths. What Dutton’s psychopathic success theory does not take into account is the fact that America, and much of the world today, is becoming a breeding ground for morally bankrupt people. That is to say, our society is now designed by psychopaths for psychopaths, and only psychopaths could succeed in such an environment.

We are all being encouraged to become more psychopathic, more evil, in order to survive and thrive.

The destruction unleashed by the psychopathy of elitism far outweighs any potential benefits that might arise from their uncompromising brand of ingenuity. Anything these freaks of the psyche might accomplish can be accomplished with far less physical and moral cost by those with self-discipline and a love of their fellow man. I would be willing to wager any power monger that if he and his miscreant organizations were to disappear, humanity would leap forward in strides never before seen. Ultimately, those who embrace evil and those who elevate psychopathy are not the key to the betterment of the world; they are obstacles to the betterment of the world.

INFOWARS.COM BECAUSE THERE'S A WAR ON FOR YOUR MIND