This seems like a most auspicious occasion for Trump’s second term for several reasons. 

First and foremost, the American people have clearly spoken as manifested in his decisive landslide reelection with the electoral vote (312-226), the popular vote and the swing state vote, in spite of his two impeachments, a conviction, VP Kamala Harris’s outspending of Trump, and her command of the mainstream media and Hollywood celebrity elite.  Perhaps, this is due to Trump’s favorable public service and accomplishments, most of which I have listed in my commentary entitled “For Rational Voters Who Want to Give America a Huge Jump, Here Are 32 Reasons to Support Donald Trump.”

Second, Trump will have three branches of government at his disposal due to the GOP winning the majority in the Senate (53 seats) and in the House (220 seats) and a majority of 5 conservative Supreme Court justices (excluding Chief Justice John Roberts for his unconstitutional ruling of the alleged constitutionality of Obamacare).

Third, Trump has established a Republican base, even broader and more diverse than in his first term (e.g., blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans, women, union workers, youth, Democrats, independents).

Fourth, Trump’s public service experience from his first term can serve as a guide in navigating and managing the political machinery of the federal government, and his new loyal appointees will only accommodate him.

Fifth, since this will be Trump’s last term, he should be able to implement most, if not all, of the conservative agenda, post-COVID, unimpeded by a political witch hunt, without fearing backlash that could hinder his run for another term.  

Finally, committed leftists have vowed to leave America, while their remaining female fanatics have pledged to be celibate as a protest against Trump.  (Although I fail to comprehend the logic of such drastic measures, I fully support them, since America is better without them.  As for the celibate females, if they all fulfill their vows of abstinence for life, then abortion would no longer be a concern, and they would eventually follow the footsteps of the dinosaurs into extinction---a win-win situation, but I digress.

Having presented all such favorable conditions, here is what Trump must do to keep conservatives in power in perpetuity, provided he has the political will to do so.

1. End birthright citizenship.  Congress should legislate a bill clarifying the meaning and application of the 14^th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution in unambiguous language.  Since the law states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside,” it has been a commonly entrenched misnomer that all such “persons” (born on American soil) automatically become citizens without any qualifications or conditions.  

However, the author of its citizenship clause, Senator Jacob Howard, explicitly excluded “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States.”  Clearly, the offspring of illegal immigrants are no exception.  In fact, the law was enacted for freed slaves and their children, who were “born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” political jurisdiction, that is.  Civil rights and immigration expert Hans Spakovsky points out that the amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, wherein “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power,” would be considered citizens.  Hence, a law passed by Congress, clarifying the original intent of the 14^th Amendment, would supersede all judicial rulings favoring birthright citizenship.

Such a law by itself would eliminate the incentive for much illegal immigration, preempting “anchor babies” from eventually providing a legal path for their deliverers.  However, this law should be enacted in conjunction with the reinstatement of Trump’s immigration policies of “Remain in Mexico,” constructing the border wall, defunding sanctuary cities, and establishing more courts to swiftly adjudicate illegal aliens who currently await trial.

2. Repeal the federal income tax and abolish the IRS.  The federal income tax should be replaced by a national sales or consumption tax known as the “Fair Tax,” and should operate independently of Trump’s tariffs.  That was the proposal of newly-appointed ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee (when he ran against Trump in the 2016 Republican presidential primary).  There is currently a proposal sponsored by Rep. Earl Carter in the House.

The Fair Tax would replace all personal and corporate income taxes, the death tax, gift taxes, and payroll taxes with a simple consumption tax of roughly 25%.  Since everyone must purchase food and water, and perhaps, other goods and services, it must follow that nobody can easily evade such taxes, including tourists, illegal aliens, and drug smugglers.  Hence, the Fair Tax is all-inclusive, simple, provides more individual control, and would increase tax revenue even more so than just reducing the corporate income tax rate or making the 2017 Trump tax cuts permanent.

3. Promote the service or knowledge sector of the economy.  Although I was critical of Trump’s tariff policy, as pointed out in my previous commentary entitled “Historic GOP Wins for 2016, Flipping the Blacks, and a Little on Trump's Carrier Deal,” hindsight has persuaded me that it can be used as leverage against other countries which oppose American interests, at least temporarily.  However, I still maintain that the purpose of using tariffs to recover outsourced manufacturing jobs may be a pyrrhic victory.

After all, manufacturing is the second major sector and phase of a growing American economy---the first being the agrarian sector, the third being the service sector, and the fourth and current one being the knowledge or technical sector.  The service and knowledge sectors are currently the predominant ones, and most of the blue collar (including manufacturing) jobs have been lost to productive efficiency (automation), not outsourcing.

For that reason, Trump should encourage displaced blue collar workers to either learn new skills or acquire knowledge calibrated to the predominant service and knowledge sectors of the economy.  For example, electricians, plumbers, HVAC technicians, and mechanics are all blue collar service workers in perpetual demand.  High-demand jobs in the knowledge/tech sector include bookkeeping, business analysis, drop shipping, financial coaching, programming, project management, SEO, IT training, insurance brokering, social media marketing, UX design, virtual assistance, web analysis, web design, AI, data science, etc.  

Trump should emphasize how these highly-skilled, highly-knowledgeable jobs will “make America great again.”  He could pitch them as highly paid jobs that provide excellent fringe benefits for employees and their family, which will raise their standard of living.  Such jobs will impact the fields of medicine, cybersecurity, accounting, finance, and research and would contribute to further technological advancement to keep the U.S. competitive on the world stage.  Many of them do not require a four-year college degree, but just several months of online training.  Perhaps best of all, the aforementioned tech jobs are all remote which accommodates the employees, who wish to spend more time with their family at home or virtually anywhere.

Surely, this pitch for perpetual knowledge/tech sector jobs sounds much more persuasive than obsolete manufacturing sector jobs, does it not?  After all, the Oxford Economics analysis firm predicts robots will replace up to 20 million manufacturing jobs globally by 2030.  So much for protectionism.

4. Promote financial literacy.  That includes education on credit building, picking a credit card, renting or purchasing a home, choosing a college or trade school or online educational program, asset protection, wealth building, tax savings, entrepreneurship, the use of limited liability companies and corporations as business entities, retirement planning, investing in stocks, bonds, gold, silver, real estate, cryptocurrency, etc.  Entrepreneur and financial advisor Robert Kiyosaki’s classic book entitled Rich Dad, Poor Dad is an excellent introduction to financial literacy.  In fact, there is an entire Rich Dad Advisors book series covering the aforementioned topics in detail.

Such education is precisely what made Trump a successful businessman, which is why he would be the ideal spokesman to encourage service or knowledge sector workers to start a business in their own respective areas of expertise.  Many of them already have.  

For example, food line servers have opened up their own catering business or restaurant.  Plumbers have become contractors or started their own plumbing business.  SEO specialists employed by digital marketing companies have established their own agencies.

Shows like Shark Tank, Blue Collar Millionaire, and Millennial Money present such real life cases, wherein employees have become successful business owners, many of whom were raised in poverty, were homeless, or migrated from the Third World.  Moreover, financial literacy should be taught during or before high school in order to prepare young adults.

5. Repeal and replace Obamacare.  This was a long overdue promise Republicans made since the enactment of this unconstitutional, doctor-depriving, economically disruptive monstrosity in 2010.  Although Trump nullified the individual mandate portion of the law, he and conservatives must repeal the rest of it.  Such a law would supersede the Supreme Court ruling on the alleged constitutionality of Obamacare.

Here are a few market-based alternatives that should operate simultaneously in order to optimize cost reduction and stellar quality private healthcare over a government-managed system with price controls and rationing:

• Wellness Education:  If everyone would practice basic self-care (e.g., nutritious diet, adequate exercise, sufficient sleep, effective stress management) daily, it is highly likely that the hospitals would have less than half of the current patients, and much fewer people would be consuming medication (with potential side effects that could cause other health problems).  However, such education would more appropriately be implemented by parents, civic organizations, or communities as a whole.  Perhaps, the federal government could temporarily appropriate funds for the states for that sole purpose.

• Tort Reform:  Another name is medical malpractice or liability reform.  Since physicians and other medical practitioners have been the financial target of trial lawyers for alleged malpractice damages, the former have resorted to preemptive measures (e.g., purchasing medical malpractice insurance, assigning numerous and extraneous examinations to patients), which have hiked medical care costs.  Hence, a fair system in which prudent physicians are protected from frivolous lawsuits, while negligent ones are penalized, is in order.  However, such policy must be enacted by the states, since federal tort reform would be unconstitutional, as it would violate Americans’ right to a trial by jury (6^th Amendment) and state sovereignty (10^th Amendment).

• Health Savings Accounts:  These are tax-advantaged savings accounts, which are generally for healthy people, who have little risk for developing chronic conditions.  Those recipients range from children to young adults (30 and below), hence negating the need for frequent office visits or numerous examinations.  Similar to a 401(k) investment plan, the recipient and employer both contribute to the fund.  Neurosurgeon and Republican presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson proposed a version (known as a health empowerment account or HEA) for all Americans, effective at birth.  That would accommodate healthy patients in general and patients poised to develop pre-existing conditions in particular (since they would already be covered at the time such conditions are made manifest).

6. Abolish the Social Security system.  With more Americans receiving, rather than contributing to the fund (hence making it vulnerable to insolvency) it should be privatized.  Initially, Americans would be given the choice whether to privatize their share or remain with the government (until the deadline for complete privatization is reached).  Those who opt for privatization will also have the choice as to how their social security funds will be invested and in which assets (bonds, stocks, exchange traded funds, mutual funds) to invest.

7. Balance the federal budget in 4 years.  With the national debt currently at $36 trillion, balancing the budget is of paramount significance.  This can be accomplished in conjunction with more federal tax revenue from tax cuts and a robust economy and massive spending cuts from the abolition of the IRS, the Social Security Administration, and other agencies or departments, as well as outstanding leadership and an iron political will.

Similar reforms were implemented in the 1990s under then Speaker Newt Gingrich, who presided over four consecutive years of a balanced federal budget; this started within 3 years of implementing the deficit reduction plan of House members, though they aimed for 7 years.  Hence, balancing the budget should take effect on July 4, 2026 in order to steer the 2018 midterm elections in the GOP’s favor; this date also coincides with the newly formed Department of Government Efficiency’s deadline (headed by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy) for dismantling some of the government’s agencies or departments, which will free federal revenue from wasteful spending, and perhaps, finally end “the era of big government” once and for all).

8. Update the 1951 U.S.-Philippine Mutual Defense Treaty to include the South China Sea.  Since China remains a threat, one of the ways the U.S. can project its military power and put this Asian juggernaut in check is by strengthening ties with the Philippines (its oldest treaty ally), which has been victim to China’s aggression for simply asserting its sovereign rights as awarded by the Permanent Court of Arbitration.  Currently the MDT stipulates that an “armed attack” on the “armed forces, public vessels or aircraft” of the Philippines or U.S. in the Pacific, obliges both countries to respond in mutual retaliation.

This treaty should be upgraded to include China’s “grey zone” tactics (e.g., blocking Philippine vessels, using military-grade lasers to temporarily blind Philippine coast guard crew, firing water cannons on Philippine vessels).  In fact, Sen. Marco Rubio (Trump’s incoming state secretary) introduced the U.S.-Philippine Partnership Act of 2024 to do just that, along with providing other defense measures, and negotiating critical minerals and energy products for supply chains.  Such an American projection of power in the South China Sea may even deter China from invading another Asian ally, namely Taiwan.

9. Replace Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.  Perhaps Trump should not do this immediately upon returning to the White House, but he should at least have a shortlist prepared.  At 70 years of age and burdened with type 1 diabetes, it seems wise to preempt discontinuity in the functioning of the Supreme Court in the potential absence of Sotomayor.  Of course, a conservative replacement would tally 6 conservatives (again, excluding the judicial traitor, Roberts) and 3 liberals on the high court.

10. Promote 2-parent households.  Perhaps the only thing for which I credit Pres. Barack Obama is his citing of statistics that indicate “children who grow up without a father are 5 times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime, 9 times more likely to drop out of school and 20 times more likely to end up in prison.”  Consider that out-of-wedlock births for whites have gone from 5% in 1965 to over 25% in 2015.  For blacks, out-of-wedlock births have gone from 25% to 73% in those same years, hence accounting for the high rate of poverty, crime, gang-related shootings of other blacks, incarcerations, and unemployment.

