The Purpose of the U.S. State Department

Mission Statement
Create a more secure, democratic, and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and the international community.

American diplomacy in the 21st century is based on fundamental beliefs: our freedom is best protected by ensuring that others are free; our prosperity depends on the prosperity of others; and our security relies on a global effort to secure the rights of all. The history of the American people is the chronicle of our efforts to live up to our ideals. In this moment in history, we recognize that the United States has an immense responsibility to use its power constructively to advance security, democracy, and prosperity around the globe. We will pursue these interests and remain faithful to our beliefs.
FY 2004-2009 Department of State and USAID Plan

According to the U.S. State Department, for the fiscal years 2004-2009, the United States’ mission is to create security, democracy and prosperity throughout the world, not only for U.S. citizens, but the people of the world as a whole. While I find this statement to be extremely generous and altruistic, I can’t help but wonder why the U.S. State Department mission statement is a contradiction rather than an axiom. The premise is fraught with controversy which necessitates discussion. Typically, actions speak louder than words. I shall endeavor to discuss both the actions and the words of the U.S. State Department.

I suggest we take a look at this mission statement, which was taken directly from the U.S. Department of State website and fully examine its meaning. Let’s start with the statement: the creation of a more secure, democratic, and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and the international community.

While I would agree the United States has acted in an honorable fashion in the past, such as, the sacrifices made by the American People to end Adolf Hitler’s and Emperor Hirohito’s reigns of terror. This effort, of course, was not just an American effort; it was an effort by many people of many nations who worked together for a common and righteous goal. I believe the end result was in fact, a more secure, just, and prosperous world. But let’s fast forward to the end of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first century and examine our actions.

Iraq is a good example of the U.S. State Department mission. How many bombs and bullets does it take to create security, democracy or prosperity in Iraq? From January 1991 to December 2011 the expenditure of munitions by the United States and its allies in Iraq hasn’t actually created security, democracy or prosperity, it has created instability, inequality and poverty.

I’m not suggesting Saddam Hussein wasn’t a ruthless dictator, I am suggesting he was an ally and protégé of the CIA and the U.S. State Department. So how did this war that basically lasted twenty years (I include the years between Operation Desert Storm and the 2003 Iraq War, when the U.S. military maintained a no-fly zone by bombing Iraq), create a secure, democratic and prosperous Iraq as a result of our CIA protégé Saddam Hussein and the U.S. State Department mission?

Iraq had one of the highest standards of living in the Middle East after the Ba’ath party stepped away from the CIA following the coup in 1968. This increased standard of living happened over the next twenty-two years, basically by nationalizing the Iraqi oil industry. Now that the U.S. military has left Iraq, after twenty years of war, the Iraqi standard of living was improving somewhat until the recent emergence of ISIS. The World Food Programme estimate in 2008 was “3.1% of Iraqi households were…food insecure and living with hunger and fearing of starvation.” This may be a “considerable improvement to the 15.4%, the figure…in 2005.” In 2010 the BBC reported, “23% of Iraqis live below the poverty line (1).”

However, I find it hard to believe Iraqi’s are more secure as a result of its people fearing starvation or because of the twenty year killing spree in their country by the west, or the eight years of war with Iran for certain favors by Saddam’s mentor, the CIA and the U.S. State Department. The 2012 figures for documented civilian deaths from violence in the 2nd Persian Gulf War, also known as the 2003 Iraq War, alone are between 107,055 and 116,979 people according to IBC (Iraq Body Count) (2). Those figures are much higher today. WikiLeaks’ war logs may add an additional 10,000 deaths. However, the 2014 figures are thought to be at least between 126,199 and 140,962 deaths.

The truth is, God only knows just how many people have died in Iraq since the January 1991 invasion or since the December 2011 withdrawal of U.S. troops and I seriously doubt anyone knows or will ever know what the true figures are. Now with the U.S. funded and armed ISIS in control of northern Iraq, it’s probably much worse and it’s certain nobody will ever know how many have been killed. But we do know the numbers are staggering just from U.S. weapons alone.

“…In the case of Iraq, the question that emerges from this consideration is, “Was there any other way to remove Saddam?” In this case, the answer, described above, is yes, but the U.S. government is not sufficiently dexterous or focused to accomplish lower cost, longer-term solutions.

