President Duterte of the Philippines for Dummies

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

President Duterte of the Philippines for Dummies

Postby Morty » Fri Dec 23, 2016 5:22 pm

Loong article, but easy reading and worth the effort, I found. Might pay to read it at the link for the better formatting.

December 23, 2016
President Duterte of the Philippines for Dummies

by Andre Vltchek

From Manila and Davao.

When Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez ascended to power in 1999, almost no one in the West, in Asia and even in most of the Latin American countries knew much about his new militant revolutionary anti-imperialism. From the mass media outlets like CNN and the BBC, to local televisions and newspapers (influenced or directly sponsored by Western sources), the ‘information’ that was flowing was clearly biased, extremely critical, and even derogatory.

A few months into his rule, I came to Caracas and was told repeatedly by several local journalists: “Almost all of us are supporting President Chavez, but we’d be fired if we’d dare to write one single article in his support.”

In New York City and Paris, in Buenos Aires and Hong Kong, the then consensus was almost unanimous: “Chavez was a vulgar populist, a demagogue, a military strongman, and potentially a ‘dangerous dictator’”.

In South Korea and the UK, in Qatar and Turkey, people who could hardly place Venezuela on the world map, were expressing their ‘strong opinions’, mocking and smearing the man who would later be revered as a Latin American hero. Even many of those who would usually ‘distrust’ mainstream media were then clearly convinced about the sinister nature of the Process and the ‘Bolivarian Revolution’.

History repeats itself.

Now President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines is demonized and ‘mistrusted’, ridiculed and dismissed as a demagogue, condemned as a rough element, mocked as a buffoon.

In his own country he is enjoying the highest popularity rating of any president in its history: at least well over 70 percent, but often even over 80 percent.

“Show me one woman or man who hates Duterte in this city”, smiles a city hall employee of Davao (located on the restive Mindanao Island) where Duterte served as a Mayor for 22 years. “I will buy that person an exquisite dinner, from my own pocket … that is how confident I am”.

“People of the Philippines are totally free now to express their opinions, to criticize the government”, explains Eduardo Tadem, a leading academic, Professorial Lecturer of Asian Studies (UP). “He says: ‘they want to protest? Good!’ People can rally or riot without any permit from the authorities.”

Like in the days of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, in the Philippines, the press, which is mainly owned by right-wing business interests and by pro-Western collaborators, is now reaching a crescendo, barking and insulting the President, inventing stories and spreading unconfirmed rumors, something unimaginable even in a place like the U.K. with its draconian ‘defamation’ laws.

So it is not fear that is securing the great support of the people for Duterte in his own country. It is definitely not fear!

I visited some of the toughest slums of the nation; I worked in the middle of deadly cemeteries, just recently battered by crime and drugs, where people had been literally rotting alive, crying for help and mercy in absolute desperation. I also spoke to the top academics and historians of the country, to former colleagues of Duterte and to overseas workers in the U.A.E. and elsewhere.

The louder was the hate speech from abroad and from local mass media outlets, the stronger Duterte’s nation stood by its leader.

Men and women who were just one year ago living in total desperation and anger were now looking forward with hope, straight towards the future. Suddenly, everything seemed to be possible!

In my first report this month I wrote: “There is a sense of change in those narrow and desperate alleys of the Baseco slum in the Philippines’ capital Manila. For the first time in many years a beautiful, noble lady visited; against all odds she decided to stay. Her name is Hope.”

I stand by my words, now more than ever.

However, I also feel that I have to explain in more detail what is really happening in the Philippines and why?

My only request, my appeal to all those people all over the planet who know nothing or very little about this part of the world in general and about the Philippines in particular, would be: ‘Please do not pass judgments based only on what you read in your own language and especially in English, and from the sources that have been, on so many occasions, and so thoroughly discredited. Come by yourself, come and see and listen. Like Venezuela many years ago, what is taking place in the Philippines is ‘an unknown territory’, an absolutely new concept. Something different and unprecedented, is developing, taking shape. This is like no other revolution that took place before. Do not take part in ridiculing it, do not help to choke it, do not do anything damaging before you come and see for yourself, before you face those pleading eyes of the millions of people who were defenseless and abused for so long and who are all of a sudden standing tall, facing life with great hope and pride”.

Do not participate in depriving them of their own country. For the first time, after centuries of brutal colonialism, it is truly theirs. I repeat: for the first time. Now!

Do not deprive them of hope: it is all that they have, and it is much more than anything they ever had in decades and centuries.

Fidel Castro used to say: “Revolution is not a bed of roses.”

Revolution is a tough, often very hard job. It is never perfect; it could never be. To destroy any deeply rooted evil system takes guts, and inevitably, blood is spilled.

Duterte is not as ‘poetic’ as Fidel. He is a Visaya, a brilliant but rough, candid and an outspoken man. Often he is hyperbolic. He likes to shock his listeners, followers and foes.

But who is he, really? Who is this man who is threatening to close down all US military bases, to reach permanent peace with the Communists and Muslim insurgents, to realign his foreign policy and ideology with China and Russia, and to save the lives of tens of millions of poor people of the Philippines?

In search for the answers, let’s listen to those who really matter – the people of the Philippines.

Let’s silence the toxic waterfall of insults and selected pieces of ‘information’, coming from defunct Western media outlets; let’s silence it by adopting ‘Duterte’s outrageous but honest lexicon: “You propaganda media of the West, you animal, fuck you!”

***

Who Is President Duterte, Really? Why Does He Swear So Much, Why Does He Insult Everyone, From President Obama To Such Mighty Institutions Like the U.N., the EU, Even the Pope?

“He comes from the South”, explains Ms. Luzviminda Ilagan, a former member of the Congress, and one of the country’s leading feminists:

“He is a Visaya. In Luzon, they speak Tagalog, they are ‘well-behaved’, and they look down at us. Politically, here we say ‘imperialist Manila’. Ironically, Mindanao contributes greatly to Manila’s coffers: there is extensive mining here, there are fruit plantations, rice fields; but very little is shared with us, in terms of the budgets…. And suddenly, here comes a Mayor from Davao, from the South, and he is even speaking the language that they hate. He is angry at the situation in his country, and he is swearing and cursing. It is cultural; after all, he is Visaya! In Manila and abroad, it is all misinterpreted: here you don’t swear at somebody; you just swear, period. Yes, he is different. He tells the truth, and he speaks our language.”

Why should he not be angry? Once the richest country in Asia, the Philippines is now one of the poorest. Its appalling slums are housing millions, and further millions are caught in a vicious cycle of drug addiction and crime. Crime rate is one of the highest on the continent. There is a brutal civil war with both Muslim and Communist rebels.

And for centuries, the West is mistreating and plundering this country with no shame and no mercy. Whenever the people decide to rebel, as it was the case more than a century ago, they are massacred like cattle. The US butchered 1/6 of the population more than a century ago, some 1.5 million men, women and children.

‘Dynasties’ are ruling undemocratically, with an iron fist.

“In the Congress, the House of Representatives and the Senate, some 74% of the seats are taken by members of local dynasties”, explains Prof. Roland Simbulan. “This is according to serious academic studies”.

Before President Duterte came to power, most of the social indicators were nearing the regional bottom. The country lost its voice, fully collaborating with the West, particularly against China.

An angry man, a socialist, President Duterte is outraged by the present and the past, but especially by the ruthlessness of Western imperialism.

He talks but above all he acts. He takes one decisive step after another. He pushes reforms further and further, he retreats when an entire project gets endangered. He is steering his ship through terrible storms, through the waters that were never navigated before.

One error and his entire revolution will go to hell. In that case, tens of millions of the poor will remain where they were for decades – in the gutter. One wrong move and his country will never manage to rise from its knees.

So he swears. So he is moving forward, cursing.

Why Does The West Want To Overthrow Duterte?

First of all, how could the United States and Europe not hate someone who is so out-rightly rejecting imperialism and the horrid colonialist past to which the Philippines was subjected for the centuries? To the past, however, we will return later in this essay.

A legendary academic, Prof Roland Simbulan, from the Department of Social Sciences of the University of the Philippines, explained, during our daylong encounter in Manila:

“Duterte reads a lot, and he admires Hugo Chavez. He is actually holding very similar positions as Chavez. He is strongly critical of Western imperialism in such places as Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. He cannot stand how the West is treating his own country.

He was always persistent in his anti-imperialist policy. Even as Mayor of Davao he banned all US-Philippine military exercises. The US negotiated; it offered plenty of money. It wanted to build a huge drone base in Mindanao, but Duterte refused.”

As ‘punishment’, two bombs exploded in Davao: one at the pier, one at the international airport.

Lately, he ordered to stop all US-Philippine joined military exercises and he keeps threatening to close all US military facilities on the territory of his country.

A couple consisting of leading Philippine Academics, Eduardo and Teresa Tadem, have no doubts about direction of Duterte’s foreign policy:

“The trend is clear: away from the West, towards China and Russia. We think that he will soon reach a territorial agreement with China. Plenty of goodwill is now coming from President Xi Jinping. Things are done quietly, but some great concessions are already visible: our fishermen are allowed to return to the disputed area. China is pledging foreign aid, investment, and it is promising to make our railways work again.”

All this is a nightmare for the aggressively anti-Chinese foreign policy of the West, particularly that of the United States. Provoking still the militarily weak China, eventually even triggering a military conflict with it, appears to be the main goal of Western imperialism. If the Philippines reach a compromise with China, Vietnam will most likely follow. The aggressive Asian anti-Chinese ‘coalition’ hammered together by the West, would then most likely collapse, consisting only of Taiwan, Japan and possibly South Korea.

“Duterte is just being sensible. What China is doing is defensive. The West is behind the confrontation”, explained a leading historian Dr. Rey Ileto:

“Just to put this into perspective: Gloria Arroyo – she visited China ahead of the US. She moved closer to China. They got her indicted for corruption! Only Duterte released her…”

To the West, Duterte’s Philippines is like a new Asian contagious disease; a virus that has to be contained, liquidated as soon as possible. Countless independent (at least on the paper) but in reality controlled and humiliated nations of the region could get otherwise inspired, rebel, and begin to follow Duterte’s example.

The West is in panic. Its propaganda machine is in full gear. Different strategies on how to unseat the ‘unruly’ president are being designed and tried. Local ‘elites’ and the NGOs are collaborating shamelessly.

Is Duterte Really A Socialist?


Yes and no, but definitely more yes than no. He is actually a self-proclaimed socialist, and for years, he has been forging extremely close links with the Marxists.

Prof. Roland Simbulan explains:

“When Duterte was a college student, he joined KM, the leftist student organization. He understands the ideology of the left. He also understands the roots of the insurgencies in his country, both Communist and Muslim. He keeps repeating: ‘you cannot defeat the insurgency militarily: you have to address socio-economic problems that has led to it.”

He invited Marxists into his administration, even before they asked him to join. He is gradually releasing political prisoners, who were captured and locked up during the previous administrations.

Professors Teresa and Eduardo Tadem agree:

“Social reforms are part of the peace talks. The fact that a Communist leader used to be Duterte’s professor is also helping. Duterte introduced a moratorium on land conversions, so the land of the peasants could be preserved for agriculture. Labor is also enjoying many good things. He is bringing an end to short contracts, to so called contractualisation. Basically, the government is trying to make sure that after people get hired, they get benefits, immediately.

There are many positive changes taking place in such a short time: environment, social issues, social justice, education, health, housing, science…”

Duterte recently sent his Health Secretary to Havana, to study the Cuban model. The visit was so successful that he is now planning to fly an entire government delegation, including the ministers, to the revolutionary island.

However, while he is certainly putting great accent on social justice and independent anti-imperialist foreign policy, there are still finances, trade and economic policies firmly in the hands of the pro-market ministers.

“When Duterte was a mayor”, explains Prof Simbulan, “he acted as a pragmatist, valuing harmony above all. However, one thing has to be remembered: whenever there arose some irreconcilable conflict between labor or indigenous people or the poor and big business or plantation owners, at the end he’d always take the side of the ‘small people’. This is how he managed to convince the left that he is one of them.”

In the brutal Baseco slum, built from rotting metal sheets and containers around the docks and shipyards, everyone seems to agree that the new President brought both hope and long overdue changes.

“Now people have free education here”, explains Ms. Imelda Rodriguez, a physiotherapist employed by the Department of Social Welfare and Development:

“There are also free ‘medical missions’ in this settlement, where people can get all sorts of check-ups and consultations. We also get certain cash allowances. The government creates jobs. Of course much more still has to be done, but there is undeniably great progress, already.”

Social progress is evident in the city of Davao, where Duterte served for 22 years as a mayor. Once a crime-ridden hellhole with collapsed social structure, Davao now is a modern and forward looking city, with relatively good social services and improving infrastructure, as well as new public parks and green areas.