Contrary to popular leftist belief, the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow laws (state and local statutes that legalized racial segregation, denied blacks the right to vote, hold jobs, or acquire an education) are not the primary factors for the stagnation of the black community, since such conditions no longer exist today due to their systemic ban within the past century.  However, absent fathers among the black family have skyrocketed since 1964 with President Lyndon Johnson’s “War on Poverty” or more accurately, “War on the Black Family.”  

Where have all the fathers gone?  Rather than marrying them to help raise their children, stresses the black conservative commentator Larry Elder (who leftists characterize as “the black face of white supremacy”), the welfare system has enabled single mothers to “marry the government, and this makes it all too easy for men to abandon their traditional moral and financial responsibilities.”  What’s worse was the political motive Johnson revealed when he told his colleagues that the bait of the welfare system would “have them niggers voting Democratic for the next two hundred years.”

Hence, a call to dismantle the federal welfare state and devolve this function to the states is in order.  Parents and church or community leaders must inculcate to the youth the moral importance of the institution of the 2-parent family and establish a zero-tolerance policy for fathers who abandon their children.  They must also shun race hustlers like Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson, who profit from pitching the myth that the black community’s stagnation is due to systemic racism rather than absent fathers.

11. Purchase CNN, NBC, and TikTok.  This suggestion is directed to Elon Musk (who purchased Twitter and renamed it X), Kevin O’Leary (who offered $20 billion for TikTok), or anyone else, who is financially capable and aligned with conservatives.  The purpose is to purge those platforms of leftist and woke agendas, and restructure them into real news outlets, so that their viewers will have professional reportage of current events.  Analysts and commentators from the Left, Right, center, and independents will keep the networks fair and balanced as some of the current programs on the Fox News Channel or Pierce Morgan Uncensored.  Only then, will Americans be able to truly make informed decisions and even view presidential debates hosted fairly and professionally by objective moderators.

12. Promote civic education, and expand youth outreach.  Trump must reinstate the 1776 Commission, which was already created prior to Election Day in 2020; since he lost to Biden, it has remained dormant.  The commission’s purpose is to clarify for the official record, the genuine history of America, its founders, their concept of unalienable or natural rights as enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, religious liberty, and the founders’ perspective on the role and function of a limited government with separated powers, a jury system, and the concept of American exceptionalism.  As I have pointed out in my commentary entitled “The Time-Tested Model”:

Consider America’s progress in the abolition of slavery, suffrage for women, and civil rights for blacks, all of which happened within 229 years of the establishment of the U.S. government.  In spite of such turbulent occasions, the world’s oldest written supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution, remains largely intact.

Unfortunately, such a unique mix of concepts and historical facts are the antithesis of the revisionist history of the Left, which views the founders solely as wealthy, chauvinistic, white slaveholders, who established the American government in order to advance their racist agenda, while enriching themselves and exploiting others via the evil instrument of the capitalist system.  Such misguided people idolize criminals like George Floyd (a violent drug-addicted thief who died in police custody) or Luigi Mangione (an assassin who shot and killed Brian Thompson, the CEO of a healthcare company).  The Left has been so obsessed with the latter, the females of their ilk admit to intimate fantasies with him.  Based on that fallacious perspective and misguided deification, the Left advocates for critical race theory indoctrination, affirmative action policies, wealth redistribution programs, laws and policies permitting men in women’s sports and women’s bathrooms.

Hence, Trump’s reinstatement of the 1776 Commission is the solution to counter such leftist misinformation and progressivism.  Other options include free online courses from Hillsdale College, particularly on the topics of the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, foreign policy, progressivism, socialism, etc.  Turning Point, USA is a conservative organization that performs extensive outreach on college campuses, and has played an important role in mobilizing students to vote for Trump over Kamala Harris.

The National Constitution Center features numerous online lectures, speeches from Supreme Court justices, interviews with renowned legal and political experts and commentators, and interactive content on the Constitution.  Prager U provides informative 5-minute videos on various topics as the presidents, Black Lives Matter, voter integrity, education, economists, etc.  Perhaps Dinesh D’ Souza’s movie entitled America, which debunks the Left’s major myths and presents American exceptionalism at its finest, should be promoted in educational institutions on all grade levels. 

Furthermore, I would like to express my appreciation to everyone who contributed to this turning point in the reelection of Donald Trump.  That includes all pragmatic Nikki Haley conservatives, independents, Democrats, and former political rivals.  I wish I could extend my gratitude and praise to the #NeverTrump conservatives with whom I endeavored to persuade in my previous commentary.  Indeed, I have learned that conservatives do not have a monopoly on reason.  If they did, then #NeverTrump conservatives would at least be open to being #SometimesTrump conservatives.

In closing, my American friends and conservatives, it is time to celebrate a momentous occasion in American history.  Indeed, it’s morning again in America---not because of Trump’s short-lived wave of nationalist, protectionist, populism---but because of the aforementioned constitutionally limited government policies and civic/family-oriented initiatives, which the Trump administration will hopefully revitalize within the party of Ronald Reagan and throughout the country from which Americans will derive prosperity and a new sense of liberty.  That would definitely make America great again . . . . permanently!

Long live President Donald Trump!

Long live the U.S.A.!

The post It’s Morning Again in America!  Here’s How Trump and Conservatives Can Make It Permanent! first appeared on Marcial's Law.

1. Cruz is a trustworthy, anti-Establishment, public servant.

Whether you are a Democrat or Republican, there can never be a question of where Cruz stands, and if he will ever compromise his principles out of political expedience.  Indeed, he has opposed both the Democrat and Republican Establishment equally whenever their agendas ran contrary to his mandate to Texans and the American people, even to the detriment of his own political career.  Cruz’s renowned 21-hour speech on the Senate floor (in direct opposition to the Senate majority leader of his own party) is an ostensible display of his passion, as well as his strong legs, large bladder, and enormous proverbial testicles.  In spite of such fierce opposition from his own political peers, Cruz never deviated from his promises and mandate to the American people. Thus, he has been consistently principled, whereas others have been principled only until Election Day. 

2. Cruz has more vast experience in legal and constitutional matters than Allred.

At roughly the same time when Allred was still attending high school in the 1990s, Cruz graduated from Princeton University and Harvard Law School, served as a law clerk for a U.S. appeals court juror and then for a U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice.  Between the time Allred finished his tenure at Baylor University and kicking a football around professionally for the NFL (2001-2010), Cruz already started serving the country in various capacities.

First, he taught U.S. Supreme Court Litigation as an adjunct professor of Law at the University of Texas School of Law.  Then, Cruz served as Director of the Office of Policy Planning at the Federal Trade Commission, as associate deputy attorney general in the U.S. Justice Department, and finally as Texas solicitor general.  During that time, he authored over 80 U.S. Supreme Court briefs and argued 43 oral arguments, achieving an unprecedented series of landmark national victories, some of which I listed in a previous article.  Cruz is currently serving his second term as U.S. senator.  

Such an extensive legal background gives him the competitive advantage to effectively author or vote for or against legislation on a wide range of issues with legal and constitutional implications—concerns of privacy, free speech, property rights, criminal justice, immigration, foreign policy, etc. Allred would have to rely excessively on legal advisors or attorneys for their expertise or simply draw from his own limited knowledge and experience from being a short-term attorney and lawmaker.

3. As a U.S. senator, Cruz has crafted and supported several significant bills for Americans and the nation.

• He supported a bill which lowered taxes and increased income for the labor force (including wages and benefits), helped create thousands of jobs (some at record levels), accelerated economic growth, and contributed to America’s global competitive advantage.

• He introduced a bill to make the aforementioned tax cuts permanent.  Even Sen. Bernie Sanders agrees they were a “very good thing,” which is why they “should’ve made the tax breaks for the middle class permanent.”

• He supported a pipeline project which would create jobs and lower the price of goods and services due to the reduced cost of energy.

• He co-authored a law permitting the states to impose mandatory drug testing for federal unemployment benefit recipients.

• He introduced legislation that, if passed, would ensure all pertinent agencies report convictions to the National Background Check Database, which would have prosecuted anyone who attempted to illegally purchase a firearm, such as the Texas church shooter. It also would have provided more school security, e.g., metal detectors and police officers.

• In the midst of the fierce debate about separating undocumented parents from their children, he introduced emergency legislation that would permit them to remain together during detention.

• He co-authored a bill allocating a few billion dollars in tax relief to Hurricane Harvey victims, including tax credits for small businesses that kept paying their employees (even if such employees were unable to arrive at their workplace, or the business was shut down due to the storms).

• Amid attempts by numerous Chinese nationals and other illegal aliens to acquire unauthorized access to Department of Defense installations, Cruz introduced the GATE CRASHERS Act, which would strengthen criminal penalties for such trespassing.

• He added a provision to the Military Construction and Veterans’ Affairs Appropriations bill, which would address the long waiting period in which veterans must currently wait to receive healthcare at the South Texas Veterans Health Care System.

• He sponsored the Student Empowerment Act, which would expand the reach of 529 savings accounts for K-12 and college education to include public, private, religious, and home schooling expenses (e.g., tutoring, standardized testing fees, educational therapies for disabled students).

• He introduced the Expatriate Terrorist Act, which revokes the citizenship of any American who collaborates with Islamic terrorists and bans those who leave the country to join them.

4. As a U.S. senator, Cruz has worked in bipartisanship with his peers.

• Cruz worked with Rep. Henry Cuellar (Laredo) in expediting the permitting process in the expansion of 4 key bridges used to cross the Texas-Mexico border and bringing the inflow of over $800 billion in trade and commerce into Texas and America.

• Cruz collaborated with Javier Palomarez (president and CEO of the U.S. Hispanic Business Council) to reform H1B high tech visas.

• Cruz worked with Sen. Maria Cantwell (Wash.) and Sen. Tammy Baldwin (Wis.) on the Pay Our Coast Guard Act, which would secure the salaries of Coast Guardsmen in the event of a government shutdown (like other military personnel)

• Cruz collaborated with Sen. Raphael Warnock (Georgia) in extending Interstate 14 from the Permian Basin to Georgia’s Atlantic Coast.

5. Cruz supports energy independence and the use of liquefied natural gas (LNG) in order to curb inflation (thereby lowering food and gas prices), while Allred opposes them.

• Cruz sent a letter to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to appeal the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit’s decision to vacate permits for the Rio Grande LNG project and Texas LNG project.

• While Allred voted for a current law, which has increased taxes and fees on natural gas and energy production, Cruz introduced legislation to repeal them and help curb inflation.

• Allred voted against a bill, which would lift Biden’s pause on LNG exports.

• Allred voted against the Restoring American Energy Dominance Act.

• Allred voted against the Lower Energy Costs Act.

6. Cruz favors strong border security, while Allred opposes it.

• Cruz introduced the El Chapo Act, which would appropriate the seized assets of drug lords for the construction of the border wall that Allred has characterized as “racist.”

• Cruz included border security amendments to the 2022 Coast Guard Authorization Act, which enhances the surveillance capabilities for the southern maritime border.

• Cruz introduced the Secure the Border Act, which is a comprehensive plan that will provide physical and technological border improvements, manpower assistance to Border Patrol and ICE Enforcement Removal Operations, protection to families seeking entry at the border and unaccompanied alien children, and will reform immigration parole, asylum, and legal immigration workforce issues.

• Cruz sponsored the No FAMS at the Border Act of 2024, which allows for the deployment of federal air marshals to the southern and northern U.S. borders.

• Cruz co-sponsored the Laken Riley Act, which mandates that the Homeland Security secretary incarcerate aliens who have been charged with crimes committed in the U.S.

• Allred voted against the Protecting our Communities from Failure to Secure the Border Act (11/30/2023).

• Allred voted against the Continuing Appropriations and Border Security Enhancement Act, 2024 (09/29/2023).

• Allred voted against the Secure the Border Act of 2023 (05/11/2023).

• Allred voted for an amendment to an appropriations bill, which would bar federal funds from being used toward the Texas border and immigration enforcement program.

• Allred voted against the resolution condemning the use of elementary and secondary school facilities to provide shelter for aliens who are not admitted to the United States (06/22/2023)

7. Cruz is a staunch supporter of law enforcement and public safety, while Allred has disregarded both.

• Before the Senate floor, Cruz criticized all government officials who led the charge to defund the police, while Allred supported the anti-police, anti-ICE organization, known as NetGen America.

