• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
It’s Official, Everyone Is Now A Terrorist According to The US Government
 

It’s Official, Everyone Is Now A Terrorist According to The US Government

on

  • 657 views

It’s official, every single American can ...

It’s official, every single American can
now be classified as a terrorist by the US
government. The label of ‘terrorist’ no
longer applies to members of al-Qaeda of
‘extremists’, but the average citizen of
this nation.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
657
Views on SlideShare
648
Embed Views
9

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0

1 Embed 9

https://twitter.com 9

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NonCommercial LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    It’s Official, Everyone Is Now A Terrorist According to The US Government It’s Official, Everyone Is Now A Terrorist According to The US Government Document Transcript

    • It’s Official, Everyone Is Now A Terrorist According to The US Government Anthony Gucciardi Infowars.com August 2, 2013 It’s official, every single American can now be classified as a terrorist by the US government. The label of ‘terrorist’ no longer applies to members of al-Qaeda of ‘extremists’, but the average citizen of this nation. And I can show you how literally 100% of the population can be classified as a terrorist under the truly outrageous Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and FBI characteristics that define a terrorist or terrorist activity. These broad qualifications of ‘terrorism’ that have spawned a new wave of absolute paranoia within the population regarding their fellow citizens, who the nightly news says may be sleeper cell terrorists. Paranoia that has led to one woman facing an armed ‘terrorism taskforce’ who demanded a home search without a warrant after she ran a Google search for pressure cookers online. A search that, as it turns out, qualifies for terrorist activity within the United States of America. It has now come out that it was her employer that went and called in the police and subsequent ‘terrorism taskforce’ after it was discovered that this law-abiding woman and her family had searched for backpacks along with ‘pressure cookers’ on Google. And it was this event that inspired me to share with you how, no matter what you do or how good you are, you are a terrorist in the eyes of the United States government. Let’s look at just a few ways in which we can reach truly classify 100% of the American public as terrorists when combining these designations together. Here are qualifications of a terrorist in the United States under the Department of Homeland Security and FBI guidelines. ‘Terrorists’ Pay With Cash Have you ever payed with cash instead of a credit card? The FBI, operating alongside the DHS in helping to stop
    • terrorism and detain terrorists, says you are likely a terrorist if you do so often. Under the FBI’s Communities Against Terrorism (CAT) program, using cash instead of debt- inducing credit cards means that you are a terrorist suspect. In addition to over 24 other flyers on how to help ‘identify’ terrorists, the tendency to pay with cash is listed as a red flag of terrorism. ‘Terrorists’ Care About Privacy If you’re concerned about the NSA spying on all of your private emails or listening to your intimate phone calls, you are likely a terrorist under FBI guidelines. And don’t even consider voicing concern for your privacy in a public area, which the FBI says is a definite red flag of a terrorist. According to the FBI and Justice Department’s Communities Against Terrorism initiative, as reported by Slate, being concerned about your privacy might just send you to Guantanamo. ‘Terrorists’ Complain About Tap Water Have you ever complained about your tap water, or objected to the literal thousands of contaminants inside the municipal water supply? You’re definitely a terrorist. As I reported back in June, a Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) explained to citizens touring the municipal water plant that complaining about tap water could land you on the terrorist watchlist. He told them: “But you need to make sure that when you make water quality complaints you have a basis, because federally, if there’s no water quality issues, that can be considered under Homeland Security an act of terrorism.” So next time your water smells like excessive chlorine, make sure you aren’t taking on the role of a terrorist by reporting it to the water department. ‘Terrorists’ Know About GMOs Extremist terrorists most of all are familiar with GMOs and dare to agree that they should be labeled,
    • which 93-96% of the country actually is in favor of. According to a major report out of Germany, this demographic is even targeted by the US military for desiring GMO labeling and all forms of political activism. So just this category alone covers about 96% of the US population alone, leaving around 4% left to be absorbed through other terrorist activities. Now even knowing about something and having an opinion on the matter is an act of terror. In 2013, everything you do and say can be classified as an act of terrorism by the United States government. Sadly, the public was duped into thinking that unconstitutional legislation like the Patriot Act was truly enacted in order to protect Americans from al-Qaeda and similar threats. But today, you are the terrorist, and Obama is now openly funding al-Qaeda groups with caches of weaponry and direct financing. You are now the terrorist, and the Syrian rebels linked to al-Qaeda are now the good guys. Anthony Gucciardi’s article first appeared at StoryLeak.com. How the NSA Manipulates Language To Mislead The Public Michael Krieger libertyblitzkrieg.com August 2, 2013 James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, has been harshly criticized for having misled Congress earlier this year about the scope of the National Security Agency’s surveillance activities. The criticism is entirely justified. An equally insidious threat to the integrity of our national debate, however, comes not from officials’ outright lies but from the language they use to tell the truth. When it comes to discussing government surveillance, U.S. intelligence officials have been using a vocabulary of misdirection—a language that allows them to say one thing while meaning
