A
DEAF-BLIND MAN WAS CURED AFTER BEING STRUCK BY LIGHTNING, AND EVEN CURED HIS
BALDNESS
The elements are making headlines this weekend -- while New Yorkers are awed by man-made waterfalls, residents of Winfield, Mo., are still trying to hold back the Mississippi where levees broke on Friday. But in Northern California this weekend, firefighters are praying for water. Lightning strikes have set off hundreds of wildfires, threatening homes, power grids and state parks.
These California fires have caused a lot of destruction -- however, not all lightning is bad, and we want to share with you an example: Edwin Robinson.
Lee Robinson: My name is Lee Robinson and this story is about my father, Edwin Robinson.Bob Gustavson: I'm Bob Gustavson, the pastor at Emmaus Lutheran Church in Falmouth, Maine, and Edwin Robinson was a parishioner there when I first came in 1994. Ed was a remarkable story of someone who had had an accident in his truck and lost his sight and most of his hearing and suddenly had it restored.
Robinson: He had adopted a chicken that somehow had found his way to him, and he had named the chicken Tuck-Tuck because, well, as best as he could make out, that's the sound that a chicken makes: tuck, tuck, tuck... And that's why he was out there. He was walking around the garage calling Tuck-Tuck. And the bird was inside the garage looking out at him, trying to figure out why he was out there, just standing in the rain, during a severe thunderstorm.
Gustavson: I guess it was thundering and lightning and raining and Ed was crawling around out in the backyard looking for Tuck-Tuck on his hands and knees. He finally found the bird and was struck by lightning.
Robinson: The lightning bounced off the tree and went directly into his hearing aids, and blew the hearing aids right out of his ears. The connecting wire was burned completely off. And after my dad had been hit by lightning, he lay on the ground for several minutes and he finally got up and went back in the house. My mom came over to him because he looked, you know, dazed, and he said, "I think I've been hit by lightning." And she kind of said, "Yeah, yeah, yeah," and he said, "No, really, I can read that plaque on the wall."
Gustavson: He began reading a plaque of some sort that was up on the wall. It said something like, "God can't be everywhere, that's why he created grandparents." His wife thought maybe he had just memorized it, but it turns out he was actually reading it.
Robinson: So she said, "Yeah, yeah, yeah," and "You already know what it says, so that doesn't mean a thing. How about looking at the clock over there on the wall and telling me what time it is?" And he looked at the clock and said, "It's six minutes after five." He got his sight back to 20/20. He got his hearing back. All of his life he had been completely bald and several weeks later there was hair that started to grow on his head.Gustavson: Not only was his eyesight restored and his hearing restored, but he started to grow hair again. It's hard not to say that it's not miraculous.
Robinson: I think if you talk to anybody else that was around when this incident happened, they would say that it was actually a miracle. I guess you could say there is a bit of luck in there, yes. Otherwise, he literally should have been killed by the lightning, yes.
The elements are making headlines this weekend -- while New Yorkers are awed by man-made waterfalls, residents of Winfield, Mo., are still trying to hold back the Mississippi where levees broke on Friday. But in Northern California this weekend, firefighters are praying for water. Lightning strikes have set off hundreds of wildfires, threatening homes, power grids and state parks.
These California fires have caused a lot of destruction -- however, not all lightning is bad, and we want to share with you an example: Edwin Robinson.
Lee Robinson: My name is Lee Robinson and this story is about my father, Edwin Robinson.Bob Gustavson: I'm Bob Gustavson, the pastor at Emmaus Lutheran Church in Falmouth, Maine, and Edwin Robinson was a parishioner there when I first came in 1994. Ed was a remarkable story of someone who had had an accident in his truck and lost his sight and most of his hearing and suddenly had it restored.
Robinson: He had adopted a chicken that somehow had found his way to him, and he had named the chicken Tuck-Tuck because, well, as best as he could make out, that's the sound that a chicken makes: tuck, tuck, tuck... And that's why he was out there. He was walking around the garage calling Tuck-Tuck. And the bird was inside the garage looking out at him, trying to figure out why he was out there, just standing in the rain, during a severe thunderstorm.
Gustavson: I guess it was thundering and lightning and raining and Ed was crawling around out in the backyard looking for Tuck-Tuck on his hands and knees. He finally found the bird and was struck by lightning.
