911 Evidences & US Gov Criminals (P19)

The WWI was over. German Revolution was declared a success and Weimar republic was proclaimed.

His rise was difficult and littered with obstacles. It started when the German government received reports of an imminent terrorist attack. A terrorist had launched feeble attacks on a few famous buildings, but the media largely ignored his relatively small efforts. At the time the man who claimed to be the nations leader had not been elected by a majority vote and many claimed he had no right to the powers he coveted. Six years later, this leader did not only command popularity and patriotic feelings of his nation but was also hailed as the Man of the Year by Times magazine.

He was a simpleton and had a coarse use of language. His simplistic and inflammatory nationalistic rhetoric offended foreign leaders and the well-educated elite. And, as a young man, hed joined a secret society with an occult-sounding name. The only visible talent he possessed was drawing.

“You are now witnessing the beginning of a great epoch in history”, he proclaimed, standing in front of the burned building, surrounded by national media. He used the occasion to declare an all-out war on terrorism, originating, according to him, in the Middle East and in their religions.

Four weeks later, the nations now-popular leader had pushed through legislation – in the name of combating terrorism – that suspended constitutional guarantees of free speech, privacy, and habeas corpus. Police could now intercept mail and wiretap phones; suspected terrorists could be imprisoned without specific charges; police could sneak into peoples homes without warrants if the cases involved terrorism. To get his patriotic “Decree on the Protection of People and State” passed over the many objections of concerned legislators, he agreed to put a four-year provision on it. Citizens who protested the leader in public quickly found themselves confronting the newly empowered police, jail cells.

He wanted to stir a “racial pride” among his countrymen and began referring to the nation by Heimat (Homeland). Playing on this implicitly racial nationalism, he argued that any international body that didnt act first and foremost in the best interest of his nation was neither relevant nor useful. He withdrew his country from the League Of Nations in 1933, and in 1935 negotiated a naval armaments agreement with England. He reached out to industry, bringing former executives of the nations largest corporations into high government positions.

His propaganda minister orchestrated a campaign to ensure the people that he was a deeply religious Christian. Every then German soldier was sporting a belt buckle with “Gott Mit Uns” (God Is With Us).

But after an interval of peace, voices of dissent again arose within and without the government. His propaganda minister intensified the nationalistic campaign. Those questioning him were labeled anti-German or not good Germans. Another technique was to manufacture news, through the use of paid shills posing as reporters, seducing real reporters with promises of access to the leader in exchange for favorable coverage, and veiled threats to those who exposed his lies.

In 1939, to “attenuate” the economic decline and re-unify the nation, he pointed at an external threat: Czechoslovakia. Shortly after, Poland was invaded in a defensive, pre-emptive action.

As his propaganda minister said:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

This dictum not only became reality in Germany but also with it, the leaders popularity grew as the nation plunged into yet another world war.

Adolf Hitler put an end to the first democratic experiment in Germany.

Another democratic failure has just inaugurated the 21st Century: The United States of America.

WTC Missile Strike 911

В.Путин.Выступление на встрече.11.02.03.Part 2

Speech at a Meeting with the Scientific and Cultural Elite at the Institut de France.Part 2
February 11, 2003
Paris

Выступление на встрече с научной и культурной элитой в Институте Франции
11 февраля 2003 года
Париж

I think you would agree with me that Russian-French relations have always been something more than just cooperation between two states or communication between two peoples. There are ample grounds for speaking about a unity of cultures that are in tune with each other and mutually enrich each other. And if this constitutes a privilege, then our privileged partnership owes a great deal to the humanitarian component.In our days the similarity of our worldviews helps the two countries to effectively cooperate at the UN Security Council, in the G8, the OSCE and other partnership mechanisms. It helps us to closely cooperate in tackling pressing international problems, proposing and promoting constructive approaches that derive in many ways from the traditions of European political philosophy.Scientific links between Russia and France have always been a powerful engine of economic and industrial progress in our countries. These new times present our countries with new challenges and they can more effectively be met if we join forces. I believe that the highest dividends would accrue from pooling our research efforts on the cutting edge of scientific and technological progress. I am aware that several dozen such themes are being jointly developed by our academies and that these innovation projects already serve the development of business in both countries and the interests of our economies.I see great prospects for the interaction of the French institutes with the centres of scientific innovation in Russia. Indeed, the most topical and important areas of cooperation have already been identified.They are above all aerospace, energy, environment, biological and information technologies. I am sure that strategic partnership in these areas will help our countries to make the best of the advantages offered by world globalisation and to minimise its negative consequences.Language is particularly important, of course, for the preservation and development of a peoples cultural identity. This is a truth well known to the French Academy, one of whose original tasks has been to create a literate and clear French language. We in Russia seek to preserve the purity of the Russian language and watch its evolution.I believe that a key joint task should be mutual support of the international positions of the Russian and French languages. Language is also the main instrument of mutual enrichment and interpenetration of cultures, ideas and knowledge.I also believe that work to make our education systems more competitive and develop fundamental sciences is extremely important. Knowledge in the modern world is the main resource of development and the development of relations among countries.But we all understand that all these plans will remain on paper unless solid conditions for cooperation are created. That is why it is so important to expand scientific and cultural exchanges, to facilitate the movement of students, young scientists and specialists of the two countries.Dear friends, I cannot help touching upon another very important topic. It is our joint struggle against the common enemy of the 21st century, international terrorism. I wont dwell on it, but I think you will agree with me that in the 21st century an intellectual and moral vaccine against terror and permissiveness is just as vital as the vaccines against mortal diseases developed in the 19th century by Pasteur and Mechnikov.In conclusion I would like to stress that the experience of your state and of our state equally attests that the best antidote to wars and bloody revolutions is enlightenment and reformism, strictly objective knowledge and progress initiated by democratic society and put into practice by democratic government.