The conclusion is that American leaders and the American people must assume that a foreign policy objective must be so important that it is worth doing very badly–because it is probable that the U.S. government will, in the event, do it very badly. Good intentions are not enough. Our good intentions, when acted upon, have done much damage.”
Charles Duelfer
Excerpt from: Hide and Seek: The Search for Truth in Iraq (3)

If you look at Iraq today you will find a country besieged by violence; the daily Al Jazeera or BBC reports of violence in Iraq are all similar and in fact are almost mirror images, “Iraq: A country still in shambles,” “Scores killed in Iraq attacks,” and “Has sectarian violence returned to Iraq (4),” “Deadly blasts hit Baghdad, Kirkuk and other Iraq cities,” “Iraq violence: Eight killed in Baquba café bomb attacks,” and “Bomb attack in Iraq kills three Lebanese Shia pilgrims (5).”

Much more than just the affixed seal of the Bush family is present here. Something much more than Saddam Hussein or oil is what this is about. But this is how the U.S. from 1991 to 2011, along with the decades of meddling by the CIA and the U.S. State Department creates a more secure, democratic and prosperous Iraq.

Should the United States aggressively fight and act as the policemen of the world? I would argue our Navy should and does protect international waters to keep open all shipping lanes as well as to protect mariners on the high seas, but this is just as much a duty and responsibility of other nations Navies as it is ours. But why should the U.S. military be required, other than to simply follow orders, or if it is even legal, to act in other nations at the behest of the U.S. State Department as their minions to further a misguided U.S. State Department foreign policy agenda?

I’m not certain within how many countries a combative role is played by the U.S. military for the U.S. State Department, or if it’s even possible to know the true number, but the U.S. military does and has operated in a plethora of foreign countries as well as U.S. Intelligence Agencies and their operatives making friends at home and around the world.

Since 1965, the United States has operated in the nations of Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Bolivia, Bosnia, Cambodia, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Côte d´Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, East Timor, Egypt, El Salvador, Gabon, Georgia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Herzegovina, Honduras, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, (South) Korea, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Macedonia, Mali, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Panama, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Turkey, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaïre and probably Turkmenistan.

This list of the last fifty years are comprised of publicly well-known U.S. operations. This list is in no way a secret, the information is public knowledge. Please forgive me if I forgot to include anyone, in no way am I trying to discriminate. Of course there are the multitudes of U.S. military bases throughout the world which I did not mention (6). I must also note: many of the operations in Africa and Asia during that time were security and evacuation operations of U.S. citizens, U.S. government personnel at U.S. embassies and third nation citizens which is acceptable under the U.S. Constitution.

I do believe the Congress should act solely based upon what is best for the People of our nation when we are attacked. But the true purpose of the U.S. military is for the common defence as stated in the U.S. Constitution. However, without express consent from another sovereign nation asking for our assistance, we have no authority to act within those borders and we should not be compelled to act within those borders as the world’s policemen. Unless the United States has been attacked by another nation or our citizens in those nations have been attacked, where is our obligation?

While our fundamental beliefs may be to ensure that others are free, prosperous and secure in their rights, our beliefs as set forth in the U.S. Constitution, undeniably are intended for the citizens of this great nation, the United States of America. Can we actually defend policies of the U.S. State Department which bring our economy and the economies of other nations to the brink of ruin (7)? The U.S. State Department must believe the power of the United States, whether wielded constructively or destructively is a responsible way to advance their form of security, democracy and prosperity around the globe.

According to Brown University’s Watson Institute for International Studies (8), there have been at least 225,000 killed, 7.8 million displaced Afghans, Iraqis and Pakistanis as of June 2011 and an estimated dollar cost of $3.2 to $4 trillion for Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan alone. The National Priorities Project (9) breaks down the costs of the 2003 Iraq War and the Afghanistan War in Cost of National Security, which clearly shows, security and prosperity are definitely not part of the U.S. State Department equation. Their figures are in the $1,558,000,000,000 (trillion $) range as of August 2014.

In June 2012, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter (10) accused the Obama administration of human rights violations and he claimed Obama violated 10 of the 30 articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights regarding U.S. drone attacks (11). I should also mention the egregious violations of at least two but probably four of the Amendments (12) to the U.S. Constitution as well; the 1st, 4th, 5th and 6th. How do these violations of individual human rights secure the rights of all as described in the U.S. State Department mission statement?