Robinson: The lightning bounced off the tree and went directly into his hearing aids, and blew the hearing aids right out of his ears. The connecting wire was burned completely off. And after my dad had been hit by lightning, he lay on the ground for several minutes and he finally got up and went back in the house. My mom came over to him because he looked, you know, dazed, and he said, "I think I've been hit by lightning." And she kind of said, "Yeah, yeah, yeah," and he said, "No, really, I can read that plaque on the wall."
Gustavson: He began reading a plaque of some sort that was up on the wall. It said something like, "God can't be everywhere, that's why he created grandparents." His wife thought maybe he had just memorized it, but it turns out he was actually reading it.
Robinson: So she said, "Yeah, yeah, yeah," and "You already know what it says, so that doesn't mean a thing. How about looking at the clock over there on the wall and telling me what time it is?" And he looked at the clock and said, "It's six minutes after five." He got his sight back to 20/20. He got his hearing back. All of his life he had been completely bald and several weeks later there was hair that started to grow on his head.Gustavson: Not only was his eyesight restored and his hearing restored, but he started to grow hair again. It's hard not to say that it's not miraculous.
Robinson: I think if you talk to anybody else that was around when this incident happened, they would say that it was actually a miracle. I guess you could say there is a bit of luck in there, yes. Otherwise, he literally should have been killed by the lightning, yes.
George
Santayana (1863 – 1952), a Spanish philosopher, essayist, poet, and novelist
once said that “those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.”
Throughout our lives, we have often been reminded to learn from our mistakes. Time
and time again we see people around us making the same errors in judgment
without learning from them.
If we, as members of humanity, take a stand for human rights and do what it takes to stop monsters such as these, we could stop them dead in their tracks. Now is the time to fight for the oppressed, the tortured and the hungry. What will it take for us to learn from our mistakes of apathy before we take a stand? What will it take for us to learn that indifference is not the answer? We need to remember the mistakes made by others in the past if we are to protect humanity in the future.
Remember the past and take a stand for humanity!
If we, as members of humanity, take a stand for human rights and do what it takes to stop monsters such as these, we could stop them dead in their tracks. Now is the time to fight for the oppressed, the tortured and the hungry. What will it take for us to learn from our mistakes of apathy before we take a stand? What will it take for us to learn that indifference is not the answer? We need to remember the mistakes made by others in the past if we are to protect humanity in the future.
Remember the past and take a stand for humanity!
MARCOS
AND THE DESTRUCTION OF THE PHILIPPINES PT. 1
Since most of the subscribers here are Filipinos: This will be a series of posts on how the Philippines was destroyed from the time Marcos is collaborating with LaRouche and others in countering the genocidal policies of the IMF, and bringing into being a new world economic system based on development and justice and how did George Shultz managed to overthrow the Marcos Government.
This controversial article is written by Mike Billington, It is part of a series which features the assault against the Third World by the "Economic Hit Men." He examined first the case of the Philippines here, and then Mexico. The article appeared on the December 2004 issue of Executive Intelligence Review, a weekly magazine based in USA.
Part 1:
The U.S.-orchestrated coup which overthrew the government of Philippines' President Ferdinand Marcos in 1986 was a classic case study of what John Perkins describes in his recent book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, as the post-World War II preferred method of imposing colonial control under another name. In the Philippines case, George Shultz performed the roles of both the economic hit man, destroying and taking full control of the Philippine economy, and the coup-master, deposing the Philippine President in favor of an IMF puppet—while calling the operation "people power."
Throughout this process, from the late 1970s through the February 1986 coup, and beyond, Lyndon LaRouche and his collaborators were fully engaged in the fight to expose and reverse this subversion and destruction of one of America's most important allies, by the supranational financial institutions which Shultz and his ilk represent. By mobilizing support from patriots of both the United States and the Philippines, the LaRouche effort put a spotlight on the crimes of the Shultz cabal, as will be shown below. Although the effort failed to stop the process at that time, the crimes thus exposed in the Philippines can and must serve today as a nemesis to Shultz and his neo-conservative operatives, who are in an endgame in their effort to impose a new fascist order over the planet.