В.Путин.Выступление на встрече.11.02.03.Part 1

Speech at a Meeting with the Scientific and Cultural Elite at the Institut de France.Part 1
February 11, 2003
Paris

Выступление на встрече с научной и культурной элитой в Институте Франции
11 февраля 2003 года
Париж

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Let me say first of all that it is a great honour for me to be speaking in this historic hall and to be a guest of this world-famous scientific centre. Especially since some of my outstanding fellow countrymen have earlier visited the French Academy.

It is of course a great pleasure to me to listen to you and to have a chance to speak myself. Let me say from the start that the French political tradition has always been to Russia a vivid example of how the government can be perceptive of the position of the intellectual elite. Fortunately, in your country that tradition has not been interrupted as frequently and as tragically as in my country.

It is not at all times that the ideas of Russias philosophers and thinkers could influence the development of the state and society. Meanwhile Russia has always sought to borrow from European experience. This was particularly true in the era of Enlightenment, when Russian rulers began to seriously study the culture and political traditions of western countries. France was among those countries. We know from history that your Royal Academy of Sciences and other academies were visited by Peter the Great, and scholars tell us that he was far more interested in scientists and scientific and technical achievements than official ceremonies.

This audience will of course know that upon his return from France the Russian emperor made the final decision to establish a Russian Academy of Sciences. Subsequently many French scientists became members of that academy. I am not going to list the numerous names of famous Russian and French scientists who over the centuries provided a connection between our academic schools. And today your experience is one of the models for Russia and undoubtedly a very attractive model in the context of our ongoing reforms in education and science.

I would like to say a few words about how I see the present state of Russian-French relations whose roots go deep into history and to which this enlightened audience has a big contribution to make. I believe that our political partnership has traditionally been a stabilising factor in Europe. We were often allies in the creation of peaceful alliances and in the military and political association against the threats that arose. Both Russia and France are equally convinced that world problems are much better solved on the basis of the principles and norms of international law. Not least because it is equally in tune with both Russian and French political thought.

I would like to go back to one of the earlier speeches. The speaker here said that there can be no order and stability without a harmony between laws and customs. It is furthest from my intention to launch a discussion, but I think many would agree with me that the law always lags behind real life, life is always ahead. The law is still in the works, but life has already raced ahead. But it is also true that unless we follow these rules there will be chaos. Our task is not to break the laws but to change the rules in a timely manner yet follow these rules both inside our countries and in the international scene.

I Don’t Know What to Call This

Little Billy wants to do it live, Leonidas has an identity crisis, and the Gman Squad is thrown into the mix.

Judge Joe Brown 1

Homer Vs the IBU and the politics of boxing

A short tribute to black women

A short tribute to black women by miranda

CBU LancerDiaries Tessa

Tess Johnstone is a junior political science student at CBU as well as a contributor to Lancer Diaries, a weekly blog that gives you a behind the scenes look at life at CBU. Take a peek at http://lancerdiaries.blogspot.com/

Dr. Michael Salla – XCon 2004 – Exopolitics – New Discipline for a New Paradigm Part3

Visit http://www.X-Conference.com EXOPOLITICS: NEW DISCIPLINE FOR A NEW PARADIGM, with Dr. Michael Salla. Within a short number of years the study of the political science of extraterrestrial phenomena will be commonplace at universities around the world. It will be called “Exopolitics” in no small measure due to the work of Dr. Salla, who with a few others, is founding this new area of study. This lecture will identify the key features in the emergence of exopolitics as a branch of political science. Attention will be placed on identifying the different conceptual frameworks used to understand the extraterrestrial presence and its political implications. Attention will be on the various sources of information on the extraterrestrial presence, the coherence of these sources and their persuasiveness as evidentiary bases for making policy recommendation. Special focus will be on the motivations, activities and moral orientations of different extraterrestrial groups identified by a variety of sources. Finally, the way in which political control has evolved in response to the extraterrestrial presence by responsible government agencies in the US will also be identified and analyzed in the context of the present international political climate.