“So many things got better for the poor people here”, explains the driver, taking me from the Municipality to my hotel. “In just two decades, the city became unrecognizable. We are now proud to be living here.”

At the City Government of Davao, Mr. Jefry M. Tupas showers me with the information and data I came to request: the resettlement areas for the poor and homeless people, the public housing for the rebels who recently surrendered, ‘slum improvement resettlements’; the number of projects is endless.

Like in the revolutionary countries of Latin America, the enthusiasm of the people involved in the ‘process’ is contagious and pure. At the medical centers doctors and nurses speak proudly about new immunization plans, free medicine for diabetes and high blood pressure, treatment of tuberculosis and family planning centers.

“Now we also hope that things will improve economically as a whole, if we don’t depend on the US, anymore”, says Ms. Luzviminda Ilagan. “If we now open up to much friendlier countries like China and Russia, there is great hope for all of us! Before, in Mindanao, we only had Western mining companies: from places like Australia and Canada. As a result, all profits went abroad, and Mindanao people are still dirt poor. Under President Duterte, all this is dramatically changing!”

Is Duterte Really A Mass Murderer?


If you read (exclusively) the Western and local right-wing press, you could be excused if you start to believe that Duterte is ‘personally responsible’ for some 5.000+ ‘murders’ in what is now customarily labeled as his ‘war on drugs’.

However, talk directly to the people of the Philippines, and you’ll get an absolutely different picture.

The Philippines before Duterte were overwhelmed by crime rates unseen anywhere else in Asia Pacific. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), in 2014 the homicide rate of the country stood at a staggering 9.9 per 100.000 inhabitants, compared to 2.3 in Malaysia, 3.9 in the United States, 5.9 in Kenya, 6.5 in Afghanistan, 7.5 in Zimbabwe and not much below war-torn countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo (13.5).

Drug gangs used to control the streets of all major cities. Very often, the military and police generals and other top brass were actually controlling the gangs.

The situation was clearly getting out of control, entire communities living in desperation and fear. For many, the cities were turning into real battlegrounds.

A driver taking me to the South Cemetery in Manila recalled: “In my neighborhood, we just had a horrid killing: a teenager got decapitated by a drug pusher…”

Profs Teresa and Eduardo Tadem explained:

“In Davao, the crime rate was horrible. Generally, in this country, people are so fed-up with crime that they’d support anything … Duterte encouraged the police to act. He is a lawyer, so he tries to stay within the legal limits. He says: ‘If they surrender, bring them in, if they resist, shoot!’ More than 5.000 died so far, but who is doing the killings? Often it is vigilantes, motorcycle gangs …”

Prof Roland Simbulan clarifies further:

“Many killings are taking place … We can never be sure who actually kills whom, whether for instance some rival drug lords do the killings in order to destroy their competition. In the Philippines we have terrible corruption, and even officers and generals are involved in the drug trade. Police periodically conducts raids, and then recycles captured drugs. Even the BBC interviewed gangs that confirmed the police gave them a list of whom to murder. What makes Duterte so vulnerable is his language, his strong words. What he says is very often misinterpreted.”

In the slums and cemeteries inhabited by the poorest of the poor, an overwhelming majority of the people would support much tougher measures than those implemented now. As I am told by the South Cemetery dwellers:

“Here we hate those who are investigating so called extrajudicial killings. They only care about the rights of the suspects. But we, good citizens who have been suffering so much for decades, weren’t protected at all, before this President got elected.”

In Davao, Ms. Luzviminda Ilagan is standing by her President, determinately:

“It is totally understandable why the President is waging a war on corruption and drugs. And if the opposition talks about the extrajudicial killings, it should be obliged to prove that they are actually committed on the orders of the authorities… Could it be proved?

“The situation is complicated, of course people are getting killed. But look at the numbers: they are much lower now than those during Benigno Aquino: during his administration, farmers, indigenous people and the urban poor were constantly murdered – people who were fighting for their basic human rights … And under Gloria, mining companies were actually given permission to enter the country and to kill those who stood in their way … Under the previous administrations, things got even worse: the military received an exceptional permission to deliver ‘security services’ to the mining companies’. All this is now changing!”

Even the most vitriolic critics of President Duterte, who are claiming that ‘his war on drugs’ killed over 5.000 people, now have to admit that the ‘itemization of the killings’ is ‘slightly’ more complicated. As reported by Al-Jazeera on December 13, 2016:

“Police records show 5,882 people were killed across the country since Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte took office on June 30. Of that number 2,041 drug suspects were killed during police operations from July 1 to December 6, while another 3,841 were killed by unknown gunmen from July 1 to November 30.”

So around 2,000 people died during battles between police and drug gangs, which are the deadliest and the most heavily armed in the entire Asia Pacific. Fair enough. Who are those ‘unknown gunmen’ and why is the mainstream press immediately pointing fingers at the president, relying only on the statements coming from his archenemies like Senator de Lima?

Isn’t the coverage of the Philippines by Western mainstream media becoming as ridiculous, propagandist and one-sided as that of Aleppo and Syria, as well as of the Russian involvement there?

Also, are Philippines local narcos being just mercilessly slaughtered, or should a little bit more be added to the story? Isn’t there something being constantly left out?

Peter Lee writes on the ‘rehabilitation’ of drug addicts and on China’s help:

“Another area of potential Philippine-PRC cooperation is PRC assistance in a crash program to rehabilitate the Philippine drug users who have turned themselves in to the police to avoid getting targeted by the death squads.

Though virtually unreported in the Western media, over 700,000 users have turned themselves in.

Let me repeat that. 700,000 drug users have turned themselves in.

And they presumably need to get a clean “rehab” chit to live safely in their communities, presenting a major challenge for the Philippines drug rehabilitation infrastructure. Duterte has called on the Philippine military to make base acreage available for additional rehab camps and the first one will apparently be at Camp Ramon Magsaysay.

Duterte has turned to the PRC to demand they fund construction of drug treatment facilities, and the PRC has obliged. According to Duterte and his spokesman, preparatory work for the Magsaysay facility has already begun.

There’s an amusing wrinkle here.

Magsaysay is the largest military reservation in the Philippines. It is also the jewel in the diadem, I might say, of the five Philippine bases envisioned for US use under EDCA, the Enhanced Defence Cooperation Agreement that officially returned US troops to Philippine bases. It looks like the US military might be sharing Magsaysay with thousands of drug users…and PRC construction workers.”

Duterte And Marcos

What shocked many recently was Duterte’s decision to re-bury former dictator Ferdinand Marcos at the ‘Heroes’ Cemetery’.

“Has the President gone mad?” asked some. “Is he joining some right-wing cult?” exclaimed others.

None of the above! President Duterte is a left-wing revolutionary, but he is also perfectly well aware that in the morally debased society controlled by vicious political clans and corrupt military and police officers and generals, one has to be a great chess player in order to survive, while pushing essential reforms forward.

“The move was not at all ideological”, clarifies Prof. Rolan Simbulan:

“It was clearly a pragmatic move. He took some money, and he openly admitted that he took some money for his election campaign … Then, in exchange for some votes he promised the burial of Ferdinand Marcos at the ‘Heroes’ Cemetery’. Marcos Junior wanted to run as his Vice-President, but he lost to Leni …”

Dr. Reynaldo Ileto, a leading historian, adds: “the Cemetery has bayani or the ‘hero’ name, but in fact it is a cemetery for almost all former presidents … The focus of the opposition on the Marcos burial is deliberate, it is to avoid real and important issues.”

“Duterte is stubborn”, Eduardo and Teresa Tadem told me:

“He made his promise to the Marcos family and he kept it … Does he admire Marcos? If he admires him for anything, it is only for being strong and uncompromising. Marcos brought the country to ruins, but after him, things never improved, and so he is judged positively by some sectors of society. But overall: Duterte’s decision to burry him at Bayani Cemetery was a gross miscalculation.”

“What is this never-ending obsession of so many people in the Philippines with Marcos?” I asked a leading left-wing journalist and thinker Benjie Oliveros. “Could it be compared to Peron in Argentina?”

“Oh yes”, he replied. “That seems to be a good comparison.”

“Duterte, a supporter of Marcos?” Luz Ilagan rolls her eyes:

“During the martial law, he was a prosecutor in Davao. He always protected the activists here. ‘Release them to me!’ he often ordered. He saved lives. His father served as a minor minister in Marcos’ government, before the martial law, but his mother played a very important role in the protest movement. She was a vocal, a fearless woman … She had huge influence on her son.”

Does Duterte Really Despise Women?


Again, it has to be remembered that Duterte is a Visaya man. He is outspoken, often graphic and definitely ‘politically incorrect’.

Duterte made comments about the attractiveness of the knees and legs of his Vice-President Leni Robredo, and he accused his vocal critic Senator Leila de Lima of sleeping with her driver (it was later proven that the liaison really existed).

In this staunchly Catholic country, Duterte annulled the marriage with his first wife (they parted amicably), had several affairs, and now lives with his common–law wife.

All this is too much for some, but surprisingly, he is actually admired by most of the women.

“When he makes jokes about women, in Manila they can’t take it”, laughs Luz Illagan, who is one of the leading feminists in the country:

“But we always compare his words to his deeds, to what he has done for our women. He always helped; he always protected us. His Davao got awards for being a women-sensitive city. He created the ‘integrated gender development office’, the first one in the Philippines, and other cities are now copying the concept. Every year, before the Women’s Day celebration, women evaluate the performance of the office, and they submit a new agenda. Everything is very transparent.”

In an international hotel in Sharjah, United Arab Emirates, I spoke to a group of women workers from the Philippines. What do they think about their new president?

While answering (and they did not hesitate to answer for one second), I realized that two of them had tears in their eyes:

“For the first time in our lives, we feel proud to belong to our country. Duterte gave us our dignity back. He gave us hope. To say that we support him would be to say too little. We love him; we feel enormous gratitude. He is liberating us; he is liberating our country!”

Duterte And The Past Of The Philippines


President Duterte is not only outraged about the present, he is furious about the past.

“American scholarship in the Philippines – it created an entire mindset”, explained Dr. Reynaldo Ileto to me in Manila. “The America-Philippine War is a non-event; people don’t know about it. Everything was ‘sanitized’”.

“We still have not recovered from the hangover caused by US colonialism”, sights a novelist Sionil Jose.

US colonialism was nothing less than genocide.

Alfonso Velázquez wrote:

“Between the years 1899 and 1913 the United States of America wrote the darkest pages of its history. The invasion of the Philippines, for no other reason than acquiring imperial possessions, prompted a fierce reaction of the Filipino people. 126000 American soldiers were brought in to quell the resistance. As a result, 400000 Filipino “insurrectos” died under American fire and one million Filipino civilians died because of the hardship, mass killings and scorched earth tactics carried out by the Americans. In total the American war against a peaceful people who fairly ignored the existence of the Americans until their arrival wiped out 1/6 of the population of the country. One hundred years have passed. Isn’t it high time that the USA army, Congress and Government apologised for the horrendous crimes and monstruous sufferings that were inflicted upon the peoples of Filipinas?”

Gore Vidal confirmed:

“The comparison of this highly successful operation with our less successful adventure in Vietnam was made by, among others, Bernard Fall, who referred to our conquest of the Philippines as “the bloodiest colonial war (in proportion to population) ever fought by a white power in Asia; it cost the lives of 3,000,000 Filipinos.” (cf. E. Ahmed’s “The Theory and Fallacies of Counter-Insurgency,” The Nation, August 2, 1971.) General Bell himself, the old sweetheart, estimated that we killed one-sixth of the population of the main island of Luzon—some 600,000 people.

Now a Mr. Creamer quotes a Mr. Hill (“who grew up in Manila,” presumably counting skulls) who suggests that the bodycount for all the islands is 300,000 men, women, and children—or half what General Bell admitted to.

I am amused to learn that I have wandered “so far from easily verified fact.” There are no easily verified facts when it comes to this particular experiment in genocide. At the time when I first made reference to the 3,000,000 (NYR, October 18, 1973), a Filipino wrote me to say she was writing her master’s thesis on the subject. She was inclined to accept Fall’s figures but she said that since few records were kept and entire villages were totally destroyed, there was no way to discover, exactly, those “facts” historians like to “verify.” In any case, none of this is supposed to have happened and so, as far as those history books that we use to indoctrinate the young go, it did not happen.”

It was reported that in September 2016, at the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) Summit which was also attended by President Obama, Duterte produced a picture of the killings done by American soldiers in the past and said: “This is my ancestor[s that] they killed.”

I visited several bookstores in Manila, including National and Solidaridad. In both places the staff looked baffled when I asked about books dealing with the massacres committed by US troops on the territory of the Philippines.

All this may change now, soon. Duterte is openly speaking about US colonialist wars and invasions, about the massacres in Luzon and Mindanao Islands.