In a Nov. 16 interview on radio station DZAR in Manila, LaRouche described his own view of the special mission of the Philippines nation: "The Philippines has a very important pivotal role, some people would say geopolitically, in the entire region, of trying to bring together on a global scale for the first time, a world system, which is capable of accommodating both the European cultural heritage and Asian cultures. This is the great barrier, the great frontier, of a hopeful future for this planet: to bring together the cultures of Asia—which are different than those of Western Europe generally—with European culture, to get a global culture based on a system of sovereign nation-states, which understands that this unresolved cultural question has to be addressed, with a long-term view, of several generations, of creating an integrated set of sovereign nation-states as the system of the planet. So the Philippines is a very special country, with a unique importance for the people of Asia, in particular, in playing a key role in bringing about this kind of general integration of Asian and European civilizations."
The lesson of the subversion of the Philippines in the 1980s for today is clear. Shultz is the eminence gris behind the neo-conservatives running the Bush Administration, which has brought the world to the current disastrous circumstance. It is also the case that the Philippines, although currently lacking any national leadership comparable to that of Marcos, is nonetheless facing a new coup threat, orchestrated by the same neo-conservative circles in Washington who were responsible for the 1986 coup.
The popular memory of Ferdinand Marcos today, in the U.S. and in the Philippines, is largely shaped by the massive disinformation campaign created in the early 1980s by the circles around then-Secretary of State Shultz, and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz. Marcos was accused of corruption, human rights violations, plunder, and even the murder of a political opponent, Benigno Aquino—and this caricature is repeated ad nauseam still today. While Marcos was not without faults, he was by far the last Filipino head of state to have understood the challenge of true leadership in a world slipping towards chaos. His overthrow by the Shultz cabal had nothing to do with the charges issued publicly, but were intended to stop his national development policies, and his international collaboration with LaRouche and others in countering the genocidal policies of the IMF, and bringing into being a new world economic system based on development and justice.
Since most of the subscribers here are Filipinos: This will be a series of posts on how the Philippines was destroyed from the time Marcos is collaborating with LaRouche and others in countering the genocidal policies of the IMF, and bringing into being a new world economic system based on development and justice and how did George Shultz managed to overthrow the Marcos Government.
This controversial article is written by Mike Billington, It is part of a series which features the assault against the Third World by the "Economic Hit Men." He examined first the case of the Philippines here, and then Mexico. The article appeared on the December 2004 issue of Executive Intelligence Review, a weekly magazine based in USA.
Part 1:
The U.S.-orchestrated coup which overthrew the government of Philippines' President Ferdinand Marcos in 1986 was a classic case study of what John Perkins describes in his recent book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, as the post-World War II preferred method of imposing colonial control under another name. In the Philippines case, George Shultz performed the roles of both the economic hit man, destroying and taking full control of the Philippine economy, and the coup-master, deposing the Philippine President in favor of an IMF puppet—while calling the operation "people power."
Throughout this process, from the late 1970s through the February 1986 coup, and beyond, Lyndon LaRouche and his collaborators were fully engaged in the fight to expose and reverse this subversion and destruction of one of America's most important allies, by the supranational financial institutions which Shultz and his ilk represent. By mobilizing support from patriots of both the United States and the Philippines, the LaRouche effort put a spotlight on the crimes of the Shultz cabal, as will be shown below. Although the effort failed to stop the process at that time, the crimes thus exposed in the Philippines can and must serve today as a nemesis to Shultz and his neo-conservative operatives, who are in an endgame in their effort to impose a new fascist order over the planet.
In a Nov. 16 interview on radio station DZAR in Manila, LaRouche described his own view of the special mission of the Philippines nation: "The Philippines has a very important pivotal role, some people would say geopolitically, in the entire region, of trying to bring together on a global scale for the first time, a world system, which is capable of accommodating both the European cultural heritage and Asian cultures. This is the great barrier, the great frontier, of a hopeful future for this planet: to bring together the cultures of Asia—which are different than those of Western Europe generally—with European culture, to get a global culture based on a system of sovereign nation-states, which understands that this unresolved cultural question has to be addressed, with a long-term view, of several generations, of creating an integrated set of sovereign nation-states as the system of the planet. So the Philippines is a very special country, with a unique importance for the people of Asia, in particular, in playing a key role in bringing about this kind of general integration of Asian and European civilizations."
The lesson of the subversion of the Philippines in the 1980s for today is clear. Shultz is the eminence gris behind the neo-conservatives running the Bush Administration, which has brought the world to the current disastrous circumstance. It is also the case that the Philippines, although currently lacking any national leadership comparable to that of Marcos, is nonetheless facing a new coup threat, orchestrated by the same neo-conservative circles in Washington who were responsible for the 1986 coup.