• Cruz introduced a bill that would appropriate over $38 billion to enforce school security and double the number of school resource officers in order to reduce gun violence.

• Cruz introduced the Back the Blue Act, which would increase penalties for anyone who targets law enforcement officers and would provide news protective equipment.

• Cruz introduced the Texas Rangers Bicentennial Resolution in the Senate, which commemorates the 200^th anniversary of the founding of the Texas Ranger Division of the Texas Department of Public Safety.

• Allred voted against the Police Act of 2023.

8. Cruz favors the separation of biological males from biological females in sports, whereas Allred favors integration.

• Cruz introduced the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act, which would protect athletic opportunities for female athletes.

• Allred voted against the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act.

• Allred voted against the Parental Bill of Rights, which mandated parental consent to change a child’s sex-based accommodations at school (e.g. athletic programs, restrooms, changing rooms).

• Allred opposed a proposal in the Texas legislature, which would have mandated schools to adopt a bathroom policy based on biological sex, not gender identity.

• Allred cosponsored the Transgender Bill of Rights resolution that permitted participation in sports based on gender identity and the elimination of restrictions on gender modification procedures.

9. As an ethnic minority, Cruz’s achievements make him an ideal role model for other minorities in forging their own American success story.

• He is the first Hispanic from Texas to serve in the U.S. Senate.
• He was the first Hispanic to serve the longest term of solicitor general in Texas history.

• He was the first Hispanic to clerk for a U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice.

• At Harvard Law School, wherein Professor Alan Dershowitz referred to Cruz as being “off-the-charts brilliant,” he was a founding editor of the Harvard Latino Law Review.

• Cruz’s own role model, his father, was imprisoned and tortured for being an enemy of the Batista regime in Cuba, prior to Fidel Castro overthrowing it.  After fleeing Cuba and coming to Texas with $100 sewn into his underwear, he learned English, while washing dishes for fifty cents per hour.  After earning a mathematics degree from the University of Texas in Austin, he started a small business in the oil and gas industry.  Hence, Cruz’s father---raised in poverty (under an authoritarian government), migrating to the U.S. and assimilating, becoming an entrepreneur, and starting a family---has proven that the American Dream is achievable by virtually anyone, regardless of economic status, ethnicity, or nationality.

In conclusion, my Texan and American friends, I urge you all to support Ted Cruz for the U.S. Senate for the simple reason that he is a trustworthy, astute, accomplished public servant. That is precisely what Texas and America need.  Also, ask yourself the following questions:  Do you support policies, which will keep food and gas prices high and possibly raise them higher?  Do you support weak border security, which have enabled murderers, rapists, and drug and human trafficking into America from Mexico?  Do you support defunding the police?  Do you want men playing in women’s sports, and should boys be allowed in the restrooms of girls in public schools?  If not, then we agree that Allred is not all right.  Therefore, choose Cruz.  Veto Allred.

The post 9 Reasons Texans Should Vote for Cruz and Toss Out Allred  first appeared on Marcial's Law.

My American friends and countrymen, although I correctly predicted the resignation of President Joe Biden from the 2024 presidential rematch with former President Donald Trump upon his disastrous debate performance on June 27, I did not predict his political ouster or coup.  Indeed, Vice President Kamala Harris did not win a single vote or delegate because she never entered any primary in any state.  Instead, Biden’s delegates (as represented by 14 million primary voters) were magically transferred to Harris (hence, unearned, especially considering she has scarcely participated in interviews).  Also, noteworthy is that Harris did not acquire a single delegate in her one and only presidential primary run against Biden in 2020.  Nonetheless, Harris has formally accepted the nomination (or coronation, depending on your perspective) at the Democrat National Convention in August.

Be that as it may, GovTrack.US has rated her as the most extreme politician, even left of the self-avowed socialist Senator Bernie Sanders, due to her extreme voting record as a U.S. senator and tie-breaker as VP.  Hence, she supported all of Biden’s leftist policies, in spite of some of them appearing as moderate.  For this reason, I often contrast the policy results of Trump and Biden, the primary difference being that Harris would have moved farther to the left than Biden with regard to federal spending, regulations, tax increases, etc.  Therefore, the results would be equally disastrous, if not more so, since she herself claims to be “radical” and advocates for the country to become radical.

Now that Biden has served in the same role as Trump in the same capacity, with the same vested powers of the president, and with the same limited term of 4 years, the stark contrast herein, will be presented plainly.  Some of the points underscore what Trump has initiated or accomplished in order to mitigate the devastating results of President Barack Obama’s policies.  Some of those Trump policies were simply continued by Biden, and their impact have been made tangible under Biden, hence opening him up for mistaken attribution.  Although it may be a moot point to say whether or not job creation and the unemployment rate were better under Trump or Biden, the following points are indisputable:

1. Under Trump, the unemployment rate reached its lowest level (3.7%) since 1969.  Ethnic minorities achieved their lowest rate ever recorded--- blacks at 5.5%, Hispanics at 3.9%, and Asians at 2.2%.  Women’s unemployment reached the lowest rate since 1953 at 3.1%.  Youth unemployment hit the lowest rate in nearly half a century.  Finally, the lowest unemployment rate ever recorded for Americans without a high school diploma occurred under Trump.

2. When Trump left office in 2021, inflation was at 1.4%.  After 18 months of Biden’s administration, it peaked to 9.1%.  Even the left-leaning news network Al Jazeera reports that between January 2021 and May 2024, the average price of a gallon of gasoline rose from $2.33 to $3.76, a loaf of bread from $1.55 to $1.97, and a dozen eggs from $1.47 to $2.70.  Hence, real wages drastically declined under Biden.
   
3. On federal deficits, Trump averaged $750 billion (if the two COVID years of 2020 and 2021 are omitted).  Biden averaged $1.5 trillion (even adjusting for inflation).
   
4. Under Trump, there was a 19% decline in food stamp recipients (from 44.2 million in 2016 to 35.7 million in 2019 prior to the COVID-19 pandemic), which lowered the cost to taxpayers to $60 billion (the lowest since 2009).  Under Biden, food stamp recipients rose by 3%, and the program’s expansion increased the cost to taxpayers to $120 billion per year (doubling the cost under Trump).
   
5. Under Trump, Median household income hit its highest level ever recorded.
   
6. Much of the prosperous economy under Trump was attributable to the tax cuts bill he signed into law, which Harris voted against as a senator.  The law cut taxes for more than 90% of the workforce and reduced taxes for businesses, which stimulated growth and job creation.  The tax cuts are set to expire in 2025, and Harris is poised to oppose them upon a legislative vote for extension, thereby raising taxes.
   
7. Harris proposes an additional tax increase on corporations from a 21% rate to 28% in order to “soak the rich.”  However, in reality, such a tax increase will simply be passed on to the consumers in the form of higher prices.  It should be noted that Trump already lowered the corporate rate of 35% (then the highest in the world) to 21%.

8. On illegal immigration, Trump has instituted several policies to curb it, notwithstanding the issue of the 11 million illegal aliens currently residing in the U.S.  Over 400 miles of border wall was built.  The “Remain in Mexico” policy slowed down the rate of border crossings by detaining alleged asylum seekers (approximately 70,000 during Trump’s full term), pending the time of their hearings in the U.S.  Trump ended Obama’s policy of “Catch and Release” and replaced it with “Catch and Detain,” pending the removal of illegal aliens, and ultimately deporting them back to their home countries.  In contrast, Biden discontinued border wall construction, ended the Remain in Mexico policy, and reinstated the Catch and Release policy, in which 75% or 191,141illegal aliens were released into the American population in 2023.  The 11 million illegal aliens originated from more than 150 different countries, from which murderers, rapists, and Islamic terrorists stem.  Ironically, Harris stated, “We have a secure border.”
   
9. On the drug trade along the southern border, Trump threatened Mexico’s president, Andres Obrador, with designating the drug cartels as “foreign terrorist organizations,” which would enable the U.S. to deploy drones or even special forces to Mexico.  Such a specter prompted Obrador to station thousands of Mexican soldiers and national guardsmen at the southern border in order to keep the cartels at bay, as well as curtail much of the illegal migration.  As soon as Biden assumed the presidency, Obrador recalled those soldiers and guardsmen from the Mexican border, and the pre-Trump chaos resumed.
   
10. Harris supports defunding ICE (Immigration Customs Enforcement) and the abolition of ICE detainers (the means by which state or local law enforcement detains illegal aliens before being transferred to federal custody.

11. Harris supports providing Social Security and Medicare benefits to illegal immigrants.  Trump wants those benefits to be limited to American citizens, who have paid taxes.
    
12. Trump supported legislation to open ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge) and approve Keystone XL and Dakota Access Pipelines in order to keep energy prices low while creating more jobs.  The United States became a net natural gas exporter for the first time since 1957, hence making the country energy-dominant.  In contrast, Biden-Harris opposed Keystone, approved the Nord Stream Pipeline (which emboldened Russian president Vladimir Putin), and supported legislation to restrict oil drilling, hence accounting for high inflation and dependence on foreign oil once again.
    
13. In spite of Trump keeping America out of war, he has managed to annihilate some notorious terrorists, such as Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani (the second most powerful person in Iran, who concocted plans to attack American diplomats in Iraq) and ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.  With the latter’s demise, the caliphate was quashed.  Harris opposed Soleimani’s assassination.
    
14. Biden-Harris initiated the disastrous withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, which led to the deaths of 13 American servicemen and over 100 Afghani civilians from an ISIS suicide bombing.  It also led to the Taliban takeover of $7 billion in U.S. military assets provided to the Afghan National Army.  Perhaps, such a tragedy could have been averted had Biden fulfilled the request of then Joint Chiefs Chairman General Mark Milley of keeping a residual force of 2,500 troops, instead of a meager 650 that Biden deployed.

15. Under President George W. Bush, Putin invaded and seized Georgia.  Under President Barack Obama, Putin invaded Ukraine and seized Crimea.  Under President Joe Biden, Putin invaded Ukraine again, which has been an ongoing war.  Under President Trump, Putin has refrained from invading any country.
    
16. Under Biden, the terrorist organization, Hamas, attacked Israel, giving rise to the current Palestinian-Israeli war.  Under Trump, Hamas refrained from such an attack.
    
17. Trump signed legislation imposing tariffs on China in response to China’s forced technology transfer, intellectual property theft, and chronically abusive trade practices.  As a result, $16 billion was collected by the government (after a single year of implementation), while the tariff burden fell on Chinese exporters.  Due to its efficacy, the Biden administration has continued the tariffs.
18. Trump negotiated NATO allies into spending $69 billion more on defense since 2016, rather than allowing the U.S. to continue carrying most of the financial burden.
    
19. On hostage releases, Trump imposed sanctions on two specific government officials in order to persuade Turkish President Recep Erdogan to release an American pastor (Andrew Brunson) from custody.  The sanctions froze the officials’ assets in the U.S., banned them from traveling to the U.S., and barred them from any financial transactions with Americans.  No money or hostages were exchanged in the pastor’s successful release.  In contrast, Biden negotiated a deal (entailing 7 countries), wherein Russia would release Americans from custody in exchange for Russians (imprisoned for terrorism, spying, cyber hacking, and conspiring to obtain military-grade technologies from U.S. companies for Russia’s interests).  Such exchanges could only encourage kidnappings and more incarcerations of Americans.
    
20. Under Obama, the Iran nuclear deal took effect with then VP Biden’s support.  It enabled the U.S., the European Union, and the United Nations to lift banking, nuclear, and oil export sanctions on Iran in exchange for its compliance  with UN inspectors to refrain from building nuclear weaponry for 10 to 15 years.  When Trump assumed the presidency, he withdrew the U.S. from the deal, reverting back to the energy sanctions which kept Iran in recession, currency depreciation, and inflation.  He was also concerned that the deal would stimulate Iran’s economy (not for the average household, but for the government), whereby it could raise funds for terrorist proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah.  Harris has stated that if she becomes president, she would bring the U.S. back into the deal.
    
21. Trump has established a new branch of the military called the Space Force, which is engineered to enhance America’s defense, especially with regard to China and Russia’s aggression and imperialist tendencies.  In contrast, Biden has enabled “woke” policies within the military, thereby weakening it.
    