For decades, the US was portraying itself as the ‘liberator’ of the Philippines. Now, Duterte depicts it as a country of mass murderers, rapists and thieves. According to him, the countries of the West have no moral mandate to criticize anybody for violations of human rights. He described President Obama as a son-of-a-bitch. He shouted ‘Fuck you!’ at the European Union. He has had enough of hypocrisy.

In this part of the world, such emotional outbursts could ignite rebellion. I have worked in Southeast Asia for many years, and I know what a thick blanket of lies covers the history of the region.

Southeast Asia lost tens of millions of people in the midst of outrageous, brutal European colonialism. It lost millions in Indochina (Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos) during the so-called ‘Vietnam War’ (or ‘American War’ as it is known in Vietnam). Between 1 and 3 million Indonesians vanished during the US-sponsored coup in Jakarta in 1965/66, and the genocide in the Philippines took nearly 1.5 million fighters-patriots, but mostly civilians. The East Timorese lost around one third of its entire population, after Indonesia invaded, backed by the US, UK and Australia.

Such history is as explosive as dynamite. I have spoken to hundreds of people in this part of the world. They keep quiet, but they remember. They know who the real murderers are, who their real enemies are.

President Duterte is not only playing with fire. He is also re-writing and changing the entire twisted Western narrative. The whole region is watching, breathless. Both horror and hope are detectable in the air, and so are the strong smells of blood and dynamite.

PH Not A Vassal State: Duterte


“I am anti-West. I do not like the Americans. It’s simply a matter of principle for me.” That’s how President Duterte sees the world: it is simple, reduced to the essence. He further clarifies:

“The PH is not a vassal state, we have long ceased to be a colony of the US. Alam mo, marami diyang mga columnista they look upon Obama and the US as we are the lapdogs of this country. I do not respond to anybody but to the people of the Republic of the Philippines. Wala akong pakialam sa kanya. Who is he to confront me, as a matter of fact, America has one too many to answer for the misdeeds in this country.”

He said to Chinese officials, during his visit on October 20, 2016:

“I announce my separation from the United States, both in military but economics also. America has lost now. I’ve realigned myself in your ideological flow. And maybe I will also go to Russia to talk to Putin and tell him that there are three of us against the world: China, Philippines and Russia. It’s the only way.”

A deafening applause followed.

Duterte actually talked to President Putin on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Leaders’ Meeting in Lima, Peru, in November 2016.

The new era for the Philippines has begun: cooperation with China, Russia, Cuba, and Vietnam. A growing distance between this huge and important archipelago, and the West.

He calls Americans “sons of bitches” and “hypocrites”, and he tells the superpower straight in the face:

“We can survive without American money. But you know, America, you might also be put to notice. Prepare to leave the Philippines, prepare for the eventual repeal or the abrogation of the Visiting Forces Agreement… You know, tit for tat. It ain’t a one-way traffic. Bye-bye America.”

What About Trump?

These days, to be a friend of the West is a terrible liability. A leader from a colonized country could be easily discredited by just one friendly phrase, one friendly gesture towards some US or UK official, towards the Western regime, or its corporation.

The Western mass media is well aware of it.

That is why, when President Duterte spoke on the phone with President elect Donald Trump, it immediately began reporting that the two men are on a similar wavelength.

Hardly. Once Mr. Trump begins his reign, President Duterte’s close ties with China, Cuba and other socialist countries will soon reinstate his name on the extended hit list of the Empire’s regime. He already is on it, under Obama’s administration (even the coup attempts plotted from the US were already exposed and stopped). It would be a miracle if the racist and anti-Chinese/anti-Asian Donald Trump would actually decide to spare an anti-imperialist Southeast Asian leader.

Duterte and Trump are still talking politely. Duterte even offered a compliment to his US counterpart: “”I like your mouth, it’s like mine”. Well, hardly a proof of warming-up of the relationship between two countries.

My Filipino colleagues kept warning me: “Please do not read commentaries of the pro-Western media. If you want to judge, demand the full transcript of the conversation … Is there actually any transcript available?”

In the meantime, Washington is sugarcoating the obvious bitterness of the relationship between the US and the Philippines. The new US envoy, Ambassador Sung Kim, a Korean-American, is all smiles and ‘respect’:

“For me the most meaningful, the most fundamental is the deep and extraordinary warmth in the peoples of the two countries …”

What could President Duterte reply to this? Definitely not: Fuck you, son of a bitch!” In Asia, courtesy is met with courtesy. However, no matter what, each week, the Philippines are moving further away from the West, as planned and as foretold.

Who Hates Duterte And Who Is Afraid Of Him?


As we established earlier, the West hates him, and especially those there who are trying to trigger wars with China and Russia. Duterte admires both countries, saying that China has “the kindest soul of all”, while openly admiring Russian President Vladimir Putin. “(Russians) they do not insult people, they do not interfere,” Duterte declared.

Big multinational corporations hate him, particularly those huge mining conglomerates that were operating in the Philippines for years and decades, murdering thousands of defenseless Filipino people, plundering natural resources and devastating the environment. President Duterte is putting a full stop to such, feudal, fascist lawlessness.

He is hated by the mass media, at home and abroad, for ‘understandable reasons’.

He is hated by many local and international NGOs, often because they are simply paid to hate him, or because they mean well but are badly informed about the situation “on the ground” (in his country), or simply because they are accustomed to using the Western perspectives to judge occurrences in all corners of the world.

Some victims of the Marcos dictatorship hate him, but definitely not all of them. Many present-day ‘activists’ have actually too close ties with the West, at least for my taste. Ms. Susan D. Macabuag, who is in charge of Bantayog ng mga Bayani (A Tribute To Martial Law Heroes and Martyrs) and a person whom I met on several previous occasions, is not hiding her antipathy towards the President:

“It is pity it is Duterte who is saying things that he says about the US … If another person would say it, it would go a long way.”

She then made several statements illustrating her dislike of China. Later she added:

“My son lives in the US. Many of us have families in the United States. We are very concerned about the situation …”

For a while, I was trying to figure out what exactly she meant, but then I decided to let it go.

At a small but iconic intellectual bookstore Solidaridad, I met the most respected living novelist of the Philippines, F. Sionil Jose, who was just celebrating his 92st birthday. For a while, we spoke about Russia, about Indonesia, about the modern literature. Then I asked him point blank: “Do you like President Duterte?”

“I like him, and I don’t like him”, replied an iconic author, evasively, while smiling. “But I have to say: he is a narcissist.”

Ms. Leni Robredo, Duterte’s vice-President (and former MP and HR lawyer), hates her boss. Constitutionally, he couldn’t fire her as a Vice-President, so he at least blocked her from attending his regular cabinet meetings earlier in December. (‘He doesn’t trust her, anymore.’ He believes that her party tries to depose him). Later she resigned from her position as a chairperson of the Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council (HUDCC), and began gathering forces against Duterte’s administration.

“There are so many of us against the policies of the president. I hope I will be able to portray the role of unifying all the discordant voices,” Robredo told Reuters in an interview at her office in Manila’s Quezon City.

Ms. Robredo is an important figure in the “yellow” Liberal Party. As early as on September 13, 2016, Inquirer reported:

“Without directly mentioning the LP, Duterte on Monday accused “yellow” forces of mounting moves to impeach him by highlighting the issue of human rights violations under his administration.

“Let’s not fool ourselves. Do you know who’s behind this? It’s the yellow,” the President said, referring to the LP’s political color.”

On December 5th, I met historian Dr. Reynaldo Ileto in Manila, who said: “Leni is tugging the same (Western) policy on the South China Sea…”

We discussed the “color revolutions” triggered by the West, and the pattern: Ukraine, Brazil, Argentina, and Arroyo in the Philippines, after she dared to move closer to China. Will Robredo try to do to Duterte what Temer did to Dilma? Is there going to be yet another ‘revolution’ in the name of some ‘anti-corruption drive’ or ‘human rights’?

Dynasties, powerful political and business clans, also hate President Duterte. Of course they do! In the past, I got to know them, gained ‘access’ to some. I was shown how they operate: shamelessly, brutally and with total impunity.

The dynasties had been killing and raping those who stood in their way. They have been plundering the country for centuries. Like in Central America (the Spanish and US colonialist legacies) they never hesitated to sacrifice thousands, even millions of ‘peons’.

The top military brass, educated in the United States and elsewhere in the West, hates him. It actually hates him passionately.

He is hated by millions of Filipinos living in the United States. He has to be careful while dealing with some of them. Recently, in the city of Davao, President Duterte declared:

“Better be careful with the word ‘we separate or severed, severed our diplomatic relations’. (It) is not feasible. Why? Because the Filipinos in the United States will kill me.”

In fact, he is hated by so many from the ‘elites’ and by so many in the West, that it appears to be a miracle that he is still alive and in charge.

The coup plots have been exposed. Entire Western mainstream propaganda apparatus has been employed in order to weaken and to discredit him.

He does not care. He is now 71. His is in poor health. He does not believe that he will make it till the end of his term. He is a warrior. He never kneels in front of the former or present colonizers. Recently, he said:

“I do not kneel down before anybody else, except the Filipino in Quiapo walking in misery and in extreme poverty and anger.”

That is what Chavez, Morales or Fidel would say. That is what gets people murdered by the Empire, by the Western regime. As simple as that!

***

The Empire knows what is at stake. The Philippines is a nation with more than 100 million inhabitants, strategically located on some of the most important maritime routes. It used to be one of the most obedient, and resigned countries in Asia Pacific.

It is no more! Its people are suddenly waking up, defiant and angry. The West has been killing, plundering and humiliating them for centuries. The education had been twisted to glorify invaders. The culture was stripped of its essence, and injected with deadly doses of Western pop.

Again and again I was told that if President Duterte is killed or deposed, the country would explode. There would be a civil war. Once rebellion ignites millions of souls, no way back is possible.

Unless some people have failed to notice by now, this is a genuine revolution. It is an extremely slow and painful revolution. It is not a ‘beautiful’, or operatic revolution. But a revolution it is.

“If Duterte moves too fast, he will be overthrown by the military”, uttered Prof Roland Simbulan.

Duterte says “Bye-bye America!” He is cancelling common military exercises, while he is also talking to Donald Trump, politely. The atmosphere is extremely tense. Anything could happen at any moment: an assassination, a coup … It is a minefield all around him, almost right there, under his feet.

He is aware of it. This is how history is written; with blood, with one’s own blood.

What is taking place in Manila now is not a board meeting of some Western-sponsored human rights NGO. It is a striking, shocking image of a huge, scarred, tortured nation, getting up from its deathbed, still covered by blood and puss, but suddenly daring to hope for survival, angry and defiant but determined to live, to prevail.

In order to live, it will have to dare, to fight, perhaps against all odds.

In the middle of the horrid cemeteries inhabited by the wretched human beings, I witnessed hope. I testify that I did. Those who don’t believe me, those who do not understand, should go and see with their own eyes. They should go to the horrendous Baseco slum, and to the city of Davao. Then they can speak. Otherwise, they should be quiet!

I testify that the Philippines is a country in rebellion, galvanized by one man and his tremendous determination and courage.

Is he a saint? No, he is not. He himself says that he is not. Anyway, I don’t believe in saints, do you? Duterte cannot afford to be a saint. There is more than one hundred million men, women and children behind him, clinging to his back, right now … most of them very poor, most of them robbed of absolutely everything.

If he gets through the storm, most of them will survive, will benefit. Therefore, exhausted and injured, he is marching forward. His fists are clenched, he is cursing. He has no right to fail or to fall. He has to, he is obliged to get through: in the name of one hundred million of his people.