It is blatantly obvious the terms human rights and Constitutional Rights are dirty words to our government. Why else would they flagrantly violate them? It’s because they don’t believe you or anyone else has Rights, unless you are in their club.

Should the U.S. engage in activities which cause massive death and destruction in other sovereign nations, such as Iraq, without just cause? And why should we allow our Law, the U.S. Constitution, to be completely ignored by our three branches of government? The chief inspector for the U.S.-led Iraq survey group, Charles A. Duelfer stated to a Senate panel that we were wrong on Iraq (13). If Mr. Hans Blix (14), head of the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) from March 2000 to June 2003, stated the war was illegal, and Dr. David Kay (15) chief inspector of the U.S.-led ISG who resigned January 23, 2004 and was succeeded by Mr. Charles A. Duelfer, all stated there were no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq, then where was the just cause for the invasion?

While there is no doubt at one time Saddam did have chemical and biological weapons and quite probably sought a nuclear capability to fend off Iraq’s enemies, that capability was nearly decimated by lengthy sanctions. One would also have to ask the question, who originally supplied the weapons used in the Iran-Iraq War? I would look to the only two world superpowers at the time, the United States and the Soviet Union. Governments don’t get rid of evidence of their crimes, history has taught us this. I would bet they, the Americans and the Russians, know the exact lot numbers of all chemical and biological agents which Iraq had in their possession at any one time. After all, who gave or sold these weapons to them in the first place? Despite whatever Iraqi WMD capabilities were at one time, I don’t think that was the reason why we were there.

Perhaps as a Republic, we should demand the Congress of the United States act in a manner as set forth in Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the U.S. Constitution with concern to the Declaration of War and not hand that power over to the Executive Branch of government, which has the power to Make War, but not Declare War. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit didn’t see it that way with regard to Doe v. Bush, whose opinion was the issue wasn’t ripe.

The U.S. Constitution also states in Article II, Section 1, Clause 8 with regard to the duties of the president, “Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:–“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”” If the U.S. president and the U.S. congress fail to act in a manner as set forth in the U.S. Constitution, then haven’t they violated the U.S. Constitution (16)?

While I would agree that we should act, if possible, to provide freedom, prosperity and human rights to everyone on the planet through diplomacy, this simply is not the reality of the situation. And as unfortunate as this reality may be, the U.S. State Department’s attempts in this area are generally at gunpoint or through bribery. But first and foremost, the Constitution of the United States of America was and is intended to “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and to our Posterity.”

The invasion of Panama in 1989 is a good example of U.S. State Department strong-arm tactics. Noriega had been on the payroll from either the DIA or the CIA for years. But apparently Noriega just wouldn’t play ball their way. Why would the U.S. invade Panama over a gun running, drug dealing thug who was on the payroll? Who knows, perhaps the U.S. didn’t like Noriega cutting in on their action. But it certainly seems like overkill. The name used for the mission was also suspicious, “Operation Just Cause (17).” Whether the true reason for the invasion was the Panama Canal, drugs, guns or just simply because Noriega was a thug, is irrelevant. This is diplomacy at gunpoint, there was no just cause for the invasion. The U.S. State Department was unhappy with Noriega’s crimes and they wanted retribution, even though the U.S. was guilty of the same thing. Remember the Iran-Contra hearings? How about Fast and Furious? Or the CIA operations in the golden triangle of S.E. Asia? But we can look closer to Afghanistan and the poppy fields which are thriving now that the U.S. is there protecting them.

The Iraq invasion in March 2003 is the U.S. State Department’s policy of gunpoint diplomacy again. Prior to the invasion, the UN Security Council was advised by Mr. Blix the lead weapons inspector, that Iraq was cooperating and had given access, but no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) were found. After the invasion, the U.S.-led Iraq Survey Group didn’t find one WMD. The transcript from an interview with Margaret Warner of PBS and chief inspector for the U.S.-led ISG, Mr. Duelfer, stated, “There were no WMD in Iraq (18).” In other words, the U.S. government’s message to the world was, “You will do what we say, or we will kill you.” Perhaps something a little softer would be more diplomatic, “Give us what we want and we will go away.” It was blatantly obvious, there were no WMD left of any value in Iraq, so what was it the United States government wanted? Well, that’s the over 800 trillion-dollar question we should be asking ourselves.