22. On the woke military front, Trump scaled back the transgender-accommodating policies of Obama.  Upon Defense Sec. James Mattis’s report indicating that transgender individuals (suffering from gender dysphoria) are 9 times more susceptible to suicide and severe anxiety than the general population, the Trump administration imposed restrictions on them.  However, not only did Biden (on his inauguration day) abolish those restrictions via executive order, he also enabled active military members to take time off for sex-change surgeries at taxpayer expense.
    
23. Harris supports taxpayer funding of transgender surgeries for federal prisoners and detained illegal aliens.

24. Under Trump, Operation Warp Speed was launched, by which the government collaborated with pharmaceutical companies to accelerate the development, manufacturing, and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines within 11 months---an unprecedented feat that would normally take over 4 years.  During the first 5 months of their availability, the vaccines prevented more than 139,000 deaths, which was estimated to save between $625 billion to $1.4 trillion.  Such an expedited process has not only been a boon to Americans, but for the entire world.
    
25. Trump signed Right-To-Try legislation, which permits terminally ill patients to consume newly developed drugs, hence bypassing the lengthy process of FDA approval, saving and prolonging the life of thousands.
    
26. On veteran medical care, Trump signed the MISSION Act, which expanded veteran access to include non-VA facilities, effectively streamlining the time and distance in which to receive care.  Trump also launched the “Anywhere to Anywhere” initiative, which allows VA doctors, nurses, and other healthcare providers to administer care via telehealth and similar technology across state lines, including, but not limited to the veteran’s home.  In contrast to enhancing veteran medical care, Harris co-sponsored a bill that would eliminate the military healthcare system called TRICARE.
    
27. Trump signed the First Step Act, which reforms the criminal/prison system shortening the sentences of qualified, non-violent drug offenders.   In contrast, Biden supported the crime law which resulted in such a defective system to begin with, while Harris oversaw more than 1,900 convictions for “marijuana possession, cultivation, or sale” as California attorney general.
    
28. Trump staunchly supported the police in maintaining law and order, even supporting funding to provide them better body armor.  During the May 2020 riots, Harris encouraged defunding the police and allowing thugs to loot, damage, and burn over 1,000 businesses and a police station in Minneapolis to support their “right to protest.”  She even supported a fund to bail out the ones in police custody.  Also noteworthy, is that then Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (Harris’s VP pick) delayed sending the national guard to quell the riots in Minneapolis, in spite of Mayor Jacob Frey’s desperate request.  When he finally complied, Walz deployed only 100 guardsmen, as opposed to the 600 requested by Frey, hence endangering them for 4 days.

29. Trump supports school choice, which allows children (especially those from an impoverished situation) to attend public or private schools.  Harris only supports public schooling in order to empower the teachers’ unions rather than parents and their children.
    
30. Trump has nominated three justices to the Supreme Court, who will interpret laws in conformity to the U.S. Constitution and not legislate from the bench.  In contrast, Biden willfully nominated a black female to the Court, who could not even define what a “woman” is when asked in a Senate confirmation hearing.
    
31. In spite of the high risk of presidential candidate Robert Kennedy Jr. being a target of assassination and his numerous requests for secret service protection (an amenity granted to any major presidential contender), Biden refused it.  Only upon Trump’s insistence and own assassination attempt, did Biden capitulate.  By the way, Kennedy (a life-long Democrat) denounced the Democrat Party for opposing free speech, and has recently formed an alliance with and endorsed Trump as a “unity party.”

32. Trump is a popular, dedicated public servant.  In spite of two impeachments, a conviction, two assassination attempts, a rigged first debate with Harris (by which the moderators collaborated with Harris against Trump), and not receiving a federal salary, Trump remains in the presidential race.  In contrast, Biden dropped out of the race after the one and only debate with Trump.  Unlike Trump, who defeated 16 candidates in the 2016 Republican presidential primary in more than 35 contests, winning over 1,500 delegates, Harris did not win over a single delegate this year because she never entered a single primary in any state, as I stated from the beginning.  Neither did she acquire a single delegate in her one and only presidential primary run against Biden in 2020, hence displaying her unpopularity among the American people.

In conclusion, my American friends, simply ask yourselves under whose policies have food and gas prices remained relatively low.  Trump or Biden?  Under whose policies have the southern border and illegal immigration been most effective?  Trump or Biden?  Under whose policies do you think public servants (e.g., police, judges, military servicemen) should be hired based on competence over race or sex?  Trump or Biden?  To any sane, rational, or logical-minded voter---whether Democrat, Republican, or Independent---the choice for president should not be very challenging.  Therefore, my American friends, choose wisely for the welfare of family and country.

Long live the Republic!

Long live the USA!

The post For Rational Voters Who Want to Give America a Huge Jump, Here Are 32 Reasons to Support Donald Trump first appeared on Marcial's Law.

If America needs “more of the same” of anything, it would be more of the same Trump policies, which have made America more prosperous, safe, and free (positive results).  For purposes of simplicity, let’s call these positive results “Point C.”  Before America can reach Point C, it must pass Point B, which is the election of Donald Trump to a second term.  Before America can reach Point B, it must reach and surpass Point A, which is the nomination of Trump by the Republican National Committee during the primary election.

Currently, America is poised to reach Point A.  However, Point B is highly questionable.  In order to reach Point B, Trump must either obtain an enormous amount of votes from a narrow base, exceeding Biden’s votes, or he must obtain them from multiple groups, comprising a broad base.  In the former scenario as it currently stands, Trump’s base narrowly consists of the white working class, conservative Republicans, and populist Republicans.  However, in the latter scenario, Trump lacks a broad, diverse base of suburban women, moderate Republicans, some conservative Republicans, Democrats, and independents, some of which are committed “Never Trump” voters.

Although many Democrats have become dissatisfied with Biden’s incompetence, their animosity towards Trump trumps (pardon the pun) Biden’s ill performance.  Hence, they are inclined to either vote for “the lesser of two evils” (which they somehow believe is Biden).  Even the evangelical Christians may be split, as the renowned religious leader, Bob Vander Plaats, formally endorsed Ron DeSantis in November, in spite of Trump’s advancement of the pro-life cause (the overturning of Roe vs. Wade), the transfer of America’s embassy and Israel’s capital from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, etc.

Aside from the aforementioned variety of votes, the independents can be the most consequential.  That is due to their historical role in deciding tightly contested races in swing states, such as Arizona, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Georgia.  In fact, Biden won the independent vote in 2020 by a 9-point margin (52% to 43%) according to Pew Research Center.  Just 4 years prior (in the 2016 election), Trump won that bloc by 1 point over Clinton (43% to 42%).  Ceteris Paribus, other things equal, Trump is poised to lose independents in a rematch with Biden, either because they will stay home on Election Day, or they will vote for Robert Kennedy, Jr., who is currently running as an independent.

Many have chosen to electorally forgo Trump simply due to his willful absence in the primary debates (four as of this writing), which is the traditional and appropriate public forum for maximum public exposure in order to maximize votes.  His absences are viewed as shunning American voters, since many first-timers (often the impressionable youth) will be oblivious to Trump’s positions or policies and are only familiar with him in so far as his negative publicity is concerned.  I’m referring to his narcissistic demeanor, inutile behavior, ad hominem attacks, and scandals (some of which entail bribing a porn star and his mismanagement of the Capitol Hill riot on January 6, 2021), not to mention his 2 impeachments and 91 criminal charges (whether innocent or guilty).  In fact, a Harvard University poll shows voters aged 18 to 29 favor Biden over Trump 41% to 30%, and that 69% of those Biden voters are voting more in “opposition to Donald Trump becoming president again” than “support for President Biden and his policies.”

As a politician, Trump should be keenly cognizant of those electoral factors.  Given that he is, it would appear that instead of Trump aspiring to be president of the whole United States, he aspires to be president of only the parts comprising his base.  Had he appeared in the debates, at least Trump could defend himself.  Even if the media or moderators spin or distort his responses, the optics would show that he made the effort.  Anyway, he could always clarify any willful distortions on Twitter or his own platform, Truth Social.  The same holds true of his policies and scandals, which some may find questionable or objectionable.  Again, Trump refuses to avail himself of the public forums to explain or defend himself, which could cost him potential votes.

Having discussed Trump’s shortcomings, it would appear that the path to Point C (positive results) will no longer be feasible, at least not with Trump as the nominee.  However, there is another route leading to Point C through another presidential candidate, whose qualifications remain unmatched by any other.  More importantly, the electability of this accomplished public servant is made evident in a Wall Street Journal poll, which ranks this contender 17 percentage points ahead of Biden (51% to 34%) in a hypothetical head-to-head match, whereas Trump ties or beats Biden by only 1 to 4 percentage points according to various polls.

Ideally, if Trump sincerely wants to “make America great again” again, then dropping out of the race and enabling a new generational leader to resume and improve his policies, is the most patriotic thing he can do, before retiring honorably.  However, in reality, we all know there is little chance that Trump is capable of humbling himself, in spite of the potential, negative repercussions on the country.  Therefore, my American and conservative friends, I request, nay, implore you all to dump Trump, and pick a winnable conservative leader!  Please click here to find out more reasons, aside from electability, why this candidate is the most qualified of all.

Long live a free, safe, and prosperous USA!

The post Why Conservatives Must Dump Trump to Defeat Biden in 2024 first appeared on Marcial's Law.

1. Haley has the most diverse executive experience of all presidential candidates, which makes her ideal to preside as America’s chief executive. That is to say, she has directed, managed, and supervised, corporate management, workers, teams, committees, processes, and organizations, all of which are executive functions in one way or another within the public, private, and civic sectors.

As governor of South Carolina, Haley served as the chief executive of that state.  In the state’s house (as a law maker), she chaired some committees, namely, the Freshman Caucus and Women’s Caucus (Vice-Chair) and the Labor, Commerce, and Industry Committee.  In the private sector, Haley was a supervisor for a recycling company, sat on Boeing’s board of directors, and served as the chief financial officer of Exotica International (a women’s clothing business started by her mother).  In the civic sector, Haley sat on the board of directors for both the Orangeburg County and Lexington Chamber of Commerce.  She served as president of the South Carolina chapter of the National Association of Women Business Owners and chaired the Lexington Gala in order to raise funds for a local hospital.

2. Haley is an accountant by trade, not a lawyer, as many politicians are. While attorneys are mandated to serve the law, many of them exploit their legal expertise for financial gain or advancing their political ambitions. That has put Haley in a unique position to look at the federal budget through a non-partisan lens, hence prompting her to be critical of both political parties on excessive federal spending.  It was such a fiscally conservative perspective, which appealed to the Tea Party and catapulted her into South Carolina’s gubernatorial office in 2010.
3. Haley is an accomplished public servant.
   • As South Carolina’s first female and Indian governor, she enacted tax-cutting and regulatory-descaling policies that turned the state’s 11% unemployment rate to 4%. More than 20,000 manufacturing jobs were created from reputable companies like BMW, Boeing, and Michelin. The economy was so robust that it was coined as “the Beast of the Southeast.”

• • She signed an election integrity bill into law, which requires voters to present a photo ID.
• • Being the daughter of legal immigrants and a defender of the rule of law, she enacted strict immigration laws that empowered law enforcement to check the legal status of immigrants, and enforce South Carolina’s E-Verify program.
• • She signed a charter school bill that broadened school choice and eliminated the federal government’s Common Core standards in South Carolina.
• • She signed a bill that repealed some of South Carolina’s anti-gun laws and a bill that expanded concealed carry rights to bars and restaurants. She herself is a concealed carry permit holder.
• • Assuming the role of a crisis manager while governor with the onset of Hurricane Matthew, she successfully evacuated South Carolinians, and kept them updated twice a day on further developments. Haley’s performance was so stellar that even one of her critics, state Rep. Mike Pitts, commended her for her “leadership during a very stressful time” and described it in South Carolinian lingo as “Top Shelf.”
• 
  
  • As UN ambassador, she demanded countries receiving foreign aid align with U.S. policy on the threat of being defunded.
  
  
  • She urged Trump to transfer America’s embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
• • She condemned Iran for its development of ballistic missiles, aiding and abetting terrorists throughout the Middle East, and refusing to cooperate with international inspectors, hence persuading President Trump to repeal the Iran nuclear deal that President Obama put in place.

4. Haley has the most foreign policy experience and is a military spouse and sibling. As UN ambassador, she has dealt with America’s allies and enemies on a daily basis.  Haley’s expertise in this area is most suitable for the current conflict between Russia and Ukraine, Israelis and Palestinians, and the specter of China with regard to trade, fentanyl smuggling, technology theft, and expansion in the South China Sea.