As he hears insults, feels punches, as he envisions assassins waiting for him all along the way, most likely he keeps repeating in his mind what his great hero, Hugo Chavez used to shout until the very end: “Here No One Surrenders!”
Join the debate on Facebook

Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. Three of his latest books are revolutionary novel “Aurora” and two bestselling works of political non-fiction: “Exposing Lies Of The Empire” and “Fighting Against Western Imperialism”. View his other books here. Andre is making films for teleSUR and Al-Mayadeen. After having lived in Latin America, Africa and Oceania, Vltchek presently resides in East Asia and the Middle East, and continues to work around the world. He can be reached through his website and his Twitter.
User avatar
Morty
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 10:53 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: President Duterte of the Philippines for Dummies

Postby seemslikeadream » Fri Dec 23, 2016 5:24 pm

Philippines President War on Drugs Has Left Thousands Dead

Rodrigo Duterte Says Donald Trump Endorses His Violent Antidrug Campaign

Donald Trump and Rodrigo Duterte, BFFs: Murderous Philippine strongman is who Trump would love to be

Duterte: Trump says Philippines tackling drug problem 'the right way'


viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40237&p=623367&hilit=President+Duterte#p623367
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: President Duterte of the Philippines for Dummies

Postby Morty » Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:29 pm

seemslikeadream wrote:Philippines President War on Drugs Has Left Thousands Dead

Rodrigo Duterte Says Donald Trump Endorses His Violent Antidrug Campaign

Donald Trump and Rodrigo Duterte, BFFs: Murderous Philippine strongman is who Trump would love to be

Duterte: Trump says Philippines tackling drug problem 'the right way'


viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40237&p=623367&hilit=President+Duterte#p623367


ABC, NY Times, CNN, Salon - good representative examples of the kind of treatment Duterte receives in the western media.
User avatar
Morty
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 10:53 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: President Duterte of the Philippines for Dummies

Postby seemslikeadream » Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:49 pm

Duterte: Congress, SC should have no say on martial law
By Patricia Lourdes Viray (philstar.com) | Updated December 23, 2016 - 11:35am


Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte shows a medal during his speech to troops during the 81st anniversary of the Armed Forces of the Philippines at Camp Aguinaldo military headquarters in Quezon city, north of Manila, Philippines on Wednesday, Dec. 21, 2016. AP/Aaron Favila
MANILA, Philippines — President Rodrigo Duterte wants to amend the provisions in the 1987 Constitution that check a president's power to declare and implement martial law.
http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2016/ ... artial-law


In the latest in a long line of controversial statements, Rodrigo Duterte, the 71-year-old president of the Philippines, admitted on Monday that he used to ride around on a motorbike seeking confrontation. As mayor of Davao from 2013-2016, Duterte claimed, he would cruise the city searching for trouble – “so I could kill” – and hoped to show police officers how it was done.
https://news.vice.com/story/president-d ... hilippines
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: President Duterte of the Philippines for Dummies

Postby seemslikeadream » Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:54 pm

you like RT don't you Morty?

Philippines President Duterte should be impeached after confessing he killed suspects – senators
https://www.rt.com/news/370509-duterte- ... -senators/

maybe you like guelphmercury. :shrug:

I don't know about them

Nearly 1,800 have been killed in seven weeks of Philippines President Duterte’s war on drugs

http://www.guelphmercury.com/news-story ... -on-drugs/


on edit

how about Amnesty International?

Philippines: Duterte’s 100 days of carnage

7 October 2016, 10:23 UTC

Almost 100 days after Rodrigo Duterte became president of the Philippines, a wave of unlawful killings has already claimed more than 3,000 lives, shattering progress on human rights in the country, Amnesty International said today.

“Rodrigo Duterte’s first 100 days as president have been marked by state-sanctioned violence on a truly shocking scale
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/ ... f-carnage/


ya know what I like TYT..I really don't care if you do or not


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyTv0qbj4xI



I don't know Bangkokpost either :shrug:

Philippines rights body to probe Duterte killing boast

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/asia/11 ... ling-boast
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: President Duterte of the Philippines for Dummies

Postby Morty » Fri Dec 23, 2016 7:17 pm

Since this is my thread, I'd like to make a request that all people wishing to comment here should take the time to read the OP article. All of it. Thank you, that is all.
User avatar
Morty
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 10:53 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: President Duterte of the Philippines for Dummies

Postby seemslikeadream » Fri Dec 23, 2016 7:21 pm

And it's far worse than most media report.


What do you think of James Warren and Al Jazeera?

Reporters take on grisly, government-approved murders

By James Warren • December 12, 2016


The American press duly notes Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte's barbarous crackdown on alleged drug dealers, addicts and enablers — perhaps 5,800 summary executions by both his cops and vigilantes since early summer.

And it's far worse than most media report.

Outlets of very different sensibilities — Foreign Policy and Al Jazeera — now take audiences far deeper into this horror. They include looks at the killers, the self-justifying police and the substantial public support for what's playing out.

For starters, Filipina journalist Ana Santos profiles Ronald dela Rosa, director general of the Philippine National Police (PNP), who is President Rodrigo Duterte's chief executioner and, yes, "treated more like a rock star than a policeman." (Foreign Policy)

"Women sometimes scream or cry tears of joy when they see him; crowds flock to him in public, forcing his own men to huddle around him to protect him from adoring hands. A trail of fans follows him around the country."

Sure, worldwide outrage is inspired by photos of bodies whose faces are wrapped in packaging tape like mummies and adorned with cardboard signs labeling them "pushers" or "drug dealers."

But Santos details how dela Rosa, known as "Bato," or The Rock, is "seen as a hero."

Then, even more telling, we have this: an 18-minute Al Jazeera story that ran on AJ+, the network's online news and current events channel. It puts to shame most of what you've likely seen on American television, if you've seen anything at all, since network foreign reporting these days is largely relegated to fleeting mention of "The Battle for Aleppo."

It's the nervy work of reporter Jason Motlagh, a reporting fellow at the Washington-based Pulitzer Center. As Tom Hundley, a Pulitzer official and former stellar Chicago Tribune foreign correspondent, puts it to me, Motlagh and Santos "offer a jarring look inside the state-sanctioned killing spree."

Most of all, there's a seemingly sweet young woman who, we learn, is part of a husband-wife hit squad. She goes on camera (her face largely hidden) to explain to Motlagh how and why she kills for $150 per hit ($400 for a big-time pusher) — and does so at the behest of a "senior police officer" who's protecting his own drug business. Her husband does the driving, she pulls the trigger.

They also assassinate some who have surrendered voluntarily, she says, since they might leak that same senior officer's name. "The problem is if my boss is named, those who are above him might also be named."

Does she feel even a smidgen of remorse? "Those we kill are not good people, are not regular people, they are the wicked ones…We are just cleaning the trash, and they are the trash. They should be erased from the world."

Is she for real? On Sunday I tracked down Motlagh, who's 35 and lives in Oakland, California and was determined to tell "a dark, deeply personal" tale that would stand apart from much previous coverage.

He followed photographers to one murder and tracked down the victim's relatives' effort to raise money for the wake. Along the way, his fixer (herself a veteran journalist) arranged the one-hour interview.

"At one point she recounted how she seduced and killed a drunk target with a knife stab to the neck," Motlagh said. "It's hard to believe someone as soft-spoken and slight could be capable of such cool violence, but her words rang true."

Motlagh's sense is that "she wanted there to be some record of her exploits because she herself fears for her life. Having killed so many people on behalf of a corrupt senior police officer, it follows that she could be eliminated for her knowledge in this climate of impunity. She has killed many others for precisely this reason."

Then there are the journalists there who cover all this on a routine basis, not just come in briefly, as did Motlagh.

One photographer (on camera, no scarf over his face) told Motlagh that many newspapers and other media outlets don't show shots of deaths scenes. They're just too terrifying.

"At times when you go home, you don't want to even edit the images you shot, when you see the faces, the look of the eyes of the dead," he says. "It leave a mark with you."

The Philippine’s Drug Problem: Hitmen, Dealers And Duterte’s War On Addicts

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atuqx5Ubr5o
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: President Duterte of the Philippines for Dummies

Postby seemslikeadream » Fri Dec 23, 2016 7:43 pm

I suppose you're not happy with Telesur?

Philippine's War on Drugs Kills 34 in 4 Days
A member of the Philippine National Police shows confiscated methamphetamine seized from suspected drug pushers by the police in metro Manila, Philippines.

Published 4 July 2016

Duterte's tough talk is not just talk, raising concerns of a return to the country's despotic past.
Thirty "drug dealers" have been killed since Rodrigo Duterte was inaugurated and promptly encouraged communist guerrillas and civilians to seek vigilante justice against traffickers.

Oscar Albayalde, police chief for the Manila region, said five drug dealers were killed Sunday in a gun battle with police in a shanty town near the presidential palace.

"My men were about to serve arrest warrants when shots rang out from one of the houses in the area," Albayalde told reporters, saying police returned fire and killed five men.

Four guns and 200 grams of crystal methamphetamine were recovered. Three others who police described as traffickers were killed in the greater Manila area on Sunday and 22 were killed in four areas outside the capital, police told reporters. Police said they seized nearly US$20 million in narcotics as a result of the raids.

Duterte won the election in May on a platform of crushing crime, but his incendiary rhetoric and advocacy of extrajudicial killings have raised fears of a return to the the country's authoritarian past. Duterte was largely conciliatory in his inauguration speech, but the following day, urged communist rebel groups, and even civilians, to take the law into their own hands and rid their communities of drug traffickers.

Since the election, more than 100 people have died in stepped up anti-crime police operations. Police have described all of the dead as drug dealers, rapists and car thieves.

Edre Olalia, secretary-general of the National Union of People's Lawyers, said the killings must be halted.

"The drug menace must stop. Yet the apparent serial summary executions of alleged street drug users or petty drug lords which appear sudden, too contrived and predictable must also stop," he said in a statement. "The two are not incompatible."

In the north of the main island of Luzon, drug enforcement agents and police seized a shipment of 400 pounds of "shabu" (methamphetamine) worth about US$19.23 million from either China or Taiwan, national police chief Ronald dela Rosa said.

The shipment was unloaded at sea and brought to shore by small fishing boats before delivery to Manila's Chinatown, he said.

On Sunday, the longstanding Maoist-led New People's Army rebels issued a statement supporting Duterte's all-out war against drugs, saying it might conduct its own drug operations against soldiers, police and local officials.
http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/P ... -0017.html




Philippines' Duterte Urges Maoists to Kill Drug Traffickers

Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte won May's election in a landslide after a campaign dominated by his pledge to end crime within six months. | Photo: AFP

Published 1 July 2016

Civilians should feel free to kill addicts, the president says.
A day after an inagural address in which he tried to assuage fears that he would skirt the law to root out crime, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte on Friday urged Maoist rebels to kill both drug traffickers and addicts.

"Drugs have reached the hinterlands ... what if you use your kangaroo courts to kill them to speed up the solution to our problem," the 71-year-old Duterte said in a speech before the military's top brass in Manila.

His remarks were intended for any number of left-wing insurgencies — including the communist New People’s Army, or NPA — that are engaged in a grueling five-decades war with the government that has resulted in the deaths of more than 120,000 people and left 2 million internally displaced. A former local prosecutor, Duterte won May's election in a landslide after a campaign in which he pledged to end crime within six months, in large measure by providing security forces with a shoot-to-kill mandate.

In his inauguration speech on Thursday, Duterte seemed to backtrack from his campaign stance by insisting that his adherence to the rule of law was "uncompromising," an effort, many observers surmised, to reassure human rights groups that he had no plans to orchestrate mass extrajudicial killings.


But speaking to roughly 500 people late Friday evening in a Manila slum, Duterte called on insurgents to try suspected drug traffickers in guerrilla court, and then carry out summary executions. He exhorted ordinary Filipinos in the audience to take matters in their own hands as well.

"If you know of any addicts, go ahead and kill them yourself," Duterte said.

With Duterte's encouragement, police had already killed dozens of alleged or suspected drug traffickers between his May 9 election victory and Thursday's inauguration.
http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/P ... -0015.html



Philippines Swears in New President Linked to Death Squads
President Rodrigo Duterte delivers his inaugural speech as the President of the Philippines at the Malacanang Palace in Manila, June 30, 2016.
President Rodrigo Duterte delivers his inaugural speech as the President of the Philippines at the Malacanang Palace in Manila, June 30, 2016. | Photo: Reuters

Published 30 June 2016

Rodrigo Duterte's campaign was dominated by promises to fiercely crack down on drugs and crime.
Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte, nicknamed “The Punisher” for his iron-fisted, extrajudicial crackdown on crime, was sworn in to the country’s top office in Manila on Thursday after whooping the main establishment candidates in the presidential race in May.

The incendiary new president promised in a speech after taking his pledge at the presidential palace to be “relentless” in tackling corruption, crime, and drugs in the Southeast Asian country.

“I see the erosion of the people's trust in our country's leaders, the erosion of faith in our judicial system, the erosion of confidence in the capacity of our public servants to make the people's lives better, safer and healthier," he said.

But many fear that Duterte’s policies and outright defense of killing criminals and journalists will spark a downward spiral of violence that will make the country less safe and less healthy. In the little more than a month since Duterte won the election on May 9, the Philippines has seen a deadly spike in the number of police and vigilante killings, which now average one per day.

The president’s campaign benefited from voter dissatisfaction with the failure of establishment politicians to effectively address poverty and inequality in the fastest growing Southeast Asian economy, but he said Thursday that the details of his economic policies are yet to come.

The former seven-term mayor of the southern city of Davao admitted in his inauguration speech that many of his critics believe his zero tolerance approaches to crime “are unorthodox and verge on the illegal.”

As mayor of Davao for 22 years, Duterte was known for his tough-on-crime policies and linked to death squad activity.

He has denied any connection to vigilante killings.

According to human rights groups cited by Reuters, death squads have killed at least 1,400 people in Davao in the past 18 years, targeting drug traffickers, drug addicts, street children and small-time criminals.