A perfect example of the U.S. State Department’s policy of diplomacy through bribery is a $7.5 billion dollar aid package to Pakistan, which was promoted by then Senator John Kerry chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee who is now the current U.S. Secretary of State. Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated in 2011, “The money would mainly go to seven signature projects.” The New York Times report further stated, “Pakistanis see the aid as a crude attempt to buy friendship and an effort to alleviate antipathy toward United States drone attacks against militants in the tribal areas (19).”

It would appear by any measure, that both sides of the aisle are up to their necks in this debacle. But they would have us believe the responsible party is the other side of the aisle, not ours. I would suggest one administration carries on the policies of the last administration and so forth. These are all the same people, they only possess different titles as well as different positions.

The nation of Iraq was decimated by the United States and then left to be turned into the wasteland it is today by ISIS for a reason, just one that isn’t made public. This is all sleight of hand, that’s what good magicians do. ISIS is meant to keep our eyes off what the true purpose of the Iraq War was. Surely the U.S. paid someone or some organization handsomely for the privilege of looting an immeasurable amount of ancient artifacts from the region, which was claimed to be coincidental. The people who took these things knew exactly what they were looking for in the museums. But ask yourselves why would that be the case? What could there possibly be that the United States and the U.S. State Department would pay such a high price in both blood and dollars to procure?

The true reason these two different administrations (Bush and Obama) didn’t pull out of Iraq until they did, was because they hadn’t got everything they needed yet. Once the collection of materials was done, so was the U.S. government. What was collected in Iraq, wasn’t what we were told or what was proffered. The information is sketchy at best, but the leadership of the U.S. government clearly needed something very important in Iraq. Why would the U.S. help to make the Iraqi Dinar the most high-tech, hardest currency in the world to counterfeit? There is something in this region the United States desperately wants, and it isn’t oil. I would suggest that is where the answers can be found.

The founding fathers of this nation created a Constitutional Republic, they never intended to create a democracy, nor did they intend to export such ideals around the world. I would unequivocally state, the chronicle of American efforts throughout the history of this great nation have been to uphold such lofty ideals as stated in the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence; which among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (20).

U.S. citizens have historically been a generous people, who are concerned with the general welfare of others within the United States as well as outside of her borders. Yet nowhere within the U.S. Constitution does it state, “We the People of the United States will provide these ideals to the entire world, whether they like it or not.” As unfortunate as this is, it has become quite clear that this has changed and is now nothing more than the U.S. government’s quasi-diplomatic gibberish, “Give us what we want and we’ll go away,” which incidentally never happens. On or about August 7, 2014, Obama authorized air strikes again against Iraq under the guise of humanitarian assistance. When the U.S. government or the State Department wants to help another nation, they immediately start by bombing them. Of course, it’s blatantly obvious if Obama cared about the Christian minority being slaughtered, we would have already done much in many African nations, Syria and Iraq.

Neither the U.S. Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence states, “We the People believe diplomacy or the rule of law is something which is done at gunpoint or through bribery,” because that would only diminish us as a People. We only take up arms when we have no other choice. Not that this is of any concern to our ersatz Christian leaders.

Perhaps the U.S. State Department’s desire for ‘democracy around the globe’ should be examined as well as the word itself. Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines democracy as “a government by the people; especially: rule of the majority” and “a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections (21).”

According to the Olin Revelation, the etymology of the word democracy comes traditionally from two Greek words, demos and kratos, which mean the common people and rule respectively. Apparently this is why we believe the term “rule of the common people” or “governance by force” is the definition. But that may not actually be the case. “The democracy of the Athenian city-state…was a means at arriving at solutions to problems through discussion and, to the greatest degree possible, consensus. The political process…was…quite different from the rule of tyrants and leaders (archos), who impressed their will on the people through threats and violence (22).”

But if you read the U.S. Constitution you will notice the word democracy isn’t even mentioned. I would suggest the reason for that is the founders did not want a majority of anybody ruling over them (whoever that might be), that is for criminals. A system of self-governance where the individual is sovereign over the elected leaders, whether state or federal, was what they sought. Of course, people have to believe in God, the rule of law and need to have the best intentions of the Republic at heart for this to even be possible. This included the government.