She has even demonstrated her grasp of geopolitics in her admonition of presidential rival Ron DeSantis’s characterization of the Russian-Ukrainian war as “a mere territorial dispute,” in which the U.S. should not prioritize.  “If Russia wins,” stated Haley, “there is no reason to believe it will stop at Ukraine.  And if Russia wins, then its closest allies---China and Iran---will become more aggressive.”

The active military service of Haley’s husband and brother would give her a personal stake in her decisions as commander-in-chief.  Not only would she be able to empathize with other men in uniform and directly know and apprehend their needs, she would think twice before deploying troops overseas or engaging in hostilities with other countries.

5. Haley is the most electable candidate. A Wall Street Journal national poll shows her leading by 17 percentage points (51% to 34%) in a hypothetical one-on-one match with Biden.  The same poll shows DeSantis at a tie (45% to 45%), and Trump leading by only 4 percentage points (47% to 43%).

As I have pointed out in my commentary entitled “Why Conservatives Must Dump Trump to Defeat Biden in 2024,” Trump’s excessive baggage of scandals and controversy (whether innocent or guilty) could cost conservatives the election in a Biden-Trump rematch in 2024.  Haley, on the other hand, has no such baggage and could garner the support of independents, as well as Never Trump conservatives, moderate Republicans, suburban mothers, and perhaps, conservative Democrats.  The independents, in particular, are significant, since they frequently decide tight races in swing states, and would be more inclined to pick Haley over her other Republican contenders.  This is due to the public perception of her as being a unifying public servant, although she is simply being a practical conservative.

Consider the removal of the Confederate flag from South Carolina’s capitol.  This was the result of the 2015 mass shooting in which the lives of nine blacks in a Charleston church were taken by a white supremacist.  Due to the deep divide between South Carolinians of opposing sides with equally strong convictions (blacks who perceive the flag as a symbol of racism and slavery and whites who perceive the flag as a symbol of southern culture and heritage), the task of removing the Confederate flag from the state capitol necessitated the collaboration of community leaders and a bipartisan group of state legislators---a seemingly impossible task, considering the failed attempts by previous governors.  However, Haley succeeded, as former GOP executive director Alex Stromon pointed out via “her diplomacy in navigating tough issues and getting things done by having people come on board who were initially completely opposed to bringing the Confederate flag down.”

On the heated issue of abortion, Haley claims, “I am unapologetically pro-life, not because the Republican Party tells me, but because my husband was adopted, and I live with that blessing every day.”  That is her personal perspective due to her personal situation and religious faith.  However, Haley is keenly aware of influential contrarians who are pro-abortion, but could be persuaded on a national, bi-partisan “consensus.”  For example, banning late-term abortions, encouraging adoptions, not forcing doctors who don’t believe in the procedure to perform it, and making contraception accessible.  “It’s about saving babies and supporting moms,” stated Haley.  “I am fighting for all of them.”  Who could argue with that?

Another area in which Haley could get bi-partisan support is on her policy of mandatory mental competency examinations for public office holders or aspirants, who are over the age of 75.  She noted the dysfunctional demeanor of Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senator Mitch McConnell, and President Joe Biden when they appeared or spoke publicly, or, in Feinstein’s case, was excessively absent from the Senate due to some health complications.  According to NBC’s poll, “68 percent of voters said they're concerned Biden doesn't have the necessary mental and physical health to be president.”  Even the liberal NBC host Chuck Todd admitted, “The concern among Democrats [about Biden's overall health] has doubled since 2020.”

Those are just a few issues in which independents and other voters could “reasonably” align, not to mention that should Haley defeat Biden in the general election, she would be the first female American, born to legal immigrants from India, to be president of the United States.  All of those factor her into posing a serious threat to Democrats, so much so that even renowned Democrat strategist Chris Hahn admitted, "I worry about Nikki Haley. . . . She would have cross-partisan appeal. . . . Joe Biden would lose to Nikki Haley, as it stands right now, without a doubt in my mind."

Consequently, Haley’s electability could bring Republican House and Senate majorities and gubernatorial wins, which many commentators and pollsters erroneously predicted Trump would do in the 2022 midterm elections.  Their expectations were so high, they referred to the anticipated victories as a “red wave” or “red tsunami.”  Perhaps they should have been more accurately coined a “red drop” in the political bucket.

In conclusion, my American and conservative friends, vote for Nikki Haley in order to defeat Joe Biden in 2024.  Despite acknowledging her stellar presidential qualifications, many conservative voters are simply guided, or, rather, misguided, by the current polls, wherein Donald Trump appears to be far ahead in the race for the Republican nomination.  Hence, they believe they are erring on the side of political caution by putting their support behind him.  However, the journalist Jeremy Markovich observed that in South Carolina, everyone warns, “Do not underestimate Nikki Haley. . . . Do not underestimate her ability to move the needle, even in a race that Trump is forecasted to win. And do not underestimate her ability to fight back. Especially if Trump starts going on the offensive against her.”

My friends, that sounds like a president America needs. Indeed, Haley was Trump’s first challenger to join the primary.  We can make her the last candidate standing as champion before stepping into the White House.

The post Five Reasons Conservatives Should Be Picky and Give the Presidential Primary to Nikki first appeared on Marcial's Law.

1. Robredo does not come from a political dynasty
   or privileged nepotism.  Marcos Jr. does.
2. Robredo’s last name plays minimal, if any, role in
   her success.  Marcos Jr.’s last name
   plays a significant role in his success.
3. Robredo has no relatives in government which
   could potentially pose conflicts of interest. 
   Marcos Jr. has relatives in the Senate, House, province, and city.
4. Robredo has no tax liabilities.  Marcos Jr. has a pending estate tax of P203
   billion, which even President Rodrigo Duterte acknowledges.
5. Robredo’s relevant educational achievements
   include Doctor of Laws from the University of the Cordilleras, Juris Doctor
   from the University of Nueva Caceres, Doctor in Public Administration from PUP,
   and B.A. in Economics from UP Diliman.  Since
   Marcos Jr. did not complete his preliminary examinations, he was unable to
   attain a B.A. in politics, philosophy, and economics.  Instead, he obtained a Special Diploma (not
   equivalent to a degree) in Social Studies. 
   Likewise, Marcos Jr. did not acquire a master’s degree from Wharton
   School of Business, since he could not finish his studies (due to his election
   as vice governor of Ilocos Norte in 1980).
6. Robredo has the endorsements of 162 economists.
   Marcos Jr. does not, and many predict the peso as well as the economy will
   decline under his tenure as president.
7. Robredo will defend the West Philippine Sea at
   all costs, including invoking the US-Philippine Mutual Defense Treaty, and will
   leverage the arbitral award before making any oil exploratory agreement with
   China.  Marcos Jr. opposes US involvement
   in the WPS dispute and will unconditionally enter an oil exploratory agreement
   with China.
8. Robredo is poised to govern for all Filipinos,
   which is why she has attended all major presidential forums in order to
   maximize her exposure.  Marcos Jr. is
   likely to govern only for his political base, which is why he has foregone all
   major presidential forums in spite of the clamor of Filipinos to face them and
   other presidentiables---in a word---accountability.

Remember, my friends and countrymen, there is no shame in changing your vote even at the last hour.  However, it is shameful to vote blindly, so vote wisely.

Long live the Philippines!

The post Leni or Bongbong? first appeared on Marcial's Law.

4/12/2022

My friends and countrymen, UP political science professor Clarita Carlos said voters have different criteria for choosing a presidentiable, based on what is important to each one (e.g., climate change, health, education).  Hence, if your criteria are identical to mine, then it is only logical that you will not vote for Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. for president of the Republic of the Philippines.  Unlike many of his critics who hold him accountable for the “sins of his father” (e.g., ill-gotten wealth, injustice to martial law victims) and evasion of taxes and tax penalties, my concerns are of a more fundamental nature.  That means such concerns, as important as they may be, are only secondary to the three specific ones I’m about to present.

First and foremost, it is important to me that the commander-in-chief, the head of state, and the head of government (all embodied in the president) know and understand the Constitution and the context upon which it was framed.  In that case, Marcos Jr. should have known before choosing President Rodrigo Duterte as his running mate for vice president, that it is unconstitutional.  Some may contend that, upon realizing this, he settled for the President’s daughter, Sara Duterte, instead.  Hence since Marcos Jr. averted a potential violation of the supreme law of the land, why should Filipinos be so concerned or even critical of him?  My answer is that his initial ignorance of such a fundamental issue raises the question of his grasp of the Constitution, which makes a mockery of his tenure as a law maker in both the House and Senate.

Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution reads: “The President and the Vice-President shall be elected by direct vote of the people for a term of six years which shall begin at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following the day of the election and shall end at noon of the same date six years thereafter. The President shall not be eligible for any reelection.”

According to Far Eastern University Law Dean Mel Sta Maria, the word “any” in the last sentence refers to reelection as president as well as vice president, since both posts were cited in the preceding sentence.  Hence, “the President shall not be eligible to run for reelection for ‘any’ of the positions,” concludes Sta Maria, “either the Office of the President or the Office of the Vice President.”

If that’s insufficiently comprehensible to Marcos Jr., how about the fact that the 1987 Constitution was the direct byproduct of the dictatorial presidency of his father?  Indeed, its framers designed it precisely for the purpose of preventing such a tyrant from remaining in power for a prolonged period of time via a single term presidency and vice presidency.  Thus, Duterte’s attempt to run for vice president, states Christian Monsod (one of the constitutional framers), “is an ingenious and insidious move to circumvent the constitutional provision on reelection.”  If Marcos Jr. doesn’t understand such a fundamental concept, then he is utterly unfit to be president.  Although he ultimately chose Sara Duterte, he should have at least been prudent so as to not publicly disclose his initial intention of selecting the President at the time when its constitutionality was questioned.

Second, if you’re in the market to hire a professional to complete a specific job for you, and he didn’t appear in the job interview, what would you make of that?  Perhaps something beyond his control occurred.  Would you give him another chance?  What if you offered him a second chance for another interview, and he failed to appear again?  What if you discovered that he intentionally missed both interviews?  Would you persistently pursue him, or would you seek another professional, who’s eagerly ready to meet you?

In fact, Marcos Jr. deliberately missed several forums (the Jessica Soho and Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas interviews, CNN presidential debate, etc.) in which all presidentiables generally appeared to present their positions and plans to our voting countrymen.  He and his camp cited several reasons for his absences and others yet to come: conflict of schedule, unfavorable format (interview preferable to debate), media bias, lack of desire to be combative to other presidentiables due to his unity platform.

As a concerned Filipino citizen, I present some points and simple suggestions to address those reasons:

                Conflict of Schedule: Marcos Jr. should prioritize presidential forums.  He should make time for the most important things, and schedule everything else accordingly.

                Unfavorable Format: Marcos Jr. should mentally prepare for all potential formats, whether they be interviews or debates.  He should take notes and memorize them.  He should perform mock interviews and debates for practice.

                Media Bias: Marcos Jr. should participate in allegedly biased forums and point out the bias whenever it is presented by the interviewer or interpolator.  Additionally, he should use social media to clarify points or rebut the forum’s alleged bias.

                Lack of Desire to Be Combative to Other Presidentiables Due to “Unity” Platform: Marcos Jr. need only present his plans, programs, and track record.  He should stress his core competency without resorting to ad hominem remarks or personal attacks, while ignoring them from his competitors.  The debate format need not be a forum for verbal combat but for statesmanship, which may foster unity---true unity because his ideas will stand out if they appeal to Filipinos.

                Job Interview not for Debating Future Bosses or Other Fellow Applicants: That presupposes that all job interviews uniformly entail verbally asking and answering questions; they don’t.  Some entail demonstrating one’s knowledge or skill set, which may also display subtleties in temperament or character.  For example, an aspiring phone salesman may

As a concerned Filipino citizen, I present some points and simple suggestions to address those reasons:

• Conflict of Schedule: Marcos Jr. should prioritize presidential forums.  He should make time for the most important things, and schedule everything else accordingly.

• Unfavorable Format: Marcos Jr. should mentally prepare for all potential formats, whether they be interviews or debates.  He should take notes and memorize them.  He should perform mock interviews and debates for practice.

• Media Bias: Marcos Jr. should participate in allegedly biased forums and point out the bias whenever it is presented by the interviewer or interpolator.  Additionally, he should use social media to clarify points or rebut the forum’s alleged bias.