The swearing-in ceremony was reportedly muted in pomp and circumstance in everything from Duterte’s choice of attire to the menu compared to the inauguration of previous presidents. As Reuters reported, Duterte’s rough approach and extreme, profanity-littered rhetoric have shown that “there is little about him that is conventionally presidential.”

Duterte has said he wants more economic equality for the Philippines, but his extreme positions on killing criminals and justifying journalists as targets of assassination have alarmed many by harkening back to the country’s authoritarian past under martial law.

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/P ... -0004.html
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: President Duterte of the Philippines for Dummies

Postby Morty » Fri Dec 23, 2016 7:53 pm

I think you should read the OP before you make any more posts, slad.
User avatar
Morty
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 10:53 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: President Duterte of the Philippines for Dummies

Postby seemslikeadream » Fri Dec 23, 2016 10:15 pm

Stray Bullets: Guns in the Philippines
As the new Philippines government takes an uncompromising line on crime, will it finally end rampant gun violence?
24 Oct 2016 15:07 GMT Philippines, Gun violence, Gun control

Ten years ago, in November 2006, Al Jazeera English was launched. To mark that anniversary, we've created REWIND, which updates some of the channel's most memorable and award-winning documentaries of the past decade. We find out what happened to some of the characters in those films and ask how their stories have developed in the years since our cameras left.

In 2014, 101 East went to investigate gun culture in the Philippines, where love for firearms is not restricted to the country's most crime-ridden neighbourhoods.

In "Stray Bullets", the question at the time was whether recently introduced guns laws were going to put an end to the gun violence then plaguing the Philippines.

As REWIND discovers, it is an issue that current events have made just as relevant today - with a new Philippines government taking an uncompromising line on crime.

Steve Chao returned to Manila to see what has changed since the documentary was made, and especially since President Rodrigo Duterte came to power. He talks to Jose Manuel Diokno, a human rights lawyer, about Duterte's war on drugs and its effect on gun violence.

"What we are seeing is really justice dispensed from the barrel of a gun. Overnight, the country has been transformed into a police state, and every day you open the newspapers and all you see is that people are being killed," Diokno says.

"These steps will in the end lead to more chaos and anarchy in my view. The Philippines has a weak legal system ... If the problem is a weak legal system, then taking the law into your own hands is going to make that system weaker. And the weaker it gets, the more there will be a need to maintain order, and that order will only come from an authoritatian form of government."
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/rew ... 03002.html



Diokno to Duterte: Your plan is anti-poor, anti-life
Author: Margaux Torres
UPDATED: 6 MONTHS AGO

Human rights lawyer Jose Manuel Diokno blasted Rodrigo Duterte’s plan to restore the death penalty in the Philippines and order a shoot-to-kill policy against criminals, calling these plans as anti-poor and anti-life.

Diokno said that the poor are more vulnerable to getting the death penalty sentence and suffering the shoot-to-kill policy due to their lack of voice, power, and influence in the country. The poor also do not have the resources to get the best lawyers in the country which could also make them more vulnerable to the death penalty.

The human rights lawyer explained that 73 percent of the 1,121 inmates on death row in 2006 earned less than P10,000 every month while 81 percent had low-income jobs. He also noted the Supreme Court’s revelation that 71 percent of death penalty sentences handed down by courts were incorrectly imposed.

Amnesty International (AI) – a global movement that promotes human rights – recently gave a warning about the consequences of reinstating the death penalty in the Philippines.

Diokno to Duterte: Your plan is anti-poor, anti-life
(Photo credit: inquirer.net)
He also cited numerous studies all over the world that show how the death penalty is not the key to stopping crime. Giving citizens their basic needs, improving law enforcement, and implementing significant reforms in the judiciary are the best ways to decrease the crime rate in the country, Cabarde added.

Duterte has also found opposition to his plans to reinstate death penalty from the Catholic Church. Aside from the Catholic teaching that it is a mortal sin to kill a person, the Church added that there are also too many wrongful convictions that happen in the Philippines which could lead to the deaths of innocent people.
https://kami.com.ph/11806-diokno-dutert ... -life.html




Philippines' top lawyer urges police to embrace Rodrigo Duterte's calls and kill more criminals
Updated 11 Jul 2016, 7:49pm
The Philippine Government's top lawyer has called for police to kill more suspected drug criminals, as he defended President Rodrigo Duterte's brutal war on crime against mounting criticism.

Key points:

Police have killed more than 110 people since Duterte won elections
Country's top lawyer says police haven't killed enough
Human rights lawyers warn against creating country without judges
Police have confirmed killing more than 110 suspects since Mr Duterte won elections in May promising a law-and-order crackdown that would claim thousands of lives and fill funeral parlours.

As the official death toll has mounted, and other bodies not confirmed killed by police have been found with placards declaring them drug traffickers, human rights lawyers and some politicians have expressed deep concerns about the war on crime spiralling out of control.

In response to the criticism, Solicitor-General Jose Calida held a press conference on Monday at national police headquarters to insist on the legality of the police killings and to encourage more deaths of people suspected of being involved in the drug trade.

"To me, that is not enough," Mr Calida said of the killings so far.

"How many drug addicts or pushers are there in the Philippines? Our villages are almost saturated [with drugs]."

Mr Duterte, who took office on June 30, has repeatedly warned that drastic action is needed to stop the Philippines from becoming a so-called narco-state.

A lawyer and a former prosecutor, Mr Duterte has urged law enforcers to kill those they believe are involved in the drug trade, as well as other criminals.

In one of the deadliest single incidents, police reported killing eight "drug personalities" during a pre-dawn raid on Saturday in a small southern town.

As in the other cases, police insisted they were forced to shoot after encountering resistance.

Human rights lawyer warns of 'violence spiralling out of control'

One of the nation's top human rights lawyers, Jose Manuel Diokno, warned last week that Mr Duterte had "spawned a nuclear explosion of violence that is spiralling out of control and creating a nation without judges".

Former senator Rene Saguisag, a prominent human rights lawyer during the regime of dictator Ferdinand Marcos, also criticised Mr Duterte's statements naming and shaming alleged drug lords and police officers ahead of a formal investigation.

"Do we still probe and have a trial as part of due process? Useless, it seems to me," Mr Saguisag wrote in an online column last week.

Some opposition MPs have also called for a congressional investigation into the spate of killings.

Mr Calida, a Duterte appointee, said he would protect police from or during congressional probes, while emphasising it was up to critics to prove allegations of abuse rather than base inquiries on speculation.

"I am here to encourage the [police] not to be afraid of any congressional or senate investigations. We will defend them … I am the defender of the [police]," he said.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-12/p ... gs/7588234




DLSU Law Dean Diokno: 'Glaring violations of human rights' rampant today
By: Tricia Aquino, InterAksyon.com
August 20, 2016 12:50 AM

A police officer stands guard before drug suspects who surrendered to the government. (AFP photo/File)


MANILA, Philippines - "Glaring violations of human rights" are happening in the country every day, particularly in the Philippine National Police's implementation of President Rodrigo Duterte's war against illegal drugs.

This was the lament of Atty. Jose Manuel Diokno, the dean of the College of Law at the De La Salle University, on Friday during a media training on monitoring the judiciary.

He zeroed in on the practice where police go from house to house, knock on residents' doors, and ask if they can search these homes.

"And then if they say no, the police will say, 'Well, if you aren't hiding anything, why don't you want us to search, while your neighbors allowed us to search?' So now you feel guilty. And then after that, they will say, 'Please list the names of all those living here over 18 years old'," Diokno said.

All of these were human rights violations, he noted.

"Those are all excessive use of authority because that's not how the police are supposed to operate. What are the police supposed to do? Investigate crimes. File, do their own investigation as to who are using drugs, pushing drugs, and other crimes. Your consent to a search is only valid if it is knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily (given). If the police are that intrusive, na talagang in effect, they are impliedly insisting, using psychological tactics to induce you to consent, that again is illegal," he explained.

Worse, extrajudicial killings were happening on a daily basis.

He pointed out that one of the basic human rights was the right to life, and that the government had to respect that, not only because it was bound by the 1987 Constitution, but also because it was a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), among other treaties.

The ICCPR is the "first multilateral treaty to recognize the inherent dignity of the human person." The 1966 document also obliges nations "to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and freedoms."

Under the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, which the Philippines signed in 2006 and ratified in 2007 "without reservation," states "are required to renounce the use of the death penalty definitively."

According to Diokno, Congress repealed capital punishment in 2006, the same year it signed the treaty.

But President Duterte had previously declared his intent to have it restored, and Congress has been cooperative, with bills for the imposition of the death penalty on certain heinous crimes filed both in the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Despite the bleak picture, Diokno urged the media to continue fighting for human rights.

He quoted his father, the late Senator Jose Diokno, as saying, "No cause is more worthy than the cause of human rights... they are what makes us human. Deny them and you deny our humanity."

http://interaksyon.com/article/131605/d ... pant-today





ABS-CBN NewsVerified account
‏@ABSCBNNews
Diokno: We are asking SC if a sitting president can use resources of his office to wage a personal vendetta.

https://twitter.com/ABSCBNNews/status/7 ... 0328255488




Jose Manuel Diokno
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jose Manuel Diokno
Born Jose Manuel Icasiano Diokno
February 23, 1961 (age 55)
Manila
Occupation Lawyer, Academic
Years active 1986 — Present
Jose Manuel "Chel" Icasiano Diokno (born February 23, 1961) is the Founding Dean of De La Salle University College of Law, Chairman of the Free Legal Assistance Group, former Special Counsel of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, and one of the Philippines' foremost human rights lawyers.

Early life and education[edit]
Diokno was born on February 23, 1961, the eighth of ten children by Senator Jose W. Diokno and his wife Carmen Icasiano. He was a teenager when his family suffered under Martial Law, but Chel managed to graduate in high school with honors, was president of the La Salle Green Hills student council, and a Gerardo Roxas Leadership Awardee.[1]

After earning a degree in Philosophy at the University of the Philippines, Diokno studied law at the Northern Illinois University (NIU) in the US where he graduated Juris Doctor of Laws, magna cum laude, in 1986.[2]

Diokno took the Bar Examination in the State of Illinois and passed.[1] But his heart never left the Philippines. In 1987, Chel returned to the country. He passed the Philippine Bar Exam and immediately took up the cause of human rights. Chel joined the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) — the Philippines' oldest and largest group of human rights lawyers — which his father had organized.[3]

Public service[edit]
In the 1990s, Diokno served on the Presidential Human Rights Committee under Presidents Cory Aquino and Fidel V. Ramos. He was also a member of the Committee on Human Rights and Due Process at the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).[1]

In 2001, Diokno was team leader and private prosecutor in the impeachment proceedings against then-President Joseph Estrada. That same year, he became General Counsel of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee (the Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigation). And in 2004, he was appointed Special Counsel of the Development Bank of the Philippines.[1]

Notable cases[edit]
As a practicing lawyer, Diokno has won numerous cases on behalf of the public interest. He is the counsel of Rodolfo "Jun" Lozada, NBN/ZTE whistleblower, and lead witness in the Ombudsman's cases against former National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) head Romulo Neri and former Commission on Elections (Comelec) Chair Benjamin Abalos.[4]

In 2007, Diokno made history when he, along with fellow FLAG lawyers Theodore O. Te and Ricardo A. Sunga III, successfully petitioned the Supreme Court to issue its first Writs of Amparo for Raymond and Reynaldo Manalo, two brothers who were allegedly picked up and tortured by agents of the Philippine military.[5]

The following year, Diokno won the release of members of the "Tagaytay 5," men who were illegally detained by the Philippine National Police.[6] Diokno and Atty. Te also represented media organizations in a petition against the Arroyo administration. The case brought together members of ABS-CBN, the Philippine Daily Inquirer, Probe Productions, Newsbreak, and the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism, among others.[7]

Educator[edit]
With his expertise in litigation, in 2006, Diokno set up the Diokno Law Center. It provides valuable legal training to agencies such as the Comelec, the Public Attorney's Office, the Philippine National Police, the Office of the Ombudsman, the Bureau of Internal Revenue, Bureau of Customs, and the IBP.