The popular memory of Ferdinand Marcos today, in the U.S. and in the Philippines, is largely shaped by the massive disinformation campaign created in the early 1980s by the circles around then-Secretary of State Shultz, and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz. Marcos was accused of corruption, human rights violations, plunder, and even the murder of a political opponent, Benigno Aquino—and this caricature is repeated ad nauseam still today. While Marcos was not without faults, he was by far the last Filipino head of state to have understood the challenge of true leadership in a world slipping towards chaos. His overthrow by the Shultz cabal had nothing to do with the charges issued publicly, but were intended to stop his national development policies, and his international collaboration with LaRouche and others in countering the genocidal policies of the IMF, and bringing into being a new world economic system based on development and justice.
MEXICAN REVOLUTION
WAS IGNORED BY MEDIA
Mexico, July 11, 2012. USA and UK governments pushed the press not to publish the protest while Google censored videos on youtube and restricted keywords on this event.
The Mexican media has blacking out the protests against their new government, who have been accused of doing everything from buying votes to buying off the media.
If the corporate media won’t spread this story, then let’s spread the story. Share this all over your pages and your friend’s pages and help support the democracy movement in Mexico
Mexico, July 11, 2012. USA and UK governments pushed the press not to publish the protest while Google censored videos on youtube and restricted keywords on this event.
The Mexican media has blacking out the protests against their new government, who have been accused of doing everything from buying votes to buying off the media.
If the corporate media won’t spread this story, then let’s spread the story. Share this all over your pages and your friend’s pages and help support the democracy movement in Mexico
The
Cactus Dome
Between 1946 and 1962, the US military conducted 105 atmospheric nuclear tests over the "Pacific Proving Grounds," a euphemism for the Marshall Islands and several other nearby South Pacific atolls.
In the late 1970s, in an effort to clean up the radioactive debris left by those explosions, the US government dug up 111,000 cubic yards of soil from the Bikini and Rongelap atolls and deposited it on Runit Island. Its resting place would be in a 350-foot wide crater that had been created two decades earlier by an 18-kiloton nuclear test code-named Cactus.
Between 1946 and 1962, the US military conducted 105 atmospheric nuclear tests over the "Pacific Proving Grounds," a euphemism for the Marshall Islands and several other nearby South Pacific atolls.
In the late 1970s, in an effort to clean up the radioactive debris left by those explosions, the US government dug up 111,000 cubic yards of soil from the Bikini and Rongelap atolls and deposited it on Runit Island. Its resting place would be in a 350-foot wide crater that had been created two decades earlier by an 18-kiloton nuclear test code-named Cactus.
POLITICIANS
ARE PARASITES
The definition of a parasite is "an organism that spends a significant portion of its life in or on the living tissue of a host organism and which causes harm to the host without immediately killing it." Parisitology is the study of parasites.
The definition of a parasite sounds like a perfect description of what government has become. The political class, its cronies and its dependents are parasites. The host is the productive sector of the economy. One lives at the expense of the other. One is "taking," the other "making."
Thomas Jefferson observed:
If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy. ... I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.
More than 150 years ago, Frederic Bastiat commented on what he saw happening in France:
It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds.
Even the fall of Rome, widely attributed to "bread and circuses," attracted Will Rogers' attention:
Ancient Rome declined because it had a Senate, now what's going to happen to us with both a House and a Senate?"
The parasite-host analogy would seem to be a reasonable basis for a general theory explaining the rise and fall of civilizations. Assuming someone has not already milked it, it could make an interesting dissertation topic. However, in most academic settings implicating the State in the failure of civilizations could jeopardize your career.
Politicians, unlike actual parasites, generally understand the ramifications of decisions. Other than those with IQs below room temperature (make your own estimate of how many that be), politicians know the precarious condition of the host.
Is it rational for an understanding parasite to destroy the host upon which it feeds? After all, if the host dies, so do the parasites.
Self-interest in government is especially troublesome because constraints imposed by markets are absent in government.
Those in power are constrained only by the laws they impose upon themselves and periodic ballot box judgments. The power of incumbency suggests the latter is of limited effect. If self-interest conflicts with public service and laws are ineffective, self-interest is served.
