| 9/11 Truth Top 50 |


Did you miss the introduction to this year’s campaign?

There are very few people that can be definitively named as suspects, this entire group known as the Project for A New American Century should be listed, and really should be treated like a mafia.

RICO….

The documentary listed below is the best explanation that can be given. This article will simply give you a general idea of the important people in more important positions of power who have set the world on a course of irreversible war. For the literary introduction, read the following, for the expert course, watch the documentary.

Name Position(s) held
Elliott Abrams Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Democracy, Human Rights, and International Operations (2001–2002), Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Near East and North African Affairs (2002–2005), Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Global Democracy Strategy (2005–2009) (all within the National Security Council)
Richard Armitage Deputy Secretary of State (2001–2005)
John R. Bolton Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs (2001–2005), U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations (2005–2006)
Dick Cheney Vice President (2001–2009)
Eliot A. Cohen Member of the Defense Policy Advisory Board (2007–2009)[63]
Seth Cropsey Director of the International Broadcasting Bureau (12/2002-12/2004)
Paula Dobriansky Under-Secretary of State for Global Affairs (2001–2007)
Aaron Friedberg Deputy Assistant for National Security Affairs and Director of Policy Planning, Office of the Vice President (2003–2005)
Francis Fukuyama Member of The President’s Council on Bioethics (2001–2005)
Zalmay Khalilzad U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan (11/2003 – 6/2005), U.S. Ambassador to Iraq (6/2005 – 3/2007) U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations (2007–2009)
I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby Chief of Staff to the Vice President of the United States (2001–2005)
Richard Perle Chairman of the Board, Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee (2001–2003)
Peter W. Rodman Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security (2001–2007)
Donald Rumsfeld Secretary of Defense (2001–2006)
Randy Scheunemann Member of the U.S. Committee on NATO, Project on Transitional Democracies, International Republican Institute
Paul Wolfowitz Deputy Secretary of Defense (2001–2005) 10th President of the World Bank (2005-2007)
Dov S. Zakheim Department of Defense Comptroller (2001–2004)
Robert B. Zoellick Office of the United States Trade Representative (2001–2005), Deputy Secretary of State (2005–2006), 11th President of the World Bank (2007–2012)

September 15, 2002

PNAC began to enter the public consciousness when journalist
Neil Mackay wrote about the September 2000 report in the September 15th, 2002 edition of the Sunday Herald. According to the article, the report sparked outrage from British Labour MP Tom Dalyell:

Tam Dalyell, the Labour MP, father of the House of Commons and one of the leading rebel voices against war with Iraq, said: ‘This is garbage from right-wing think-tanks stuffed with chicken-hawks — men who have never seen the horror of war but are in love with the idea of war. Men like Cheney, who were draft-dodgers in the Vietnam war.

‘This is a blueprint for US world domination — a new world order of their making. These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans who want to control the world. I am appalled that a British Labour Prime Minister should have got into bed with a crew which has this moral standing.’

The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) has been the source of much controversy since the September 11th attacks. The project has been referred to more recognizably as PNAC in recent years. What is PNAC and why is it so important to this list?

At WTF News, we don’t mince words and this group wants nothing short of taking over the world. The goals of PNAC echo those of the new world order, as both groups seek to steer the world towards expected, controlled outcomes, like a fixed boxing match. The quote below is from a published paper called “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”, which advocates feeding a cycle of war and intervention that leads the world to a controlled, enslaved state.

“Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor”.

PNAC is a think tank, a neo-conservative one specifically, who’s goal is to lead the political policy agenda in this country and promote that to the world. Understand that lead means to control, specifically the levers of power in economics and government, as the group is closely aligned with the values of the new world order. The new world order is the power structure for a futuristic world and those with the vision to see it either want to be in power or seek to alter/prevent it. The new world order is a plan to concentrate power in the hands of a few to ensure that control is maintained in the post-industrial world. The economic pie is shrinking fast and this power structure is taking more of the pie at the same time. Loosely, the new world order is an insider system designed to keep power in the hands of elites, allowing them to control resources, money and government. All 3 of those aspects are crucial because those are virtually the only lawful ways someone in poverty can raise themselves up to more prosperity.

PNAC is made up of many prominent Republican leaning members, all with ties to the military-industrial complex money machine. The more recognizable names include Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby, billionaire Steve Forbes and George Bush’s brother Jeb. This is an apolitical website, but that fact can’t be ignored and is an important distinction.

The Wikipedia introduction is actually fairly accurate, even as it hides its true goals in plain sight.