Do we have a government by the People and for the People? I would suggest what we have are mere tyrants and demagogues who wish to be dictators to what they believe are the unwashed masses. Governance by force, which may very well be a bastardization of the term democracy, does seem to fit in with the U.S. government’s actions at home and abroad, as well as the U.S. State Department’s mission statement. Perhaps our leaders with all of their trappings believe they are the Archons, but the reality is our elected officials are just mere puppets of the corporations and bankers which rule over them; the unelected officials who decide what evil course the United States will pursue.

It’s not difficult to find examples of our government’s desire for governance by force within the U.S.. The ACLU (23) website is full of stories of abuse by government. “All across the country, heavily armed SWAT teams are raiding people’s homes in the middle of the night…,” and on one occasion in Atlanta, “Officers burst into their home and threw a flashbang grenade into the playpen where the toddler was sleeping.” How can it not be considered governance by force when the government believes you have no Rights at home or anywhere else? The police subsequently blamed the toddler for his injuries during the incident. I’m surprised they didn’t try to label the baby as a terrorist threat.

“Since 9/11, about 5,000 Americans have been killed by U.S. police officers, which is almost equivalent to the number of U.S. troops who have been killed in the line of duty in Iraq (24).” This is in stark contrast to the democracy of consensus which people claim to embrace but doesn’t exist.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin

Assume the U.S. State Department is concerned with democracy and freedom for the U.S. and others around the world. Why do their actions point away from so-called democracy and freedom? As previously stated, under Section 411 of the USA PATRIOT Act, the Secretary of State has the power to designate groups, whether foreign or domestic, as terrorists. Terrorist activity is defined and states, “… ‘engage in terrorist activity’ means, in an individual capacity or as a member of an organization–to commit or incite to commit, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily injury, a terrorist activity (25).” By definition, the Secretary of State could label a home-owner a terrorist for killing an intruder within the home in the middle of the night, as well as label members of the military or law enforcement agencies who act within the scope of their duties, as such. Who gave the U.S. State Department that kind of power to act within the United States? It wasn’t the framers of our nation. It was given by thugs to other thugs to support their own criminal enterprise.

Another example, is the U.S. State Department’s desire to have their own drones as reported by Nextgov, “The procurement…marks the start of a project to provide…UAV assets that could be deployed anywhere in the world (26).” Of course this is proffered under the guise of security for diplomats, which is undoubtedly a euphemism for spying.

The New York Times reported on December 9, 2011 about a formal complaint to the UN Security Council by Iran, “The hostile and aggressive behavior of the United States in sending a sophisticated radar-evading spy drone over Iranian territory (27).” Congress has not made a Declaration of War with regard to Iran, yet we violate their airspace with a surveillance drone. I’m certain the U.S. Department of State considers this to be security for the American People and Iranian people, just as their desire for a worldwide fleet of drones is for the protection of the world.

However, the U.S. State Department is not alone in this endeavor. The U.S. Congress has passed a bill which requires the FAA to open American airspace to drones by 2015 (28). According to a report, “There are serious policy questions on the horizon about privacy and surveillance, by both government agencies and commercial entities,” according to Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) Project on Government Secrecy (29). I can only wonder how this possibly furthers a more secure, democratic and prosperous world? However, I do believe the definition of democracy as ‘governance by force’ applies. But this policy is only for the U.S. government. Private citizens have been told that if they fly a drone over a police department, they are trespassing. Yet the government at any level may intrude on anyone within the United States or in any foreign nation as they please. This is the fascist agenda run by our communist, socialist leaders here in the United States.

The National Security Agency (NSA) is building a new massive complex in Bluffdale Utah. According to reports, “Near-bottomless databases” will collect and store “All forms of communication, including the complete contents of private emails, cell phone calls, Google searches, as well as all sorts of personal data trails—parking receipts, travel itineraries, bookstore purchases and other digital “pocket litter (30).”” This is a clear violation of the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” The upshot according to a senior intelligence official, “Everybody’s a target; everybody with communication is a target.”