Non-economist David Brin suggests politicians have less character than the average citizen. He attributes this to a perverse self-selection process:
It is said that power corrupts, but actually it's more true that power attracts the corruptible. The sane are usually attracted by other things than power.
Albert J. Nock preceded David Brin and was even more damning in his assessment of the political class:
Taking the State wherever found, striking into its history at any point, one sees no way to differentiate the activities of its founders, administrators and beneficiaries from those of a professional-criminal class
If Public Choice theory is valid (and it is), how does one explain the unwillingness of the political class to save the host? When the host dies, so do the parasites. Do we have an instance here where politicians are not acting in their own self-interest?
The answer is that political parasites are acting rationally by allowing the host to perish. The key to understanding this anomaly is that curing the host would require radical medicine in the form of massive spending cuts. These cuts would require dismantling of various entitlements and much of the welfare state. Even with this medicine, it might be too little, too late to succeed.
The reason that the cure will not even be tried is that any attempt to do so would be politically fatal for whoever proposed it. Voters believe that government is the source of free goodies. Too many believe they are entitled to be supported by government. Anyone proposing meaningful spending cuts would likely be subjected to political execution at the earliest election.
Nothing is more valued to the political mind than attaining and retaining office. That is why the debt ceiling deal was such a fraud. Neither party pushed for meaningful spending cuts. Both postured for voters. Both wanted a new credit card and got the largest one ever issued.
Political parasites rationally chose to continue the plunder and exploitation knowing that it ensured long-term death of the host. In classic Keynesian short-termism ("in the long-run we are all dead"), politicians chose to remain in the trough to continue feeding on the host.
The decision to destroy the host may not seem rational to the rest of us, but it is clearly in the best interest of the current parasites. Death for them at some future uncertain date is a better than death at the next election. They chose what was in their best interest but not the country's.
Until the host dies, the current parasites will exploit for as long as they can. They have chosen a form of Kevorkian economics, managed suicide for the host economy. Unlike Kevorkian, they intend to keep the host alive as long as possible enabling them to maximize their time in the trough.
The rest of us will be left to pick up the pieces when the collapse occurs. The parasites will be dead in a political sense but likely living in a different country.
The definition of a parasite is "an organism that spends a significant portion of its life in or on the living tissue of a host organism and which causes harm to the host without immediately killing it." Parisitology is the study of parasites.
The definition of a parasite sounds like a perfect description of what government has become. The political class, its cronies and its dependents are parasites. The host is the productive sector of the economy. One lives at the expense of the other. One is "taking," the other "making."
Thomas Jefferson observed:
If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy. ... I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.
More than 150 years ago, Frederic Bastiat commented on what he saw happening in France:
It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds.
Even the fall of Rome, widely attributed to "bread and circuses," attracted Will Rogers' attention:
Ancient Rome declined because it had a Senate, now what's going to happen to us with both a House and a Senate?"
The parasite-host analogy would seem to be a reasonable basis for a general theory explaining the rise and fall of civilizations. Assuming someone has not already milked it, it could make an interesting dissertation topic. However, in most academic settings implicating the State in the failure of civilizations could jeopardize your career.
Politicians, unlike actual parasites, generally understand the ramifications of decisions. Other than those with IQs below room temperature (make your own estimate of how many that be), politicians know the precarious condition of the host.
Is it rational for an understanding parasite to destroy the host upon which it feeds? After all, if the host dies, so do the parasites.
Self-interest in government is especially troublesome because constraints imposed by markets are absent in government.
Those in power are constrained only by the laws they impose upon themselves and periodic ballot box judgments. The power of incumbency suggests the latter is of limited effect. If self-interest conflicts with public service and laws are ineffective, self-interest is served.
Non-economist David Brin suggests politicians have less character than the average citizen. He attributes this to a perverse self-selection process:
It is said that power corrupts, but actually it's more true that power attracts the corruptible. The sane are usually attracted by other things than power.
Albert J. Nock preceded David Brin and was even more damning in his assessment of the political class:
Taking the State wherever found, striking into its history at any point, one sees no way to differentiate the activities of its founders, administrators and beneficiaries from those of a professional-criminal class
If Public Choice theory is valid (and it is), how does one explain the unwillingness of the political class to save the host? When the host dies, so do the parasites. Do we have an instance here where politicians are not acting in their own self-interest?