In 2009, Diokno founded the De La Salle University College of Law, with the aim of develop leaders who are committed to upholding the rights of Filipinos. He has served as the College's Dean since 2009.[1]

Diokno has written two books: Diokno On Trial: The Techniques And Ideals Of The Filipino Lawyer (The Complete Guide To Handling A Case In Court), published by the Diokno Law Center in 2007; and Civil And Administrative Suits As Instruments Of Accountability For Human Rights Violations, published by the Asia Foundation in 2010. He has also written extensively on forensic DNA, electronic evidence, anti-terrorism legislation, media law, and judicial reform.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Manuel_Diokno



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2_u3ARM4uA
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: President Duterte of the Philippines for Dummies

Postby Morty » Fri Dec 23, 2016 10:48 pm

Unwilling to read it because you are convinced that ceding one poofteenth of your self-righteous fervour would be one poofteenth too much, slad?
User avatar
Morty
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 10:53 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: President Duterte of the Philippines for Dummies

Postby seemslikeadream » Fri Dec 23, 2016 10:49 pm

I read it....
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: President Duterte of the Philippines for Dummies

Postby Morty » Fri Dec 23, 2016 11:00 pm

Then I'm surprised you're not posting an article or two about the role the US has played in the Philippine's history - that's where the real story seems to be.
User avatar
Morty
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 10:53 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: President Duterte of the Philippines for Dummies

Postby seemslikeadream » Fri Dec 23, 2016 11:09 pm

Morty » Fri Dec 23, 2016 10:00 pm wrote:Then I'm surprised you're not posting an article or two about the role the US has played in the Philippine's history - that's where the real story seems to be.


OK I'll play...how about this one :P
Image

Paul Manafort’s Wild and Lucrative Philippine Adventure
As Ferdinand Marcos used his fortune to cling to power, he found an ally in Trump’s campaign chairman.
By KENNETH P. VOGEL June 10, 2016


When Paul Manafort met Ferdinand Marcos in the 1980s, each had something the other wanted.

Marcos, then in his third decade as leader of the Philippines, had developed a reputation in Washington as a stalwart ally in the fight against communism. But he was facing rising concerns about rampant corruption, plundering of public resources and human rights violations under his increasingly despotic leadership, during which Amnesty International now estimates 34,000 people were tortured and 3,240 killed. Meanwhile, Marcos amassed a fortune estimated at $10 billion, spending big on paintings by Pissarro and Manet, a fleet of private planes and helicopters and Mercedes-Benzes.

Manafort, then in his 30s, was a hotshot Republican operative who had made his name helping Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan, and was pioneering a new form of international political consulting. The model, which allowed him to indulge his taste for the high-life, parlayed his clout with the emergent conservative ruling class into lucrative gigs representing foreign leaders looking to buff their reputations in Washington.

A Marcos front group would eventually hire Manafort to try to help him retain his grip on power, agreeing to pay Manafort’s firm $950,000 a year — one of the first big foreign gigs landed by the firm. But back then, during the Wild West days of the international political industry, there was more buzz in Washington and Manila about Manafort’s proximity to Marcos during a period of epic spending to support a lavish lifestyle and to curry favor with influential Americans.

One example, according to documents, including some published here for the first time: Marcos earmarked huge sums of cash for Reagan’s 1980 and 1984 campaigns — as much as $57 million, according to one claim made to Philippine investigators. There’s no evidence that any cash ever made it into Reagan’s coffers, which would have been illegal since U.S. election laws ban donations from foreigners. And, despite extensive government investigations on both sides of the Pacific into the freewheeling spending of the Marcos regime, there’s never before been much serious inquiry of what ultimately happened to the cash intended for political contributions. The lack of a transparent paper trail — combined with the larger than life personas of Marcos and Manafort — spawned a swirl of theories.

In a phone interview this month, Manafort, now 67, acknowledged that for the better part of 30 years, he’s been dealing with speculation that he accepted millions of dollars in Marcos’s cash — either as a bonus or as a donation intended for Reagan.

“It was circulating way back when, when people were out to just pass rumors and things about me. It’s old stuff that never had any legs anywhere,” said Manafort. “It’s totally fiction,” he said, asserting that every penny he received from Marcos’ allies was disclosed to the U.S. Justice Department in mandatory filings. “We’d have done everything by the book,” he said, attributing persistent claims to the contrary to rivals and former colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and suggesting that some are reviving the talk now for political purposes.

After largely disappearing from the U.S. political spotlight for the past 20 years to build to a portfolio of foreign clients, Manafort reemerged in late March as a key adviser to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. He was quickly promoted to chief strategist and chairman, and has been working to put his international affiliations behind him (when POLITICO asked him to describe his relationship with Marcos, he laughed and said, “I’ve got to go”).

But Trump’s broadsides against the corrupt political establishment — and his increasing attacks on the foreign cash raised by the charitable foundation of his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton — continue to bring attention to the often-secretive international work that became Manafort’s lifeblood. Recent stories have called attention to Manafort’s huge paydays through arrangements with controversial foreign leaders and businessmen, including Zaire President Mobutu Sese Seko, Russian businessman Oleg Deripaska, Ukrainian President Victor Yanukovych and France’s Eduard Balladur, among others.

Yet those deals look like middle school civics classes next to Manafort’s efforts to help Marcos maintain his grip on power, according to documents and interviews with more than 40 people who worked in U.S. and Philippine politics and law enforcement in the mid-1980s.

In October 1984, Philippine President Ferdinand E. Marcos and his wife Imelda (center), lead ceremonies marking the 40th anniversary of the landing of Allied Forces in Red Beach during WWII.
In October 1984, Philippine President Ferdinand E. Marcos and his wife Imelda (center), lead ceremonies marking the 40th anniversary of the landing of Allied Forces in Red Beach during WWII. | AP Photos
Manafort’s Philippine adventure came at a time when international opinion was turning against Marcos’ authoritarian regime. Yet, one of Manafort’s business partners now says that Manafort neglected to inform him of the firm’s contract with the dictator. That created some embarrassment and raised concerns about a style that several of his former associates portrayed as mercenary and envelope-pushing.

POLITICO found that Manafort worked more closely than previously known with Marcos and his wife, Imelda, in Manila, where Manafort and his associates advised the couple on electoral strategy, and in Washington, where they worked to retain goodwill by tamping down concerns about the Marcos regime’s human rights record, theft of public resources, and ultimately their perpetration of a massive vote-rigging effort to try to stay in power in the Philippines’ 1986 presidential election.

In the run-up to that election, aides to Marcos’s leading opponent Corazon Aquino invoked Manafort’s role with the dictator “to vilify Marcos” with the intelligentsia, said Teddy Locsin, a prominent Philippine journalist and operative who worked for Aquino on that campaign. While Aquino also had help from Westerners — the prominent international consulting firm Sawyer Miller accepted $15,000 from her campaign, which appears to have been mostly expense reimbursements — her team found Manafort an appealing target. In the words of Locsin, who was later elected to Congress, “Manafort's name was like Voldemort today.”

***

Manafort’s international consulting career grew out of turmoil on Reagan’s 1980 campaign. A trio of young operatives had been working together in Reagan’s political shop — Manafort as convention director, Charlie Black as field director and Roger Stone as director of the Southern operation — until Black found himself out of a job when the campaign shuffled its hierarchy after the New Hampshire primary. So he started a political consulting firm, which Manafort and Stone joined in short order. The firm quickly began working for Reagan’s campaign, as well as the Republican National Committee and a handful of GOP congressional candidates.

After Reagan won, the firm built a steady, if unspectacular, business representing Republicans from Northeastern moderates like Gov. Tom Kean of New Jersey to southern conservatives like Sens. Jesse Helms of North Carolina and Paula Hawkins of Florida.

But it wasn’t until after Reagan’s 1984 reelection, on which the firm’s founding partners worked extensively, that the swaggering 30-somethings really began making their mark on Washington’s hidebound consulting world and, in the process, making their fortunes. They split their enterprise into two distinct firms — one dedicated to domestic Republican political consulting lobbying and the other to lobbying and international political work — and added a new high-profile partner for each. Lee Atwater, the legendary GOP operative who served as Reagan’s deputy campaign manager in 1984, joined the political firm, while Peter Kelly, the finance chair of the Democratic National Committee, joined the lobbying side, which became known as Black, Manafort, Stone and Kelly.

K Street veterans grumbled about the breach in the tradition of lobbying shops identifying exclusively with one party or the other. But Black, Manafort, Stone and Kelly — headquartered with Black, Manafort, Stone and Atwater in a brick building overlooking the Potomac River in the historic Washington suburb of Alexandria, Virginia — quickly redefined the influence industry.

It began vacuuming up clients attracted by its growing stable of well-connected Republican and Democratic lobbyists lured to the firm by gaudy salaries from prominent congressional or executive branch posts. The firm’s partners were boasting of $450,000 annual salaries (not including bonuses for bringing in new clients) by 1986, though Black at the time protested that those figures were exaggerated.

Major contracts included Bethlehem Steel, the investment bank Salomon Brothers and the cigarette industry trade group The Tobacco Institute — not to mention Trump. The billionaire real estate developer paid the firm to fight the expansion of Indian casinos that could compete with his Atlantic City gambling business, and to change the flightpath of planes at West Palm Beach International Airport, which he said disturbed guests at his newly purchased Mar-a-Lago club.

It was on the international stage, however, that the firm found some of its most lucrative work, landing contracts representing the Bahamas, the Dominican Republic, Portugal and an anticommunist rebel group in Angola, among others. In 1986, the two firms — Black, Manafort, Stone and Kelly, and Black, Manafort, Stone and Atwater — combined with Manafort personally to collect $2.4 million from international clients, according to filings with the Justice Department under the Foreign Agent Registration Act.

Paul Manafort, Roger Stone and Lee Atwater, young Republicans political operatives, pose for a Washington Post photograph in 1985.
Paul Manafort, Roger Stone and Lee Atwater, young Republicans political operatives, pose for a Washington Post photograph in 1985. | Getty Images
Black, Manafort, Stone and Kelly’s pitch to win the business from the ruling party of the Bahamas, which at the time was being accused of ties to drug trafficking, spelled out the approach of its principals. The firm’s relationships with State Department officials could be “utilized to upgrade a backchannel relationship in the economic and foreign policy spheres,” according to a portion of the pitch published by TIME magazine in 1986.

One of the firm’s associates, Riva Levinson, who worked under Manafort on the Philippines account, recalled that he was not impressed when she informed him that she had to believe in what she was doing. Manafort predicted that “will be my downfall in this business,” she recalled in her memoir, published this month. She wrote that a running joke inside the firm was that its work was “like playing one big game of Stratego: building armies and scheming to take over the world. That is exactly what it feels like working with Manafort. In fact, at times, that is exactly what is going on.”

Peter Kelly, the Democratic partner in the firm, said Manafort was attracted to trappings of wealth and cultivated an aura of an international jet-setter. He would disappear for days or even weeks without telling people at the firm where he was going or what he was doing and would return to submit expenses including Concorde flights to Paris and bills for stays in a suite at the extravagant Hotel de Crillon, according to Kelly and other former employees at the firm.

According to interviews and property records, Manafort drove a top-of-line Mercedes sedan and has purchased, built or rented pricey estates in the Mount Vernon neighborhood of Alexandria, Virginia; Palm Beach, Florida and the Hamptons, as well a horse farm in Virginia and a condo in Manhattan’s Trump Tower, where his new boss’ campaign headquarters are located. Several former colleagues and associates recall Manafort boasting about paying to relocate the swimming pool outside the home he built in Mount Vernon because he didn’t like the shade/sun balance, but a former Manafort neighbor told POLITICO it was because the pool was causing problems with the home’s foundation as it settled.

Manafort has told associates that he’s not drawing a salary from Trump’s campaign, and there don’t appear to be any payments to him in the campaign’s Federal Election Commission filings, leading multiple operatives in and around Trump’s campaign to speculate that Manafort is positioning himself to receive a cut from ad buys, polling or other contract work. Manafort rejected that speculation. “No, no, no, no. I’m a volunteer. I’m at a point in my life where I can volunteer my time,” he told POLITICO.

Kelly, in an interview, said Manafort’s driving motivation always seemed to be “to be in the middle of the action. He loved the action. I think that’s what gets him off more than anything. At a certain point, money becomes irrelevant.”

Manafort brushed aside questions that he misled his partners, suggesting that politics was motivating the criticism from Kelly, who was a top adviser to Bill Clinton’s presidential campaigns. “Peter Kelly was the only Democrat in the firm at that time, so guess what? He has a vested interest in helping Hillary right now,” said Manafort. “That’s all. He’s playing a game.”

But Kelly wasn’t the only former colleague who expressed misgivings about Manafort’s behavior to POLITICO. And Kelly said Manafort sometimes failed to alert the firm of what he was up to, accepting gigs with authoritarian regimes with which some other firm officials felt uncomfortable.

“Paul did a lot of vile things that weren’t appropriate for a firm like ours. We represented 11 Fortune 500 companies, so we didn’t need them worrying about some deals he was making in Paris,” Kelly said. “There was so much of his business that we didn’t know about.”

That included Manafort’s courtship of — and contract with — Marcos, according to Kelly, who said he had to abruptly resign from an election observation mission in the country after learning that his firm was working for Marcos.

It’s unclear when precisely Manafort first began working with Marcos, but multiple Black Manafort officials said the relationship started before 1985. Manafort himself said he had “no idea” when he first connected with Marcos, but emphasized that he followed all disclosure rules.