I believe this is a perfect example of the U.S. government’s desire to control people’s every move; to do away with Justice, to discard domestic Tranquility, to completely forget about the general Welfare, and to remove the People’s Blessings of Liberty not only for themselves, but for their Posterity as well. None of what is happening is about security, democracy or prosperity; this is all about governance by force. Invasive government tactics such as these, whether domestic or international, are a threat to our Freedom, our Liberty and our way of life.

Something else which should be mentioned is 9/11 itself. Whether the attack was or wasn’t an al Qaeda attack is not what I’m referring to in this paragraph. This is about trust and the honesty which we have come to know and love from governments, their experts and news agencies. Why was it reported that WTC 7, the 47 story Solomon Brothers Building had collapsed when we can see it standing there just fine right behind the left ear of the reporter (31)? Of course another news agency reported WTC 7 had collapsed, then right after it did fall moments later, they stumbled over and sidestepped the issue (32). This is one of thousands of examples of the honesty of the U.S. government and their mouthpieces in mainstream media.

The so-called government experts NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) got it wrong, but real architects and engineers got it right. You may believe whoever you wish, but the real experts don’t buy the government snow-job and I don’t think we should either. There is no way anybody could be so incompetent as to report something before it happened, unless they were told to report something which someone else already knew about in advance. The real experts in this video state this was an implosion, not the result of a fire and they do quite a good job of explaining why this is the case.

A vast number of technical professionals or non-government experts stated thermite was used to cut through the steel. They even show the proof. I suggest watching the 15 minute video in its entirety (33). But the government made certain the evidence was taken away before an investigation was even able to be started.

The only reason I’ve included this is because the government thinks we should believe them. My question would be, “Why should we?” If we cannot believe what the government told us about WTC 7, then how is it possible to believe what they said about the Twin Towers themselves? WMD in Iraq? Or anything else for that matter. By all appearances, the U.S. government is the boy who cried wolf.

Sometimes we want to believe something even if it’s a lie. As more and more evidence comes to light, we begin to see the wolf who came in wolf’s clothing. I’m not even going to waste my time with the fakery of the non-incident in Pennsylvania. A stick of dynamite would have made a bigger hole in the ground than the alleged jumbo-jet that crashed with absolutely no debris from an airliner; there were no bodies, baggage or parts strewn about anywhere. However, the U.S. government claims were United Airlines Boeing 757 flight 77 hit the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 (34). The odd thing about this story is there was absolutely no wreckage from a 757 to be found. There was no luggage, there were no airplane parts, there were no people; there was nothing but a 15ft hole in the steel reinforced wall. What happened to everything?

The videos which were released by the government showed an explosion before the plane even hit the building. It doesn’t seem like a very good fake to me. But other videos which have been leaked show something entirely different. To me it looks like a missile painted to look like a United Airlines jet, but it is much smaller and it has no wings. Other eyewitness accounts claim it was a missile and not a jet airliner as well. Of Course there are the video cameras which are all over the area, the tapes were said to have been confiscated by the FBI and the footage never shown (35).

Then there was the former 9/11 Commissioner Tim Roemer who during an interview with CNN stated, “When I was standing in front of the Pentagon that night, seeing one of our fortresses pried open by a missile, [eh] airplane (36).” I don’t believe that was an error on Roemer’s part, I think he stated what he knew happened then quickly corrected himself. Just as the BBC and Fox News reporters made the mistake of reporting the Solomon Brothers Building collapse they knew was going to happen before it actually occurred. These are just government lies where the blame is placed elsewhere in the world to create mayhem in those countries, so the powers that be can feed the military industrial complex so the State Department can go and create even more problems in the world.

Perhaps we should also question why we have sent combat troops to at least sixty-six foreign nations in the last fifty years, but the number is much higher because many countries we have been to multiple times. That includes Iraq. But the U.S. government and the U.S. State Department have their War on Terror and you better believe it will never end. How could it end? When we are being spoon-fed lies and spied upon by the thugs we have elected for some strange reason.

The best advice I could give is this: never trust the U.S. government.