The answer is that political parasites are acting rationally by allowing the host to perish. The key to understanding this anomaly is that curing the host would require radical medicine in the form of massive spending cuts. These cuts would require dismantling of various entitlements and much of the welfare state. Even with this medicine, it might be too little, too late to succeed.
The reason that the cure will not even be tried is that any attempt to do so would be politically fatal for whoever proposed it. Voters believe that government is the source of free goodies. Too many believe they are entitled to be supported by government. Anyone proposing meaningful spending cuts would likely be subjected to political execution at the earliest election.
Nothing is more valued to the political mind than attaining and retaining office. That is why the debt ceiling deal was such a fraud. Neither party pushed for meaningful spending cuts. Both postured for voters. Both wanted a new credit card and got the largest one ever issued.
Political parasites rationally chose to continue the plunder and exploitation knowing that it ensured long-term death of the host. In classic Keynesian short-termism ("in the long-run we are all dead"), politicians chose to remain in the trough to continue feeding on the host.
The decision to destroy the host may not seem rational to the rest of us, but it is clearly in the best interest of the current parasites. Death for them at some future uncertain date is a better than death at the next election. They chose what was in their best interest but not the country's.
Until the host dies, the current parasites will exploit for as long as they can. They have chosen a form of Kevorkian economics, managed suicide for the host economy. Unlike Kevorkian, they intend to keep the host alive as long as possible enabling them to maximize their time in the trough.
The rest of us will be left to pick up the pieces when the collapse occurs. The parasites will be dead in a political sense but likely living in a different country.
Breath
Taking Scenes Of Mount Fuji. Japan.... IT'S SO AMAZING....
Mount Fuji is the highest mountain in Japan located on Honshu Island at 3,776.24 m (12,389 ft). An active stratovolcano that last erupted in 1707–08, Mount Fuji lies about 100 kilometres (62 mi) south-west of Tokyo, and can be seen from there on a clear day. Mount Fuji's exceptionally symmetrical cone, which is snow-capped several months a year, is a well-known symbol of Japan and it is frequently depicted in art and photographs, as well as visited by sightseers and climbers. It is one of Japan's "Three Holy Mountains" along with Mount Tate and Mount Haku; it is a Special Place of Scenic Beauty, a Historic Site, and has been submitted for future inscription on the World Heritage List as a Cultural (rather than Natural) Site.
Mount Fuji is the highest mountain in Japan located on Honshu Island at 3,776.24 m (12,389 ft). An active stratovolcano that last erupted in 1707–08, Mount Fuji lies about 100 kilometres (62 mi) south-west of Tokyo, and can be seen from there on a clear day. Mount Fuji's exceptionally symmetrical cone, which is snow-capped several months a year, is a well-known symbol of Japan and it is frequently depicted in art and photographs, as well as visited by sightseers and climbers. It is one of Japan's "Three Holy Mountains" along with Mount Tate and Mount Haku; it is a Special Place of Scenic Beauty, a Historic Site, and has been submitted for future inscription on the World Heritage List as a Cultural (rather than Natural) Site.
WHO
KILLED NINOY???
FERDINAND MARCOS
YES HE DID IT - Well Marcos could’ve been tired already of Ninoy. I mean what is he to do with Ninoy? Send him back again to the States only to hear Ninoy in CNN or some foreign news agency attacking him?
NO - I don’t think Ferdinand Marcos did it. Its easier to send a gunman in the US and kill Ninoy there a la Leon Trotsky. Or why kill Ninoy? He already has the power--and there is no question to it. The only one opposing him prior to Ninoy are the leftists in the hills and a few lawyers in the city.
IMELDA MARCOS
YES, SHE DID IT - Maybe to show her husband once and for all that she’s not just holding on to power ceremonially--that she too can exercise it. In fact its more likely that she killed Ninoy not Mr. Marcos. The killing was set up by an amateur--not of Ferdinand Marcos’ caliber.
NO - well the way I think about this is--if Imelda killed Ninoy or through her orders--Ferdinand would know it immediately...
DANDING COJUANGCO
YES - killing Ninoy would be hitting two birds in one stone. It would force Marcos out of office and it would easier for him to get hold of Marcos’ corporations prior to Marcos’ fall--and second who would replace Ninoy but a relative? And what do relatives do for each other?
NO - well that only thing that could’ve stop Danding is perhaps his busy in wealth accumulation at the time--so he would not have the time and the energy to pull the strings.