• Lack of Desire to Be Combative to Other Presidentiables Due to “Unity” Platform: Marcos Jr. need only present his plans, programs, and track record.  He should stress his core competency without resorting to ad hominem remarks or personal attacks, while ignoring them from his competitors.  The debate format need not be a forum for verbal combat but for statesmanship, which may foster unity---true unity because his ideas will stand out if they appeal to Filipinos.

• Job Interview not for Debating Future Bosses or Other Fellow Applicants: That presupposes that all job interviews uniformly entail verbally asking and answering questions; they don’t.  Some entail demonstrating one’s knowledge or skill set, which may also display subtleties in temperament or character.  For example, an aspiring phone salesman may display his social interaction skills and mastery of the art of persuasion, which may take patience, grace, and empathy.  The same holds true for a politician, since he or she is basically a salesman, pitching ideas and promises for votes.  One of the presidentiables has stressed the importance of debates as a leveler of the playing field, since there’s “no tutor, no script, no phones, so we cannot search on Google.”  That means “not only your wisdom but also the grasp on issues — current issues, past issues — would be tested and unearthed here. Not only wisdom and knowledge, but also the character is being revealed in these debates.”

display his social interaction skills and mastery of the art of persuasion, which may take patience, grace, and empathy.  The same holds true for a politician, since he or she is basically a salesman, pitching ideas and promises for votes.  One of the presidentiables has stressed the importance of debates as a leveler of the playing field, since there’s “no tutor, no script, no phones, so we cannot search on Google.”  That means “not only your wisdom but also the grasp on issues — current issues, past issues — would be tested and unearthed here. Not only wisdom and knowledge, but also the character is being revealed in these debates.”

I would add that in a debate forum, politicians are under pressure from their competitors, as well as their interpolators, which gives voters a glimpse of their agility and decisiveness or lack thereof when dealing with government officials, foreign diplomats, or heads of state---in a word---statecraft.  After all, if Marcos Jr. finds the debate forums with his colleagues and our voting countrymen overly challenging or burdensome, then how will he be able to face Chinese President Xi Jinpin or Russian President Vladimir Putin?

Surely a seasoned politician like Marcos Jr. would already know everything I’ve pointed out and suggested.  Anyway, the presence and participation of all presidentiables make it convenient for us to compare, contrast, and evaluate their presentations in order to make an informed vote.  More than Marcos Jr. not showing the best face of his campaign, candidacy, and character, stated political analyst Tony La Vina, “he did a very big disservice to the country.”  For me, that would be a display of his misplaced priorities and lack of concern for the Filipino electorate, not to mention the farce of his “unity” platform.  After all, shouldn’t Marcos Jr. maximize his exposure in order to court the voters of the other presidentiables?  Indeed, that would display his initiative to be a team player and a president for all Filipinos, not just for his political base, hence unifying the country.

Third, just as the man of the house must defend his family and property from intruders and thieves, so too, must the president defend the Filipino people and their country from foreign invaders and land grabbers.  Unfortunately, Marcos Jr. plans to simply resume Duterte’s policy of appeasement to China with regard to the West Philippine Sea, since China neither consents to the arbitral award, nor was it a signatory to the proceedings.  In an interview with Boy Abunda, Marcos Jr. stated, “Ang problema diyan saChinaay sinabi na nila: 'Hindi kami signatory diyan, hindi kami makikinig kung anuman ang maging findings ng court.'”  (The problem with China, they said: We’re not a signatory, we won’t listen to whatever the court’s findings are.)  Hence, “it’s no longer an arbitration if there’s only one party. It is no longer available to us.”  That is factually incorrect, since China ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in 1994, hence legally binding it to international law according to maritime expert Jay Batongbacal.  UP Political Science Head Herman Kraft said Marcos Jr. needs a “deeper understanding” of the proceedings leading to the 2016 arbitral ruling.

Marcos Jr. even reiterates the same straw man of President Duterte that “if we get in a fight [with China], . . . we will lose” within one week.  For the record, I know of no single government official or foreign policy expert who thinks that the Philippines should wage war against China, much less be victorious.  Perhaps this false premise gives justification to Marcos Jr. to pursue “diplomacy” and “bilateral agreement” with China.  “His true position, I think, is really pro-China,” states Batongbacal.  “It’s like Duterte’s old position that he needs China, and the Philippines can’t do anything about it…. It’s all very shallow, outdated, and simply uninformed.”  Indeed there are practicable and non-combative options for defending WPS suggested by Batongbacal, legal luminary behind the arbitral award and former Supreme Court Justice Antonio Carpio, and maritime expert and former national security advisor Roilo Golez, which I’ve listed in How the Philippines Can Enforce Its Arbitral Award without Going to War with China.

Speaking of being uninformed, Marcos Jr. stated in the SMNI forum, “Marami talaga tayong issue, hindi lamang sa conflicting claims sa gitna ng Pilipinas at saka China kaya’t ngayon lang ang nakita kong national election na naging issue ang West Philippine Sea or ang foreign policy.” (We really have lots of issues, not only the conflicting claims between the Philippines and China, that’s why I see only in this national election that the West Philippine Sea or foreign policy has become an issue.)  Such a statement could be misconstrued as sarcasm if one just tuned in and heard it on television.  Unfortunately, Marcos Jr. seems oblivious to the 2016 presidential debates in which then presidentiable Rodrigo Duterte promised to jet ski to Panatag Shoal and plant the Philippine flag in defiance to China’s incursion.  Indeed, it was one of the most memorable highlights.

How could Marcos Jr. have been unaware of it?  Could he have known and simply forgotten about it?  Could this be the first sign of dementia or Alzheimer’s Disease taking effect?  Perhaps he simply turned a deaf ear or a blind eye to the WPS issue because it’s just not a priority for him.  If the last possibility is the case, then it would account for his position, or rather uninformed position on different aspects of the matter, on which I will now expound.

In the SMNI forum, Marcos Jr. constantly expressed his concern over the disputed “territorial waters.”  He said, “It is about territorial waters, and when we have these 200 Chinese boats coming and blocking our fishermen, it is to assert their claim that this is part of their territorial water.”  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Anyone who has studied this matter would know that the vicinity of the territorial waters of the Philippines is within 12 nautical miles along the coast of Palawan and Mindoro, in Luzon (which is the area that China does not claim).  However, the area within 200 nautical miles is known as the “exclusive economic zone (EEZ) waters.”  Contrary to what Marcos Jr. said, Carpio retorted, “Our dispute with China in the WPS, outside of the territorial dispute in the Spratly Islands, is a dispute over EEZ waters, not territorial waters. A dispute over EEZ waters is a dispute over the resources in that EEZ – the fish, oil, gas and other mineral resources.”

Aside from Marcos Jr.’s apparent lack of understanding of the Philippines’ territorial waters and EEZ waters, his grasp of the arbitration court seems equally deficient.  On one occasion, he stated, "Ang pagsolusyon sa mga territorial conflict… naaayos lang ‘yan sa ICC (International Criminal Court). Pero kailangan sumang-ayon ang parehong bansa, magsasabi, ‘Okay sa akin sa Pilipinas, susundan ko ‘yong decision ng ICC.” (The resolution of territorial conflicts, these are only fixed at the ICC. But both countries have to agree, say for instance, 'It is okay with me in the Philippines, I will obey the ICC.) Marcos Jr. further said, "Pero ‘yong China, hindi naman signatory sa pagtaguyod ng ICC. Pangalawa, sinabi na nila mula umpisa pa sa hindi namin susundan, hindi namin kinikilala ‘yang mga decision sa ICC. (But China is not a signatory in the establishment of the ICC. Second, from the start, they said we will not follow, we do not recognize those decisions of the ICC.)  Again, anyone who has studied the Philippine arbitration case against China would know that the Permanent Court of Arbitration was the tribunal in which the case was filed and the Philippines awarded.  The ICC is the tribunal in which crimes against humanity are filed.

Hence, Marcos Jr. was factually incorrect about China being legally bound to comply with international law, about the Philippine waters of which China claims, and about the tribunal which awarded the arbitral ruling to the Philippines.  How can such a misinformed presidentiable be trusted to assert the Philippines’ arbitral award when he displayed his sheer ignorance on three fundamental maritime issues?

Furthermore, my friends and countrymen, I have only three questions to ask with regard to whether or not you should vote for Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr.  First, do you want a president who fully grasps the fundamental principles of the Constitution, on which he or she will solemnly swear an oath to protect and defend?  Second, do you want a president who will be a president for all Filipinos and not just for his own voters and supporters?  Third, do you want a president who fully knows and understands the maritime fundamentals in order to defend the whole Philippines, including its EEZ waters in which fish, minerals, and oil are present in the West Philippine Sea?

If you answered “yes” to all of the above questions, then perhaps we share the same criteria or standard for our president after all.  That would logically mean that, like me, you will not cast your vote for Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr.  However, if you answered “no” to the above questions, then our criteria or standard differs.  Perhaps such mass neglect for fundamentals is why the Philippines has remained stagnant for so long.  Therefore, my friends and countrymen, let’s focus on fundamentals first, raise our standards, and choose our leaders accordingly.  Only then can we be competitive in the marketplace of governance, and always remember this: There’s no shame in changing your vote.  There’s only shame in voting blindly, so vote wisely.

Aim High Pilipinas!

The post 3 Reasons I Will Not Vote For “Bongbong” For President & Neither Should You first appeared on Marcial's Law.

My friends and countrymen, as we commemorate the 125^th anniversary of Dr. Jose Rizal’s martyrdom today, it is incumbent upon us to create a better future for our youth and improve our country.  That includes electing good public servants to the Senate.  The purpose of this article is not to persuade you all to vote for Senator Richard Gordon against or over another senatoriable, although perhaps, that debate can be made. On the contrary, I wish to persuade you all to simply add an indispensable man of great learning and historical achievements to your current list of senatoriables. Please allow me to present my case.

1. He is a crusader against corruption.

As chairman of the Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations (Blue Ribbon), Gordon has been the nemesis of malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance.  Presiding over the ongoing Pharmally probe, he has exposed corruption in the collusion of Pharmally Pharmaceutical Corp. directors and officers, former DBM (Department of Budget and Management) officials, a former advisor to President Duterte, and potentially even President Duterte himself.  Some of the recommended charges by the Blue Ribbon Committee include violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, fraud against the public treasury, perjury, falsification of public documents, and disobedience to summons issued by Congress.

Other high-profile probes over which Gordon presided as chairman include the Dengvaxia scandal, the P728 million fertilizer fund scam, and the $329 million ZTE National Broadband scandal.  Furthermore, a man, such as Gordon, who will impartially uphold justice and follow the rule of law as senator is invaluable for our country which was ranked 115^th place according to the 2020 Corruption Perceptions Index of Transparency International.

2. He has political will.

Gordon has been perceived to be allies with Duterte since the beginning of his presidency, which would be politically expedient, since Duterte remains popular to this day.  However on several fronts (as I have elucidated in “Digong is no Dick . . . Dick Gordon, that is”), he has courageously opposed Duterte’s questionable or unconstitutional proposals and policies, such as acquiescing to China on Panatag Shoal in the West Philippine Sea, running for the vice-presidency, and appointing former military officials to civilian posts in his Cabinet (which I addressed in “Is Dick Hindering Digong or Is Digong Suffering from Dick Envy?”).  When Duterte responded with sophomoric ad hominem comments, Gordon never responded in like fashion with personal insults.  On the contrary, he has challenged Duterte’s proposals and policies exclusively on their merits, even providing historical and constitutional context to support his positions.  However, in spite of his civility, Gordon has not been bashful in condemning Duterte as a “bully” and a “cheap politician,” whose acts could be construed as a “betrayal of public trust” and a “culpable violation of the Constitution.”

When President Gloria Arroyo declared martial law in Maguindanao, Gordon opposed it challenging its constitutional validity.  In the fertilizer scam, Gordon recommended charges be filed against Arroyo appointee Jocelyn Bolante (Undersecretary of Agriculture for Finance and Administration), in spite of Gordon’s own appointment by Arroyo (as Secretary of Tourism); such a maverick tendency indicates he is not a trapo (traditional politician).