The Philippine strongman was in dire need of help in Washington after the 1983 assassination of opposition leader Benigno "Ninoy" Aquino, Jr., who was Corazon Aquino’s husband. Marcos started taking heat from Congress and even the administration, despite the deep ties he and his wife had cultivated to Ronald and Nancy Reagan, whom the Marcoses had befriended as far back as 1969, when the Reagans attended a Manila gala marking the opening of a lavish cultural center. Ronald Reagan reportedly twirled Imelda Marcos around the dance floor at the gala. The couples remained close, and Philippine investigators later found records indicating that Imelda Marcos gave then-first lady Nancy Reagan a $60,000 “tube emerald necklace,” which Reagan would have been barred from keeping and which the White House said she never received.

“There were congressional hearings at least once a month on the Philippines, and there was talk of withholding aid,” said John F. Maisto, an American diplomat who served as the State Department’s director of Philippine affairs during Marcos decline and fall. “Hell, I was on the Hill arguing for the State Department that we should withhold military and even economic assistance from the Philippines in order to pressure them to put the regime back on a democratic path. And what the regime needed back then was people on the Hill arguing the opposite,” he said. “Manafort was a logical choice. He was close to Reagan, and also to his allies in Congress.”

***

In October 1985, Reagan dispatched his closest friend and ally in the Senate, Nevada’s Paul Laxalt, to Manila to advise Marcos that the U.S. was tiring of his abuses and would pull its support if he didn’t clean up his act.

Laxalt, who had chaired Reagan’s presidential campaigns and remained a key confidant, suggested that Marcos hire Manafort to help address Marcos’s grievances that he was being unfavorably depicted in the U.S. press, according to Stanley Karnow’s 1989 book “In Our Image: America's Empire in the Philippines.”

U.S. Senator Paul Laxalt (R-NV) talks with reporters at the Manila Airport, Oct. 17, 1985 at the end of a four-day visit to the Philippines on a mission from President Ronald Reagan.
U.S. Senator Paul Laxalt (R-NV) talks with reporters at the Manila Airport, Oct. 17, 1985 at the end of a four-day visit to the Philippines on a mission from President Ronald Reagan. | AP Photos
Not long after the meeting, Laxalt explained to TIME: “Everybody needs a Washington representative to protect their hind sides, even foreign governments.” As a result he said “the constituency for [lobbyists representing foreign governments] is the entire free-world economy.”

Manafort sought and received approval from the Reagan White House before accepting the work, according to Raymond Bonner’s 1988 book “Waltzing with a Dictator; The Marcoses and the Making of American Policy.” Manafort’s firm signed its contract to represent Marcos with a front group called The Chamber of Philippine Manufacturers, Exporters & Tourism Associations, in November 1985, according to the firm’s foreign agent filings with the Justice Department. The Philippine official who executed the contract was a key Marcos’ ally named Ronaldo “Ronny” Zamora, who would resurface later as a key player in the mystery of the missing millions.

According to Bonner’s book, the month before the contract was officially executed, first lady Imelda Marcos personally delivered the first $60,000 of what was intended to be a $950,000 contract during a visit to New York to address the United Nations General Assembly (where she ironically decried “injustice, intolerance, greed and dominance by the strong”).

Shortly after her speech, her husband, in a dramatic effort to prove he was not anti-democratic, announced in an appearance on ABC’s "This Week with David Brinkley," that he would call for a snap election with more than one year left in his term.

Manafort revved into high gear, laying the groundwork for the Philippine foreign minister, Pacifico Castro, to visit the United States for three days to try to meet with U.S. officials, according to Justice Department documents and news accounts. He made plans for three prominent American conservative journalists—Robert Novak, John McLaughlin, and Fred Barnes—to visit the Philippines, according to Bonner’s book. And he worked to seed the idea in Washington conservative circles that Aquino, Marcos’s leading rival in the impending election, was soft on communism and would not be a reliable U.S. ally, according to the book.

Then, as the election approached, Black, Manafort, Stone and Kelly stepped up its lobbying contacts of influential congressional and State Department officials, according to the firm’s foreign agent filings with the Justice Department. A young Manafort protégé named Matthew C. Freedman played a particularly key role with the Marcoses as they fought to protect their power and fortune, according to multiple former colleagues.

Freedman, then 30, had joined Black Manafort as an associate after stints at the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development. He was assigned to the Marcos account in the months before the election, and, according to the firm’s Justice Department filings, he set about lobbying officials at his former agency (U.S. AID) about foreign aid to the Marcos regime and the election.

The firm also helped the Reagan administration put together its election observation delegation, vetoing some names submitted by the State Department and adding other names seen as more acceptable, according to Bonner’s book.

Manafort and Freedman spent the weeks before the election in Manila advising Marcos on public relations and electoral strategy, according to published reports and interviews with three people working on the election in the Philippines. Manafort privately urged Marcos to administer the elections in a way that would appear credible to American observers: "What we've tried to do is make it more of a Chicago-style election and not Mexico's," Manafort told TIME around the elections.

His efforts apparently fell on deaf ears. There was widespread fraud and violence on Election Day and during the vote-counting, which independent international observers attributed mostly to Marcos’ supporters. The state election commission received a litany of complaints, including "threats and coercion" against voters, shootings in polling places, falsified ballots and theft of ballot boxes.

Many members of the U.S. delegation wanted to issue a harsh statement condemning the election. But some conservative members of the delegation argued against that, and the final statement instead highlighted the enthusiasm of the voters, only briefly mentioning “disturbing reports” of fraud and “serious charges … made in regard to the tabulation system.”

While the state election commission called the election for Marcos, an independent international watchdog named Aquino the victor. A tense three-week standoff ensued during which Marcos barricaded himself in the presidential palace while Aquino’s supporters waged peaceful protests, and the world watched, fearing bloodshed.

In Washington, Black Manafort’s associates repeatedly lobbied Laxalt’s office about the possibility of putting out a statement on the election, DOJ filings show, presumably supporting Marcos’s claim that it was legitimate.

Even as the State Department reported to the White House that Marcos’s allies had been responsible for widespread fraud, Marcos and his allies with help from Manafort’s firm worked to perpetuate the idea that there was fraud on both sides, but that Marcos had prevailed, according to interviews with U.S. diplomats. That was the White House’s line initially, even as international support increasingly mounted behind Aquino.

Black Manafort reported receiving its final payment on record from the Chamber — $258,000 including reimbursements for all manner of pricey meals and travel — on February 24, 1986, according to the firm’s filings with the Justice Department, bringing its total recorded payments for the account to $508,000.

At 3 a.m. the next morning, Manila time, an increasingly desperate Marcos reached Laxalt by phone on the Hill, proposing a power-sharing coalition with Aquino, and trying to suss out whether Reagan really wanted him to step down. Laxalt said he’d check with the president, and, when the Nevada senator phoned the presidential palace in Manila two hours later without a definitive answer, Marcos, exhausted and frail, asked Laxalt for his personal advice. “Cut and cut cleanly. The time has come,” Laxalt famously answered, leading to a long silence on the other end of the line, and prompting Laxalt to ask whether Marcos was still there. “I am so very, very disappointed,” Marcos answered, according to Laxalt’s account of the dramatic calls.

While Marcos, in a symbolic act of defiance later that day, had the oath of office administered for another term, within hours he had left the palace and fled the country under U.S. protection.

A young protester slashes at an oil painting of Ferdinand Marcos as looters storm the presidential palace in Manila, February 1986.
A young protester slashes at an oil painting of Ferdinand Marcos as looters storm the presidential palace in Manila, February 1986. | AP Photos
Manafort had left the Philippines before that historic final day. But Freedman remained behind, holed up in the presidential palace with the Marcoses, from which he remained in regular contact by phone with Manafort, according to multiple former colleagues who had spoken to Manafort and Freedman about the situation. At one point, Imelda Marcos asked to talk to Manafort, so Freedman gave her the phone and she thanked Manafort profusely for his services, according to the former colleagues.

Freedman joined the Marcoses and their entourage in Hawaii, and assisted them for several weeks as they located accommodations, according to a lawyer who worked with the Marcoses. The lawyer said that Freedman so endeared himself to Imelda Marcos that she expressed a desire to give him as a wedding present an iconic Manhattan office building that the Marcoses had secretly purchased in 1981 with the help of a Saudi arms dealer and others.

Freedman did not respond to questions about his time with the Marcoses, or why he continued to work for the Marcoses after his firm reported the relationship was over. Later, Freedman reportedly taunted a consultant at Sawyer Miller, which had worked for free for the victorious Aquino. According to James Harding’s 2008 book “Alpha Dogs: The Americans Who Turned Political Spin into a Global Business,” Freedman told the Sawyer Miller consultant “We lost, but we got paid.”

***

When Marcos arrived in Hawaii, U.S. customs officials seized thousands of pages of financial documents that detailed his stashing and spending of an enormous fortune plundered from the people of the Philippines. Among them: a one-page ledger obtained by POLITICO from a lawyer who sued the Marcos estate. The document, published here for the first time, appears to detail Marcos’ intended donations to U.S. political campaigns in 1980 and 1982, including $50,000 each to the competing 1980 campaigns of Reagan and the Democratic incumbent President Jimmy Carter. That cash, as well as $75,000 in donations slated for congressional and local candidates between 1979 and 1982, was to have come from a San Francisco-based company that was linked to a Philippine intelligence fund, the ledger suggests. POLITICO was unable to reach the Marcos associate who administered the company, an American citizen who donated tens of thousands of dollars to U.S. campaigns that he claimed came from his own funds.

Another document — a letter from to Marcos from a senior aide that was obtained when his opponents ransacked his files — seems to refer to accounts set up for Reagan and his 1980 campaign manager, the late William J. Casey. The letter catalogues other documents, including "1980-SEC-014: Funds to Casey" and "1980-SEC-015: Reagan Funds Not Used,” according to a 1996 report by The Associated Press former investigative reporter Robert Parry.

A third document — a whistle-blower letter from a group of anonymous bankers — alleged that the dictator planned to donate $7 million to Reagan’s 1980 campaign, $50 million to his 1984 reelection bid and $10 million to “various candidates” in the 1982 congressional midterm elections, according to contemporary media accounts. The letter was delivered to the Philippine commission that investigated Marcos’ plunder of public resources, the Presidential Commission on Good Government, by a former banker named Antonio Gatmaitan in the days after Marcos stepped down.

In an interview, Gatmaitan stood by the claims in the letter, and questioned the degree to which they were investigated by the PCGG, which itself has been the target of corruption allegations, even as it’s recovered an estimated $3.6 billion in Marcos’ assets.

“I don’t believe that they took it seriously, because Marcos was gone already by that time,” he said. “That’s typical here. Once the principals are gone, the stories die.”

Richard Roger T. Amurao, the acting chairman of the PCGG, said he couldn’t find the letter from the anonymous bankers, nor any records suggesting that the commission investigated its charges or other evidence that Marcos intended to donate to U.S. campaigns.

“Somehow our agency … did not look into the matter you were referring,” he wrote in an email to POLITICO. He declined an interview request, pointing out that his term expires at the end of this month, when the incoming presidential administration gets to appoint new commissioners. “Our time now is consumed by the transition work we need to hand over to the incoming administration,” he wrote.

But Philippine observers wonder whether the PCGG and its hunt for Marcos’ loot will survive, given the fading memories of the Marcos clan’s plunder and their resurgence as a political power. Ferdinand Marcos, Jr., who goes by the nickname “Bongbong,” is a senator who narrowly lost a bid for vice president in last month’s elections, while his sister Imee Marcos is a governor and their mother, Imelda Marcos, serves as a member of Congress.

On this side of the Pacific, it doesn’t appear their late patriarch’s attempted donations to Reagan were investigated any more rigorously. It’s unclear whether U.S. authorities ever obtained or looked into Gatmaitan’s letter. And the U.S. Justice Department declined to investigate the ledger detailing donations made between 1979 and 1982. That’s because, by the time U.S. Customs officials obtained the ledger in 1986, the three-year statute of limitations for prosecuting federal election law violations had passed. When word of Marcos’ planned donations first broke in 1986, Reagan’s White House press secretary Larry Speakes denied any knowledge of the effort.

It’s also unclear whether the full bounty of documents have been accounted for, or whether there are other documents detailing how Marcos spent his cash.

Marcos had worked to try to prevent documents and assets from being released to American and Philippine authorities, hiring a Washington law firm with deep connections to Manafort and the White House to block the seizure of key possessions that the Marcos’ entourage brought with them to Hawaii. (In addition to the documents, the Marcoses arrived at the Air Force base Hickam Field outside of Honolulu with 27 million freshly printed Philippine pesos, 67 racks of clothes, 413 pieces of jewelry and 24 gold bricks, among other items valued at a total of $15 million).

