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.
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!
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