3. He is a pious public servant.

In 2016, Gordon could easily have filed a lawsuit against Sen. Grace Poe to disqualify her from running for the presidency on the grounds of her citizenship and residence. That was precisely what his UP college mates (also members of UNA and LP) urged him to do. However, rather than pursue the matter to advance his political ambitions, he exercised restraint. He stated:

I believe that the matter of Sen. Poe’s qualifications for national office has already been referred to the proper legal venues, and I deem it counter-productive to say anything more about this issue, aside from the statements I have already made.

In spite of Gordon’s preoccupation with public office duties, he has been a Red Cross volunteer since he was 17 years old.  With time and dedication, he became chairman and CEO of the Red Cross, serving even to this day.  The fact that Gordon holds a responsibility-laden post without receiving a salary, is a display of his altruistic and charitable nature.

4. He strongly opposes China’s illegal incursions in the West Philippine Sea (WPS).

Gordon has been tenaciously vocal in condemning China’s violation of UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea) and the ruling of the PCA (Permanent Court of Arbitration) in favor of the Philippines.  His foresight into China’s intrusive potential (while presiding as Olongapo mayor) led him to defend the renewal of the U.S. Bases Treaty in 1991.  He advocates for the implementation of the Visiting Forces Agreement and Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement, which make Philippine military bases accessible to American troops, while providing for training and intelligence to Philippine troops.  They also regulate joint military exercises and patrolling of the WPS and give “teeth” to the U.S.-Philippine Mutual Defense Treaty, which Gordon reiterated could be triggered in “an armed attack against the Philippines’ armed forces, public vessels, or aircraft in the Pacific, including in the South China Sea.”

In addition to collaborating with our oldest and most loyal ally, Gordon also encourages forging alliances with other countries, which are wary of China’s encroaching inclination, while the Philippines build its own military strength.  In order to protect our fishermen in the WPS, he proposes the stationing of coast guard assets therein.  Incidentally, he and 10 other senators recently filed a resolution to “condemn in the strongest possible terms the illegal activities” of China.

5. He has a practicable vision for a prosperous Philippines.

Gordon supports measures which would create domestic jobs and render the Philippine economy less dependent on remittances of OFWs (overseas Filipino workers). He favors competition to lower energy costs; this would lower production costs and prices for consumer goods. In turn, living standards of all our countrymen would be raised and the destitute would be lifted out of poverty, rendering the culture of government handout dependency obsolete.

Gordon’s transformational vision of a prosperous Philippines is not one of mere wishful thinking or political rhetoric. On the contrary, it is a goal, which has already been partially implemented in Subic Bay with outstanding success.  As its first Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA) chairman, Gordon directed a successful effort to convert a desolate, abandoned American naval base (Subic Bay) into a prosperous economic trade zone. Before the conversion, Subic Bay was reduced to a heap of ash caused by the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo. After Gordon inspired thousands of volunteers to clean and renovate the area, hundreds of companies (including Acer and FedEx) created approximately 40,000 jobs with their US $1billion of foreign investments. The success was such that several world leaders (including Pres. Clinton) lauded it as a model for economic development.

Aside from stimulating the economy on a local level in Subic Bay, Gordon has done no less on a national level as secretary of the Department of Tourism. At a time of declining tourism, he managed to increase the number of tourists from one million to two million within a single year, thereby creating numerous jobs. Against overwhelming odds, all this occurred in the midst of terrorist threats, civil war in Mindanao, coup attempts, and SARS.  Indeed, with successful experience in reviving the economy on a local and national level, Gordon envisions a Third World Philippines ascending into First World status.

6. He is a learned law maker.

As senator, he authored several important laws (e.g., New Automated Elections System Law, Motorcycle Crime Prevention Act, Filipino World War II Veterans Pensions and Benefits Act of 2008) and was a member of more than twenty committees (most notably the Blue Ribbon, Economic Affairs, Trade and Commerce, Education, Energy, Foreign Relations, National Defense and Security, and Ways and Means). He also served as a member of the JBC (Judicial and Bar Council), chairman of the Constitutional Amendments and Revision of Laws Committee, and was the youngest delegate to the 1971 Constitutional Convention. That makes him an exceptional lawyer and senator, since he took part in framing the supreme law of the land, namely the Constitution.

7. He has diverse executive experience.

In my article entitled “Of Scooters, Jeepneys, Buses, and Airplanes,” I make the case that Gordon’s executive experience of private and public policy implementation would serve him well as president of the Republic of the Philippines in 2010.  However, I contend here that such experience gives him the hindsight of working with other policy makers as chief executive himself, which subjected him to conflicts of interest, compromise, resolutions, and collaboration with them. For example, as mayor (an executive position) of Olongapo City, he worked with the sangguniang panglungsod (local legislature) in ratifying or vetoing bills as a local public executive. This gave Gordon the perspective and savvy to craft good laws and pass them effectively through the often long drawn out legislative process and conflicts of interest between the national executive (the president) and the national legislature (Congress). Being mayor has also given him a stricter sense of public accountability, since the small bureaucratic structure of local officials tends to be more transparent (as opposed to the national level), thus making it more difficult for them to conceal their potential violation of the law.

8. He is a crisis manager.

As chairman and CEO (an executive position) of the Philippine Red Cross, Gordon traveled all over the Philippines, undertaking numerous drastic measures. As a crisis manager, he directed many disaster/rescue operations involving aid in man-made and natural catastrophe victims.  In the Covid-19 pandemic, the Red Cross has been the leading agency for testing.  According to Gordon, 5 million Filipinos have been tested as of early December, 2021.

In Gordon’s nearly 60 years of charitable service, his intervention has saved millions of lives and restored over 133,000 homes of Typhoon Yolanda victims and other calamities. (View this video for firsthand accounts, including a successful hostage rescue operation from Abu Sayyaf without ransom.) He has also directed operations that involve prevention and safety in order to better prepare our countrymen for any disaster. Only a crisis manager or executive (not just a legislator) would know precisely what resources and in what quantity need to be allocated to each disaster area, knowledge which is indispensable for a country prone to such disasters.

9. He was a radio show host.

As a radio show host on Radyo5 92.3 News FM on a program called “Aksyon Solusyon”, Gordon was exposed to people of diverse economic, provincial backgrounds. Such a constant daily inflow of various feedback directly from the people kept Gordon informed on the state of the nation and provided him with fresh ideas on what can and must be done. As senator, he will be in a better position to accommodate such ideas via legislation.

10. He is an ordinary Filipino.

Apart from Gordon’s apparent devotion and service to our country, on the lighter side, he is an ordinary Filipino, which makes him a likable politician with a human face. For example, here is a clip in which he performs a song and dance routine with the renowned entertainers Moymoy Palaboy. 

In another video, he dances the Harlem Shake with his grandchildren. Apparently, Gordon is not the typical “out of touch” career politician without a good sense of humor.

In summary, my friends and countrymen, you should all vote for Gordon because he is an accomplished public servant with political will, who has opposed corruption, created thousands of jobs, and saved lives. Aside from serving our country for nearly 60 years, he also knows how to do the Harlem Shake. Who would not want all those qualities in a senator?  That is precisely why Filipinos need a taste of more Dick . . . Dick Gordon, that is.

Long live Sen. Dick Gordon!  Long live the Philippines!

Tagalog Version:

10 Dahilan  Kung Bakit Mas Kailangan ng Pinoy ang Isang Dick . . . sa Senado

Mga kaibigan at kababayan ko, sa paggunita natin sa ika-125 anibersaryo ng pagiging martir ni Dr. Jose Rizal ngayon, tungkulin nating lumikha ng magandang kinabukasan para sa ating mga kabataan at mapabuti ang ating bansa. Kabilang doon ay ang mahusay na pagpili ng mabubuting lingkod-bayan sa Senado. Ang layunin ng artikulong ito ay hindi para hikayatin kayong lahat na iboto si Senador Richard Gordon laban o
kapalit ng iba pang senatoriable, bagaman marahil, ang debateng iyon maaaring gawin. Sa kabilang banda, nais kong hikayatin kayong lahat na magdagdag lamang ng isa pang kandidato. Iminumungkahi kong isama ninyo sa inyong talaan ng mga senador ang isang taong kailangan ng ating bayan dahil sa kanyang angking kaalaman at makasaysayang tagumpay. Hayaan ninyong ilahad ko kung bakit:

1. Siya ay matapang na lumalaban sa katiwalian.

Bilang isang tagapangulo ng Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations (Blue Ribbon), si Gordon ay isang mabagsik na kaaway ng kabuktutan sa pamamahala, ng pangaaabuso sa apangyarihan, at sadyang di pagganap sa tungkulin. Sa pamumuno sa kasalukuyang imbestigasyon sa kaso ng Pharmally, ibinunyag niya ang lantaran at malawakang katiwalian sa sabwatan ng director at ilang opisyales ng Pharmally Pharmaceutical Corp., ng dating pamunuan ng DBM
(Department of Budget and Management), ng dating tagapagpayo ng Pangulong Duterte, at malamang, kahit ang Pangulong Duterte mismo. Ilan sa mga inihaing kaso ng Blue Ribbon Committee ay ang paglabag sa Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, panloloko laban sa kaban ng bayan, pagsisinungaling, palsipikasyon ng mga pampublikong dokumento, at pagsuway sa patawag na inisyu ng Kongreso.

Ang ilan pang bantog at malawakang pagsisiyasat na pinangunahan ni Gordon bilang chairman ay ang Dengvaxia scandal, ang P728 million fertilizer fund scam, at ang $329 million ZTE National Broadband scandal. Higit pa rito, ang isang taong katulad ni Gordon, na patas manindigan sa katarungan at sumusunod at nagpapasakop sa kapangyarihan ng batas, ay napaka halaga para sa ating bayan lalo pa’t tayo ay nasa pang 115 pwesto sa  Corruption Perceptions Index of Transparency International
2020.

2. Siya ay may political will.

Marami ang naniwalang si Gordon ay masugid na kaalyado ni Duterte mula pa noong umpisa ng kanyang pagkapangulo, na siya namang kapakipakinabang dahil si  Duterte ay nanatiling bantog hanggang ngayon.  Subalit sa ilang pagkakataon,  (gaya ng sinabi ko sa “Digong is no Dick . . . Dick Gordon, that is”), may lakas ng loob syang salungatin si Duterte at ang mga kahinahinala at labag sa Saligang Batas nitong panukala at pamamalakad, halimbawa ay ang lantaran nitong pagpapahintulot sa China sa Panatag Shoal ng West Philippine Sea, ang pagtakbo sa pagka pangalawang pangulo, at ang pagtatalaga sa mga dating opisyales ng militar  sa mga puwestong pang sibilyan sa kanyang gabiniete, (na siya ko namang tinukoy sa “Is Dick Hindering Digong or Is Digong Suffering from Dick Envy?”).  Nang nagbigay ng pahayag si Duterte puno ng pangungutya at atakeng personal, hindi sumagot si Gordon sa ganoong pamamaraan, bagkus ay hinamon nya kabutihang dulot, kung mayroon man, ang mga panukala at pamamalakad ni Duterte.   Naglatag pa nga siya ng mga halimbawang hango sa kasaysayan at nilalaman ng konstitusyon para itaguyod ang kanyang posisyon. Subalit,sa kabila ng kanyang pagiging magalang ay hindi nahiyang ikondena ni Gordon si Duterte bilang isang “bully” at isang “cheap politician,” na isang asal na pwedeng ipakahulugang pagtataksil sa tiwala ng  taong bayan  at lantarang paglabag sa Saligang Batas.

Noong mag deklara ng batas militar si Pangulong Gloria Arroyo sa Maguindanao, tinutulan ito ni Gordon at hinamon kung alinsunod ito sa Saligang Batas. Sa fertilizer scam, iminungkahi ni Gordon na magsampa ng kaso laban sa itinalaga ni  Arroyo na si Jocelyn Bolante (Undersecretary of Agriculture for Finance and Administration), sa kabila ng pag hirang ni Arroyo kay  Gordon (bilang Kalihim ng Turismo); patunay na siya ay isang maverick, at lalong hindi trapo (traditional politician).

3. Siya ay tapat na public servant.

Noong 2016, napakadali kay Gordon  na magsampa ng kaso laban kay Sen. Grace Poe para ma diskuwalipika sya pagtakbo sa pagka pangulo sa usapin ng kanyang pagkamamamayan at paninirahan. Na siya ring iminumungkahi ng mga UP college mates (also members of UNA and LP) ni Gordon na gawin niya. Subalit, sa halip na isipin niya nag pagsulong ng kanyang political ambitions, minabuti niyang huwag makinig sa udyok ng iba. Sinabi niya:

“I believe that the matter of Sen. Poe’s qualifications for national office has already been referred to the proper legal venues, and I deem it counter-productive to say anything more about this issue, aside from the statements I have already made.”