FABIAN VER
YES - well Fabian is the most loyal stooge of Marcos--if Marcos says “jump to your death”--Fabian will even ask “from which height?” Its likely that Marcos was ill when Ninoy arrived and could not immediately act--so enter Fabian ordering the killing or perhaps the planned it in secret so not even his boss knew... Could he have conspired with Imelda and Danding? Well--maybe...
NO - I see no reason why Fabian would not have touched Ninoy’s hair, what are they to do? Exile him again and cause world embarrassment? Risk having him run in an election? Jail him again and cause world-wide sympathy?
THE ESCORTS OF NINOY
YES - but these guys would not have acted alone--but strange is this up to this time they’re not talking...
NO - they don’t know a shit about the killing and might be innocent stooges--tricked by the real killer.
ROLANDO GALMAN
YES - well maybe it was Galman all along but that’s what Marcos, Ver and company wants us to believe...
NO - Nope seems he died earlier than Ninoy.
THE CPP-NPA
YES - Ninoy would be an asset--killing him would push Malacanang to the ledge and push the people to the side of the CPP-NPA.
NO - And risk being founded out? I don’t think so.
THE CIA
YES - Well they may have been tired of Marcos and decided to do this to embarrass and destroy him.
NO - Well they have all the capacity to pull the stunt but they don’t have the motive--Marcos by the way is their main man…and “Yes” man--is that how to treat a “Yes” man?
You decide on the polls next to this article and comment why if necessary.
FERDINAND MARCOS
YES HE DID IT - Well Marcos could’ve been tired already of Ninoy. I mean what is he to do with Ninoy? Send him back again to the States only to hear Ninoy in CNN or some foreign news agency attacking him?
NO - I don’t think Ferdinand Marcos did it. Its easier to send a gunman in the US and kill Ninoy there a la Leon Trotsky. Or why kill Ninoy? He already has the power--and there is no question to it. The only one opposing him prior to Ninoy are the leftists in the hills and a few lawyers in the city.
IMELDA MARCOS
YES, SHE DID IT - Maybe to show her husband once and for all that she’s not just holding on to power ceremonially--that she too can exercise it. In fact its more likely that she killed Ninoy not Mr. Marcos. The killing was set up by an amateur--not of Ferdinand Marcos’ caliber.
NO - well the way I think about this is--if Imelda killed Ninoy or through her orders--Ferdinand would know it immediately...
DANDING COJUANGCO
YES - killing Ninoy would be hitting two birds in one stone. It would force Marcos out of office and it would easier for him to get hold of Marcos’ corporations prior to Marcos’ fall--and second who would replace Ninoy but a relative? And what do relatives do for each other?
NO - well that only thing that could’ve stop Danding is perhaps his busy in wealth accumulation at the time--so he would not have the time and the energy to pull the strings.
FABIAN VER
YES - well Fabian is the most loyal stooge of Marcos--if Marcos says “jump to your death”--Fabian will even ask “from which height?” Its likely that Marcos was ill when Ninoy arrived and could not immediately act--so enter Fabian ordering the killing or perhaps the planned it in secret so not even his boss knew... Could he have conspired with Imelda and Danding? Well--maybe...
NO - I see no reason why Fabian would not have touched Ninoy’s hair, what are they to do? Exile him again and cause world embarrassment? Risk having him run in an election? Jail him again and cause world-wide sympathy?
THE ESCORTS OF NINOY
YES - but these guys would not have acted alone--but strange is this up to this time they’re not talking...
NO - they don’t know a shit about the killing and might be innocent stooges--tricked by the real killer.
ROLANDO GALMAN
YES - well maybe it was Galman all along but that’s what Marcos, Ver and company wants us to believe...
NO - Nope seems he died earlier than Ninoy.
THE CPP-NPA
YES - Ninoy would be an asset--killing him would push Malacanang to the ledge and push the people to the side of the CPP-NPA.
NO - And risk being founded out? I don’t think so.
THE CIA
YES - Well they may have been tired of Marcos and decided to do this to embarrass and destroy him.
NO - Well they have all the capacity to pull the stunt but they don’t have the motive--Marcos by the way is their main man…and “Yes” man--is that how to treat a “Yes” man?
You decide on the polls next to this article and comment why if necessary.
No comments:
Post a Comment