The law firm, Anderson, Hibey, Nauheim & Blair, also represented Black, Manafort, Stone and Kelly, and Manafort personally, according to a lawyer who worked with it. The firm worked closely with the Black Manafort associate Freedman in the early days of the Marcoses’ Hawaiian exile. Richard Hibey, the partner at the firm who worked mostly closely with the Marcoses, is currently representing Manafort in a case brought by the Russian aluminum magnate Oleg Deripaska, who accuses Manafort and a partner of accepting $19 million in investment cash, then disappearing and failing to account for it.

Hibey did not respond to requests for comment.

Most of the investigations by U.S. and Philippine authorities appear to have paid little attention to charges that some of the cash was intended for illegal political contributions in the U.S.

A U.S. congressional subcommittee chaired by the late New York Rep. Stephen Solarz devoted significant attention to tracking Marcos’ ill-gotten gains. But it doesn’t appear to have delved deeply into the donation allegations.

Stanley Roth, who served as staff director of Solarz’s subcommittee, said “there was an allegation that we were never able to prove" related to political contribution Marcos intended to make. But he stressed that the subcommittee’s investigative work centered on the hundreds of thousands of dollars in New York real estate deals linked to the Marcoses. “The driving force was not politics or campaign contributions. It was the guy looting the Philippines,” said Roth, adding that he doesn’t remember Manafort’s name being raised at all during the investigation.

***

Marcos, who had struggled noticeably during the snap election with health problems related to diabetes and lupus, declined precipitously while in exile and died in 1989.

But the mystery surrounding the earmarked donations got new life a couple years later. In the run-up to the Philippines’ next presidential election, the veteran GOP strategist Ed Rollins traveled to Manila as part of a delegation from the internal consulting firm Sawyer Miller colleagues to help Aquino’s party in the 1992 presidential election.

Rollins and a couple other Western consultants working on the race attended a Manila dinner party with assorted Philippine politicos from Aquino’s party. Among those in attendance was Ronny Zamora, the former Marcos lawyer who had signed the contract with Black Manafort years earlier. According to multiple sources, Zamora had been among a group of Marcos confidants who helped the dictator move and invest the billions that he plundered from the public trough, with some of the so-called “Marcos cronies” becoming quite wealthy themselves.

Bob Rich, the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Manila, said Zamora “was one of the cronies who we felt was handling some of the money, but it wasn’t an official position.” Rich later accompanied the Marcoses during their exile in Hawaii, overseeing the logistics around their accommodations and the two planeloads of possessions they brought with them. He said the U.S. had a tough time tracking the flow of cash around Marcos and his cronies, explaining “we didn’t always know where the money was coming from.”

Like most Marcos cronies, Zamora did not face legal charges and later reemerged in Philippine politics backing other parties — in Zamora’s case, Aquino’s.

At the dinner, Zamora boasted that he provided $10 million in cash from Marcos to Manafort to donate to Reagan’s campaign, two attendees told POLITICO.

In demonstrations on February 2, 1986, anti-Marcos protesters carry a box containing the caricatured heads of President Ronald Reagan and Ferdinand Marcos. The sign on the box reads “Seal of the Dictator of the Philippines.”
In demonstrations on February 2, 1986, anti-Marcos protesters carry a box containing the caricatured heads of President Ronald Reagan and Ferdinand Marcos. The sign on the box reads “Seal of the Dictator of the Philippines.” | AP Photos
In Rollins’ 1996 memoir, he recounts the conversation that followed, without naming either Zamora or Manafort, referring to them only as “a prominent member of the Philippine congress” and a “well-known Washington power lobbyist who was involved in the campaign,” respectively.

“I delivered the suitcase with the cash personally to him, and helped get it out the country,” the Philippine congressman boasted, according to Rollins’ book, “Bare Knuckles and Backrooms; My Life in American Politics.” The congressman continued, telling Rollins that the lobbyist had indicated “he would give it to you for the campaign. It was a personal gift from Marcos to Reagan.”

Rollins in the book recalls being “stunned” by the story. “Not in a state of total disbelief, though, because I knew the lobbyist well and I had no doubt the money was now in some offshore bank,” Rollins wrote, bemoaning “I ran the campaign for $75,000 a year, and this guy got $10 million in cash.”

Rollins, who is now running a super PAC supporting Trump, said in an interview with POLITICO that, as soon as he got back to Washington, he asked Bay Buchanan, who served as treasurer of all three of Reagan’s presidential campaigns, whether there was any chance that foreign money had made its way into the campaign’s coffers. “Absolutely not,” Rollins recalls her saying. (Buchanan says she doesn’t recall this conversation).

Later, according to Rollins’ book, he shared the story with Laxalt, a close friend. Laxalt immediately responded “Christ, now it all makes sense,” according to Rollins’ book, which quotes Laxalt’s recollection of his October 1985 meeting with Marcos at which he recommended the dictator hire Manafort, but also passed along Reagan’s message of the importance of reform.

“When I was over there cutting off Marcos’ nuts, he gave me a hard time. ‘How can you do this?’ he kept saying to me. ‘I gave Reagan $10 million. How can he do this to me?’ ” Laxalt said, according to Rollins’s book. “I didn’t know what the hell he was talking about. Now I get it.”

Two GOP operatives told POLITICO that when Rollins’ book came out in 1996, he told them that the lobbyist in question was Manafort. Some Republicans familiar with the book attributed the passage in the book to tension between Rollins and Manafort, who were both considered contenders for the position of Reagan’s reelection campaign manager, which Rollins ultimately got. Rollins dismissed the idea that he has any bad blood with Manafort. (The two men are ostensibly on the same team now, though Manafort’s allies have tried to steer donors away from Rollins’ super PAC, and to a new super PAC run by a former associate at Black, Manafort, Stone and Kelly.)

The operatives who discussed the Manila dinner anecdote with Rollins said he told them he had withheld Manafort’s name from his book out of concern for then-U.S. Sen. Bob Dole, who was the GOP nominee for president and for whom Manafort was working at the time.

Rollins would not confirm or deny those conversations, but he told POLITICO that when the book came out, “every reporter in the world” chased the story. “Several had come to me and said, ‘I know it was Manafort.’ And I said ‘I’m not confirming it.’“

Manafort called the story “totally fiction,” asserting “there never was any $10 million. … He made it up.”

Charlie Black, Manafort’s lobbying partner, said of the book: “I don’t know where Ed would have gotten that,” adding “I’m pretty confident Paul wasn’t involved in any of that. Paul is a lawyer, so he would have known it was illegal. Plus, he has more integrity than that.” And he said “$10 million was a lot of money in those days and if it had happened, I don’t think we would have seen hide nor hair of Paul again.”

In fact, Black said he and Manafort discussed the book when it came out, since it seemed obvious to informed readers that Manafort was the undisclosed lobbyist. But Black said “Paul didn’t sound like he was losing any sleep over it.”

As for Zamora, who returned to the Philippine congress after being term-limited out in 2010, he rejected Rollins’ account. “I certainly didn’t do anything like that,” he proclaimed, when reached by phone this month. He asserted he’d never met Manafort and added “I’m not even sure that I had that dinner” with Rollins.

Zamora said he and Marcos “never even talked about donating to any presidential campaign.” Pointing out that Marcos also was a lawyer (he boasted of receiving a near-perfect score of 98.8 percent on his bar exam, though that was later disputed), Zamora said Marcos “was careful about complying with election laws, especially American election laws, because you are even more strict than we are.”

Besides, Zamora added with bemusement, “How do you carry $10 million in cash? You know, not to sound too familiar with United States currency, but your currency is a little difficult to carry in cash.” Off the top of his head, he calculated that $10 million in $100 bills must weigh “a couple hundred pounds.” (The precise weight is 220 pounds, according to a U.S. Treasury estimate.)

Zamora did acknowledge signing a contract with Manafort’s firm on behalf of The Chamber of Philippine Manufacturers, Exporters & Tourism Associations. But he said he only did so at the request of Marcos’s late brother-in-law Benjamin Trinidad Romualdez. “He was the one who asked me to sign for the group of the president,” said Zamora, professing ignorance to Black Manafort’s work or anything about the contract beyond the fact that he signed it.

“That’s all that I did, which of course, under American law is more than enough … to get you liable if something comes up,” he said. “But you know after that, remember, we had lost. We were all kicked out, and I never heard anything about this until – well, until now.”

***

Rollins, who was close with Laxalt, told POLITICO that the two discussed Manafort’s work with Marcos and the mystery of the campaign-donation-that-wasn’t for years afterward, but that Laxalt “never wanted to get involved in that because of his own relationships there.”

Laxalt is 93 and in declining health, but his daughter Michelle Laxalt, who worked for Reagan during his campaigns and in his administration on foreign policy issues, says her father occasionally speculated about what happened to Marcos’ campaign cash.

“The rumor about the case of the missing Manila millions was clearly a part of the chatter I was intrigued to listen to Ed and dad most closely to,” she told POLITICO, adding that she also “had heard rumblings in certain circles” beyond her father and Rollins. She stressed, though, that she never heard Manafort’s name in connection with that chatter, and didn’t think her father had either, though that conflicts with the recollection of Rollins.

It’s theoretically possible that Marcos’ money could have made its way into an independent group supporting Reagan’s campaign, said Reagan’s treasurer Buchanan. But she added that there was never any evidence of any outside group spending big money supporting Reagan.

And she stressed that there was absolutely no way that any foreign money made it by her staff, and into the campaign, itself.

“Watergate made a very strong impression on me,” said Buchanan, whose older brother Pat Buchanan worked for Richard Nixon during the Watergate break-in scandal, which also involved illegal campaign contributions. Pat Buchanan was untarnished by the scandal, but his sister said the experience made her doubly diligent about adhering to campaign finance rules.

“I made copies of every single check that was deposited in our account, because we took matching funds in the primary, so we had a 100 percent federal audit. And, in the general, we took the money from the federal government, so we didn’t raise any money at all,” she said, referring to a now-obsolete system that provided taxpayer money for presidential campaigns that agreed to spending restrictions.

Even if Reagan’s campaign had wanted to accept a huge lump sum payment from a foreign leader, it would have been immediately flagged as illegal by the Federal Election Commission, which enforces campaign finance laws. And it would have required a massive amount of clerical chicanery to funnel $10 million into a campaign in a manner that evaded detection, since the individual campaign contribution limit for individuals in 1984 was $1,000 — meaning the cash would have had to have been divided into individual donations from at least 10,000 different so-called straw donors.

“First of all, it would have been illegal,” Buchanan said. “And second, by 1984, it wouldn’t have been necessary, because he was the incumbent president, and we didn’t have any trouble raising money.”

By that point, though, Marcos’s political future was almost entirely dependent on keeping Reagan in the White House and on his side, especially after his Democratic general election opponent, Walter Mondale, came out against Marcos during the 1984 campaign.

So an under-the-table financial contribution might have made sense to him, said the American diplomat Maisto.

“Politically speaking, that’s the way Marcos thought back then. He had all the money in the world, and he knew the American political system functioned on contributions, not unlike the Philippine oligarchy,” said Maisto. “He thought that his ace in the hole was Ronald Reagan, and he didn’t want Reagan to leave the White House, so it makes that he would do whatever he could to ensure that Ronald Reagan was reelected.”
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... 80s-213952



Morty » Fri Dec 23, 2016 9:48 pm wrote:Unwilling to read it because you are convinced that ceding one poofteenth of your self-righteous fervour would be one poofteenth too much, slad?




Why I Am a Communist!
by ANDRE VLTCHEK
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/13/ ... communist/



You know I am not a communist don't you? :P

jk


I just wanted to get another point of view... :)
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: President Duterte of the Philippines for Dummies

Postby divideandconquer » Fri Dec 23, 2016 11:33 pm

I have a feeling Duterte's days are numbered.

Will the Empire really try to kill Philippines president Duterte?

But recently, one after another, countries all over the world are joining the anti-imperialist coalition. Some are prevailing; others get destabilized (like Brazil), economically devastated (like Venezuela) or fully destroyed (like Syria). All defiant nations, from Russia to China, the DPRK and Iran are demonized by Western propaganda and its mass media.

[...]
The truth is that the Empire never forgives those who show it a mirror. It kills mercilessly for the tiniest signs of disobedience, rebelliousness. Its propaganda apparatus and its right hand - the mass media - then always manage to craft a suitable explanation and justification. And the public in both North America and Europe is fully complacent, indoctrinated and passive; it only defends its own narrow interests, never the victim, especially if the victim is from some far-away country inhabited by 'un-people'.
'I see clearly that man in this world deceives himself by admiring and esteeming things which are not, and neither sees nor esteems the things which are.' — St. Catherine of Genoa
User avatar
divideandconquer
 
Posts: 1021
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 3:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Next

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 170 guests