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was an American think tank based in Washington, D.C. that lasted from 1997 to 2006. It was co-founded as a non-profit educational organization by William Kristol and Robert Kagan. The PNAC’s stated goal was “to promote American global leadership.” Fundamental to the PNAC were the view that “American leadership is both good for America and good for the world” and support for “a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity.” The PNAC exerted influence on high-level U.S. government officials in the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush and affected the Bush Administration’s development of military and foreign policies, especially involving national security and the Iraq War.

That sounds great on it’s surface right? What proud American wouldn’t want to have a new American century?
That’s how they get you, in fact, that’s how most scams work. The scammer gets you interested or hooked on something that may only be partially true or wholly false, but it’s sold well to you.
The PNAC paper, Rebuilding America’s Defenses attempts to do exactly that, scam people into adopting their policy ideas which pretend to be for the benefit of all citizens while furthering selfish personal goals. It smacks of the same playbook the Republican party uses to get poor middle class who think they are middle class to vote against their own interests. To be fair, the Democrats do the same, they just aren’t as good at it yet.

Read their “Statement of Principles” for yourself.

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America’s role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world’s preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital — both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements — built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation’s ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration’s success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States’ global responsibilities.

Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America’s unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

The whole description has a familiar feel to it. A small group of people with extreme ideas are steering the system for the rest of the population. It’s the same reason the world has ended up in the place it has today. Too many people are being lazy when it comes to too many personal responsibilities. This world has turned into one where many expect everything handed to them simply for showing up, in short, the global welfare state has been formed by mass apathy. Social welfare is generally a good thing because the weakest in our society need it, but that assistance has run out of control and bred legions of lazy, apathetic people. It involves taking the responsibility for your safety, self-sufficiency and prosperity in to your own hands and not hoping you picked the right politician at the ballot box.

Just think about it. There’s nothing there about rebuilding the education system, securing a better food supply, better healthcare or even a comprehensive energy plan. There’s not even anything in there about those “traditional” conservative values like pro-life, small government, lower taxes, etc. The only thing it deals with is the American dominance of the globe from a military and financial standpoint. The sad reality is that a privileged few gain from that as the military-industrial complex steers society towards more government contracts. Ask yourself, how much better is the country for going to war in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Read it again, all it says is to spend money on the military, encourage stronger coalitions while targeting nations under the auspice of democracy, and use that effort to move further with the increasingly globalized one world government system. Libya is real free right now after PNAC had a hand in ousting Gaddafi.

The project actually got started in the late 1990’s during the Bill Clinton administration but that was not an environment friendly to their cause. This forced some goals to be dialed back a little, but only until there was a Republican president.

The agenda sought by PNAC was slow to come prior to 9/11, partially out of apathy, not towards the stated policy goals, but in general. Americans were engrossed in the life of relative leisure, enjoying the last 100 years of dominance. The more decadence in a society, the fewer vigilant watchful eyes guarding the societal values. The think tank knew of this problem and once the Bush Administration came to office, they started working on their plans to further the goals.

For example, the Iraq and Afghanistan war plans were already drawn up, possibly conceptualized before Bush took office. The only thing needed was a catalyst to break the political apathy. PNAC actually suggested this by writing their most infamous paper to date, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” in which political wargames are shown to fall short of the environment needed for a rapid refreshing of American military power. That costs money after all and if the people want lower taxes, how can you sell more military spending without a worthy enemy?

Enter PNAC with their latest principle paper. It’s almost an open call to anyone that wants to collude for profit. It goes so far as to suggest that the only way America will get to the policy goals stated is if there was a “catastrophic and catalyzing event”, like a new Pearl Harbor to break the masses out of their sugar induced semi-comas. After all, the votes won’t line up themselves, but in the wake of an emergency, people are more likely to listen to the first credible plan, by default, coming from the current power structure.
One way or the other, they got the Pearl Harbor they wanted on September 11th 2001, captivating not just the US, but the world. It was the perfect excuse for a new global arms race, led by the American military-industrial complex. In #13, the profitability of war for the military-industrial complex was put on display, and that structure has been used to chase the ghosts of Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda, being run by the US intelligence services is the skeleton key for military intervention. It’s a very simple strategy, use them to destabilize a country (like Libya and now Syria) and be there to pick up the pieces with American capitalism. That plan is working as the defense business is booming and now a fight with Iran is on the horizon.
The Iran war is portrayed in the media as necessary for security, but that threat is being exaggerated like the Iraq war claims that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling “weapons of mass destruction.