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground.
Thomas Jefferson


(1) BBC; “Iraq: Key facts and figures.” September 7, 2010
(2) IBC; Iraq Body Count, Documented civilian deaths from violence. May 31, 2012
(3) Charles Duelfer; Hide and Seek: The Search for Truth in Iraq, (pp. xvi-xvii). 2009
(4) Al Jazeera; “Iraq: A country still in shambles,” Dahr Jamail. January 10, 2012
“Scores killed in Iraq attacks,” Al Jazeera and agencies. June 13, 2012
“Has sectarian violence returned to Iraq?” Al Jazeera. June 18, 2012
(5) BBC; “Deadly blasts hit Baghdad, Kirkuk and other Iraq cities.” April 19, 2012
“Iraq violence: Eight killed in Baquba café bomb attacks.” April 26, 2012
“Bomb attack in Iraq kills three Lebanese Shia pilgrims.” May 23, 2012
(6) Global Security; Base Structure Report, Fiscal Year 2013 baseline.
(7) National Debt Clocks; World Debt Clock and National Debt Clocks.
(8) Brown University; ‘Costs of War’ Project: Estimated costs of post- 9/11 wars: 225,000 lives, up to $4 trillion, Deborah Baum. June 29, 2011
(9) National Priorities Project; Fighting for a U.S. federal budget that works for all Americans, Cost of National Security.
(10) The United Nations; The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Ratified: December 16, 1949
(11) ABC News; Jimmy Carter Accuses US of Abuses, Amy Bingham. June 25, 2012
(12) See references in chapter 1.
(13); U.S. ‘Almost All Wrong’ on Weapons: Report on Iraq Contradicts Bush Administration Claims, Dana Priest and Walter Pincus. October 7, 2004
(14) CNN; Hans Blix: Iraq War was a terrible mistake and violation of U.N. charter, Hans Blix. March 19, 2013
(15) NPR; David Kay: WMDs That Never Were, A War That Ever Was, [Host] Liane Hansen interviews Dr. David Kay. May 29, 2011
(16) See references in chapter 1.
(17) The U.S. at War-A History of Shame; The U.S. Invasion of Panama 1989: The Injustice of “Operation Just Cause,” Revolution #017. October 9, 2005
(18) PBS NEWSHOUR; “Iraq Findings Conclude No weapons of Mass Destruction Existed in Iraq,” [Host] Margaret Warner interviews Charles Duelfer. April 27, 2005
(19) The New York Times; “U.S. Aid Plan for Pakistan is Foundering,” Jane Perlez. May 1, 2011

(20) See references in chapter 1.
(21) Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary: An Encyclopædia Britannica Company; Democracy.
(22) The Olin Revelation; Reconsidering the Etymology of Democracy. 2008
(23) ACLU; War Comes Home: The Excessive Militarization of America Policing.
(24) Information Clearing House; US Police Have Killed Over 5,000 Civilians Since 9/11, Katie Rucke. November 10, 2013
(25) One Hundred Seventh Congress of the United States of America; USA PATRIOT Act of 2001: BILLS-107hr3162. January 3, 2001
(26) Nextgov; State Department Seeks A Global Drone Fleet, Bob Brewin. April 4, 2011
(27) The New York Times; Iran Complains to Security Council About Spy Drone, Rick Gladstone. December 9, 2011

(28) Natural News; Congress OKs 30,000 flying drones spying on Americans across U.S. cities, J.D. Heyes. February 9, 2012
(29) RSN; The NSA is Building the Country’s Biggest Spy Center (Watch what You Say), James Bamford. March 15, 2012
(30) YouTube; ENHANCED VERSION: News Reports WTC7 Fell Before it Happens! September 11, 2001. Posted by Ron Paul Video. February 26, 2007

(31) YouTube; Fox News 5 Reports WTC 7 Collapse Before the Fact, September 11, 2001. Posted by wordgeezer. May 1, 2013

(32) YouTube; Proof That Building 7 Was an Inside Job, posted by shockingvidz 2012’s channel. January 18, 2012

(33) YouTube; Leaked Video of Cruise Missile Hitting Pentagon on 9/11, posted by WeAreChangeTNorg. December 16, 2012

(34) YouTube; Eyewitness Missile Hit Pentagon on 9/11, No Plane, Government Confiscated 84 Camara Tapes, posted by 9/11 Truth Videos. May 19, 2009

(35) YouTube; Former 9/11 Commissioner admits missile hit the Pentagon, posted by Marty Miller. October 29, 2008

Wait for the Downfall – Home – Governments Are Liars




© 2016 All Rights Reserved