    • quite another. The assignment of unconventional meanings to conventional words allows officials to imply that the NSA’s activities are narrow and closely supervised, though neither of those things is true. What follows is a lexicon for decoding the true meaning of what NSA officials say. Surveillance. Every time we pick up the phone, the NSA makes a note of whom we spoke to, when we spoke to him, and for how long—and it’s been doing this for seven years. After the call-tracking program was exposed, few people thought twice about attaching the label “surveillance” to it. Government officials, though, have rejected the term, pointing out that this particular program doesn’t involve the NSA actually listening to phone calls—just keeping track of them. Their crabbed definition of “surveillance” allows them to claim that the NSA isn’t engaged in surveillance even when it quite plainly is. Collect. If an intelligence official says that the NSA isn’t “collecting” a certain kind of information, what has he actually said? Not very much, it turns out. One of the NSA’s foundational documents states that “collection” occurs not when the government acquires information but when the government “selects” or “tasks” that information for “subsequent processing.” Thus it becomes possible for the government to acquire great reams of information while denying that it is “collecting” anything at all. Relevant. The NSA’s call-tracking program is ostensibly based on the Patriot Act’s Section 215, a provision that allows the government to compel businesses to disclose records that are “relevant” to authorized foreign intelligence investigations. The theory, it seems, is that everybody’s phone records are relevant today because anybody’s phone records might become relevant in the future. This stretches the concept of “relevance” far beyond the breaking point. Even the legislator who wrote Section 215 has rejected the government’s theory. If “relevance” is given such a broad compass, what room is left for “irrelevance”? Targeted. The call-tracking program is only one of the NSA’s surveillance efforts. Another is what’s been branded PRISM, a program that involves the acquisition of the contents of phone calls, emails, and other electronic communications. Americans need not worry about the program, the government says, because the NSA’s surveillance activities are “targeted” not at Americans but at foreigners outside the United States. No one should be reassured by this. The government’s foreign targets aren’t necessarily criminals or terrorists—they may be journalists, lawyers, academics, or human rights advocates. And even if one is indifferent to the NSA’s invasion of foreigners’ privacy, the surveillance of those foreigners involves the acquisition of Americans’ communications with those foreigners. The spying may be “targeted” at foreigners, but it vacuums up thousands of Americans’ phone calls and emails. Incidental. Because the government’s surveillance targets are foreigners outside the United States, intelligence officials describe the acquisition of Americans’ communications as “incidental.” But the truth is that the statute behind PRISM—the FISAAmendments Act of 2008—was intended to let the government conduct warrantless surveillance of these very communications. In the debate that preceded passage of the law, intelligence officials told Congress that it was Americans’ communications that were of most interest to them. Indeed, when some legislators introduced bills that would have barred access to these communications without a warrant, President Bush said he would
    • veto them. (One of those bills, incidentally, was introduced by then–Sen. Barack Obama.) Inadvertent. The PRISM program sweeps up Americans’ purely domestic communications, too. Officials have said that the collection of domestic communications is “inadvertent,” but PRISM’s very design makes the collection of Americans’ domestic communications perfectly predictable. This is in part because the NSA presumes that its surveillance targets are foreigners outside the United States unless it has specific information to the contrary. In 2009, the New York Times reported that the NSA’s collection of purely domestic communications under the 2008 statute had been “significant and systemic.” Minimize. What does the NSA do with communications that are acquired “incidentally” or “inadvertently”? As intelligence officials have told the courts and Congress, so-called “minimization” procedures limit the NSA’s retention and use of information about American citizens and permanent residents. Here again, though, the terminology is grossly misleading. The 2008 statute gives the NSA broad latitude to retain Americans’ communications, share them with other agencies, and even share them with foreign governments. The NSA’s own documents suggest that the agency retains Americans’ communications indefinitely if they include “foreign intelligence information,” a term defined so broadly that it encompasses any conversation relating to foreign affairs. Even communications that don’t include foreign intelligence information are retained for as long as five years. No. When James Clapper was asked at a March Senate hearing whether the NSA was collecting information about millions of Americans, he answered, “No,” and then, after a pause, “not wittingly.” As Clapper has now conceded, the correct answer was simply “yes.” Officials who describe the NSA’s activities using strategically idiosyncratic terminology presumably believe that they are telling the truth. In a certain formal sense, they usually are—though Clapper’s statement is a glaring exception. It shouldn’t need to be said, though, that their duties as public officials go beyond the avoidance of perjury charges. They have an obligation to ensure that the courts, Congress, and the public fully understand the policies that they are being asked to accept. They could start by using the same dictionary the rest of us do. Obama meets with 9 from Congress on surveillance REID J. EPSTEIN Politico August 2, 2013 As NSA leaker Edward Snowden finally left Moscow’s airport, President Barack Obama met Thursday afternoon with nine members of Congress to discuss American surveillance efforts. Obama hosted what the White House called “some of the programs’ most prominent critics and defenders,” though it did not include Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), perhaps the most prominent critic of the National Security Agency. “Today’s meeting was constructive and the President committed that he and his team would continue to work closely with the Congress on these matters in the weeks and months ahead,” the White House said. Read More INFOWARS.COM BECAUSE THERE'S A WAR ON FOR YOUR MIND