This is actually part of that larger plan, achieving a new world order in which America or it’s chosen elite power structure, are at the steering wheel. The plan calls for the occupation of the Middle East and the land of Israel specifically.

The new world order seeks to create despair across the globe now to cement their positions and pass along that structure to their heirs, while we are headed for war and economic collapse.
Does that sound outlandish to you?
Consider the following article in the Sunday Herald (Scotland) from September 15, 2002

The Sunday Herald article highlighted the following goals from the 2000 report, which it termed an “American grand strategy” and “blueprint of world domination”:

  • The U.S. must take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein is in power: “While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”
  • The U.S. must “fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars” as a “core mission”
  • The U.S. forces are “the cavalry on the new American frontier”
  • The report builds upon the 1992 draft document “Defense Planning Guidance,” which claimed that the U.S. must “discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role”
  • Permanent U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, whether or not Saddam Hussein is in power
  • Increasing military pressure on China: “it is time to increase the presence of American forces in southeast Asia” which will lead to “American and allied power providing the spur to the process of democratisation in China”
  • “the creation of ‘US Space Forces‘, to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent ‘enemies’ using the internet against the US”
  • The report contains ambivalent language toward bioterrorism and genetic warfare: “New methods of attack — electronic, ‘non-lethal’, biological — will be more widely available … combat likely will take place in new dimensions, in space, cyberspace, and perhaps the world of microbes … advanced forms of biological warfare that can ‘target’ specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool”
  • Development of “world-wide command-and-control system” to contain dangerous regimes of North Korea, Libya, Syria, and Iran.

Some of PNAC’s members and associates have been implicated in conflict of interest scandals involving the ways that they profit from the wars and military spending that they promote. For more information, see Who Profits From War?.

That’s pretty specific, and for 2002, very predictive of where things are now. Now that you know the plan, look around and you’ll start to notice what’s happening. That’s how you fight it, you start paying attention and become actively involved in your own survival.

Some of you may even feel the urge to warn others about what you know. That is your responsibility to do so if you have the ability. Those who wish to rule over you are hoping you continue not paying attention or stay distracted and divided.

Actor Daniel Sunjata explains PNAC in 2 minutes

As the economy worsens, the police state will be needed to quell riots, the new world order doesn’t just involve military conquest. The endgame involves debt slavery and a totalitarian police state. Alex Jones explains further.

CNBC Video: Slaves to the Central Banks?

It may even be fascism, but the police state will be guarding the money.

Infowars

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
August 9, 2012

A post today on the Daily Paul website shows a fearsome black “special response team” armored vehicle on a flatbed trailer in transit somewhere in Kentucky.

The difference between this military vehicle and previous ones trotted out by the Ministry of Homeland Security is that the words “Immigration and Customs Enforcement” and “Police/Rescue” are missing.

Apparently, the pretense of a military response to armed illegal immigrants with RPGs is no longer required. I jest, but not much.

Over the last few months, the DHS has purchased millions of rounds of ammunition and an array of state-of-the-art weapons. As Mike Adams notes, the 450 million rounds of ammo purchased by the DHS is enough to wage more than 6 years of Iraq-level combat.

The DHS was established after the attacks of September 11, 2001, ostensibly to protect the homeland from terrorist attacks and as a cabinet-level bureaucracy that responds to man-made accidents and natural disasters.

Unless the government is expecting al-Qaeda to invade, there is little reason for the existence of this sort of vehicle and the stockpiling of weapons and millions of rounds of ammunition. The only logical conclusion here is that the feds are expecting the American people to revolt.

The DHS arsenal is obviously a response to the fact almost half of more than 300 million Americans own guns and a sizable number will resist any attempt by government to confiscate them.

As we reported last month, a new study funded by the Department of Homeland Security characterizes Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority,” and “reverent of individual liberty” as “extreme right-wing” terrorists. The DHS earlier produced a report that conflates these “rightwing extremists” with white supremacists and others who are supposedly recruiting returning veterans.

The latest mass shooting psyop in Wisconsin has set in place the narrative that white supremacists — who the government considers indistinguishable from folks suspicious of government –  represent a violent threat demanding government response.

1PJkyW9BLBfseif3xwJzxDS4Ec731sgazb

If you enjoy reading the information we bring you, please consider donating to WTF News via Bitcoin. Any donations are appreciated and go directly to expanding our capabilities.