Sa kabila ng pagiging abala ni Gordon sa kanyang pampublikong tungkulin, nanatili siyang Red Cross volunteer mula pa noong siya ay 17 taong gulang pa lamang.  At sa tamang panahon at dedikasyon, hinirang siyang chairman at CEO ng Red Cross, at nagsisilbi hanggang sa ngayon.  Sa totoo lang, si Gordon ay hindi tumatanggap ng sweldo sa mga posisyong ginagampanan niya, ito ay patunay ng kanyang katapatan at pagiging bukas palad.

4. Mariin niyang tinutulan ang ilegal na pagkamkam at pananatili ng China sa West Philippine Sea (WPS).

Mariing nagpapahayag si Gordon ng kanyang pagkondena sa China’s violation of UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea) at ang ruling ng PCA (Permanent Court of Arbitration) na pumabor sa Pilipinas.  Noon pa man ay nakita na ni Gordon ang panghihimasok ng China (habang siya ay namumuno bilang  Olongapo mayor) na siyang nag udyok sa kanyang ipagtanggol ang renewal ng U.S. Bases Treaty noong 1991.  Pinangunahan nya ang pagpapatupad ng Visiting Forces Agreement at Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement, na magbibigay daan  sa mga American troops na ma access ang Philippine military bases, habang nagbibigay ng kasnayan at kaalaman sa Philippine troops.  Ang mga kasunduang ito rin ang mag reregulate ng  joint military exercises and pagpapatrol ng WPS and siyang magbibigay “ngipin” sa U.S.-Philippine Mutual Defense Treaty, ni reiterate ni Gordon kung sakaling may mag umpisa ng “an armed attack against the Philippines’ armed forces, public vessels, or aircraft in the Pacific, including in the South China Sea.”

Bukod sa pakikipagtulungan sa ating pinakamatagal at pinaka mabuting kakampi, hinihimok din ni Gordon ang pakikipagkasundo sa ibang bansa, upang magsilbing babala sa China’s encroaching inclination, habang pinagtitibay ng Pilipinas ang sarili nitong pwersang militar.  Para protektahan ang ating mga mangingisda sa WPS, iminungkahi ni Gordon na mag istasyon ng coast guard dito.  Kaugnay dito, siya ta nag 10 pang senador ay kamakailan lamang  nag filed ng resolusyon para “ikondena ang malawakang illegal activities” ng China.

5. Siya ay may makatotohanang pananaw sa isang maunlad na Pilipinas. 

Sinusuportahan ni Gordon ang lahat ng gawaing makakalikha ng domestic jobs na siyang makapagbibigay sa Pilipinas ng isang ekonomiyang hindi umaasa sa remittances ng mga OFWs (overseas Filipino workers). Hinihikayat niya nag kompetisyon na makapgapapababa ng energy costs; na siyang magdudulot ng mas mababang production costs at presyo ng consumer goods. Sa kabilang banda, tataas ang kalidad ng pamumuhay ng ating mga kababayan at ang mga mahihirap ay maiaangat mula sa kahirapan, na siyang nagtatapos sa kulturang ayuda o lubusang umaasa sa tulong ng pamahalaan.

Ang makapagpapabagong pananaw ni Gordon ng isang maunlad na Pilipinas ay hindi isang pangarap lamang o isang gasgas na political rhetoric. Ito ay isang adhikain na matagumpay na naipatupad  sa Subic Bay Bilang kauna-unahang Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA) chairman, pinamunuan ni Gordon matagumpay at mahusay  na na-convert  ang dating abandonadong base military ng America (Subic Bay) para maging isang maunlad na economic trade zone. Bago ang conversion, ang Subic Bay nag mistulang  tambak ng abo mula sa pagputok ng Mt. Pinatubo. Matapos hikayatin at pasiglahin ni Gordon ang libo-libong volunteers na maglinis at ayusin ang lugar, daan-daang kumpanya (katulad ng Acer and FedEx) ang lumikha ng humigit kumulang na 40,000 hanapbuhay na may katumbas na US $1 bilyong foreign investments. Hindi maikakaila ang tagumpay na ito kung kaya nga at may ilang world leaders (kasama na ditto si Pres. Clinton) ang humanga sa modelong ito ng economic development.

Maliban sa muling pagpapasigla ng lokal na ekonomiya ng Subic Bay, Hindi biro ang nagawa ni Gordon sa pambansang antas bilang kalihim ng Department of Tourism. Sa panahon nang panghihina ng turismo, nagawa niyang pataasin ang bilang ng mga turista mula sa isang milyon hanggang dalawang milyon sa loob lamang ng isang taon. Nang sa gayon ay makalikha ng maraming trabaho. Laban sa napakaraming pagsubok, ang lahat ng ito ay nangyari sa gitna ng mga banta ng terorista, digmaang sibil sa Mindanao, mga pagtatangka ng kudeta, at SARS. Sa katunayan, sa matagumpay na karanasan sa pagpapasigla ng ekonomiya sa lokal at pambansang antas, naiisip ni Gordon ang isang Third World Philippines na umakyat sa First World status.

6. Siya ay maalam na mambabatas.

Bilang senador, gumawa siya ng ilang mahahalagang batas (halimbawa, New Automated Elections System Law, Motorcycle Crime Prevention Act, Filipino World War II Veterans Pensions and Benefits Act of 2008) at naging miyembro ng mahigit dalawampung komite (lalo na ang Blue Ribbon, Economic Affairs, Trade and Commerce, Education, Energy, Foreign Relations, National Defense and Security, at Ways and Means). Nagsilbi rin siyang miyembro ng JBC (Judicial and Bar Council), chairman ng Constitutional Amendments and Revision of Laws Committee, at siya ang pinakabatang delegado sa 1971 Constitutional Convention. Iyon ang dahilan kung bakit siya ay isang natatanging abogado at senador, dahil sa Karanasan niyang makibahagi sa pagbalangkas ng pinakamataas na batas ng lupain, ang Saligang Batas.

7. Siya ay may iba't-ibang karanasan sa ehekutibo.

Sa aking artikulong pinamagatang “Of Scooter, Jeepneys, Buses, and Airplanes,” ginawa kong kaso  ang karanasang pang ehekutibo ni Gordon sa pribado at pampublikong pagpapatupad ng patakaran upang  patunayan na siya ay magiging mahusay na presidente ng Republika ng Pilipinas noong 2010. Gayunpaman, ipinaglaban ko dito na ang karanasan iyon ay nagbibigay sa kanya ng hindsight sa pakikipagtulungan sa iba pang mambabatas bilang punong ehekutibo mismo, at naranasan niyang magkaroon nga magkatungggaling interes, kompromiso, mga resolusyon, at pakikipagtulungan sa kanila. Halimbawa, bilang alkalde (isang ehekutibong posisyon) ng Lungsod ng Olongapo, nakipagtulungan siya sa sangguniang panglungsod (lokal na lehislatura) sa pagratipika o pag-veto ng mga panukalang batas bilang isang lokal na pampublikong ehekutibo.  Nagbigay ito kay Gordon ng pananaw at kasanayan sa paggawa ng mabubuting batas at epektibong maipasa ang mga ito sa kabila nang madalas ay mahabang proseso ng pambatasan at mga salungatan ng interes sa pagitan ng pambansang tagapagpaganap (ang pangulo) at ng pambansang lehislatura (Kongreso). Ang pagiging alkalde ay nagbigay din sa kanya ng mas mahigpit na angking pampublikong pananagutan, dahil ang small bureaucratic structure ng mga lokal na opisyal ay may posibilidad na maging mas transparent (kumpara sa pambansang antas), kaya nagiging mas mahirap para sa kanila na itago ang kanilang potensyal na paglabag sa batas.

8. Siya ay isang crisis manager.

Bilang chairman at CEO (isang executive position) ng Philippine Red Cross, naglakbay si Gordon sa buong Pilipinas, na nagsagawa ng maraming mabilisang hakbang tugon sa krisis. Bilang isang tagapamahala ng krisis, pinamunuan niya ang maraming operasyon ng sakuna/pagsagip sa mga biktima ng sakunang gawa ng tao at natural na kalamidad. Sa pandemyang Covid-19, ang Red Cross ang nangungunang ahensya para sa testing. Ayon kay Gordon, 5 milyong Pilipino na ang nasuri noong unang bahagi pa lamang ng Disyembre, 2021.

Sa loob halos ng 60 taong serbisyong pangkawanggawa ni Gordon, ang kanyang interbensyon ay nagligtas ng milyun-milyong buhay at naibalik ang mahigit 133,000 tahanan ng mga biktima ng Bagyong Yolanda at iba pang kalamidad. (Panoorin ang video na ito para sa mga personal na account, kabilang ang isang matagumpay na hostage rescue operation mula sa Abu Sayyaf nang walang ransom.) Siya rin ay nagdirekta ng mga operasyon na may kinalaman sa pag-iwas at kaligtasan upang mas maihanda ang ating mga kababayan sa anumang sakuna. Tanging ang isang tagapamahala ng krisis o ehekutibo (hindi lamang isang mambabatas) ang tiyak na makakaalam kung anong mga mapagkukunan at kung anong dami ang kailangang ilaan sa bawat lugar ng sakuna, kaalaman na kailangang-kailangan para sa isang bansang laging dumaranas ng mga sakuna.

9. Siya ay isang radio show host.

Bilang isang host ng radio show na Radyo5 92.3 News FM sa isang programang tinatawag na “Aksyon Solusyon”, na-expose si Gordon sa mga taong may iba't ibang economic at provincial background. Ang araw araw na pagpasok nang iba’t ibang feedback na nagmumula mismo sa mga tao ang nagpapanatili kay Gordon na mulat sa totoong estado ng bansa at nagbibigay sa kanya ng mga sariwang ideya kung ano ang dapat gawin. Bilang senador, siya ay nasa isang mas mahusay na posisyon upang ma-accommodate ang mga naturang ideya sa pamamagitan ng batas.

10. Siya ay isang ordinaryong Pilipino.

Bukod sa maliwanag na debosyon at paglilingkod ni Gordon sa ating bansa, on the lighter side, siya ay isang ordinaryong Pilipino, at isang kagiliw-giliw na pulitiko at tao. Halimbawa, narito ang isang clip kung saan nagpe-perform siya ng song and dance routine kasama ang mga kilalang entertainers na si Moymoy Palaboy.

Sa isa pang video, sinasayaw niya ang Harlem Shake kasama ang kanyang mga apo. Si Gordon ay hindi isang tipikal na "out of touch"  politician na walang magandang sense of humor.

Sa pagwawakas, mga kaibigan at kababayan ko, iboto ninyong lahat si Gordon dahil isa siyang accomplished public servant na may political will, na lumaban sa katiwalian, lumikha ng libu-libong trabaho, at nagligtas ng maraming buhay. Bukod sa halos 60 taon niyang paglilingkod sa ating bansa, alam din niya kung paano gawin ang Harlem Shake. Sino ba naman ang hindi maghahangad ng lahat ng katangiang iyon sa isang senador? Iyon ang dahilan kung bakit kailangan ng mga Pilipino ang mas maraming Dick. . . Dick Gordon.

Mabuhay si Sen. Dick Gordon! Mabuhay ang Pilipinas!

The post 10 Reasons Filipinos Need a Taste of More Dick . . . for the Senate, that is first appeared on Marcial's Law.

11/4/2020

Note:  The economic accomplishments are pre-COVID-19, and would be potentially more laudable otherwise.  However, given only four years of public service compared to Joe Biden’s nearly fifty years of public service, Donald Trump has proven to be more effective.  Consider the following:

• Almost 4 million jobs were created since Trump’s election.
• More Americans are now employed than ever recorded before in history.
• New unemployment claims recently hit a 49-year low.  Black, Hispanic, and Asian unemployment has recently achieved the lowest rate ever recorded.  Women’s unemployment recently reached the lowest rate in 65 years.  Youth unemployment has recently hit the lowest rate in nearly half a century.  Lowest unemployment rate ever recorded for Americans without a high school diploma.
• Almost 3.9 million Americans have been lifted off food stamps since the election.
• Median household income has hit highest level ever recorded.
• United States is a net natural gas exporter for the first time since 1957.
• Trump supported legislation to open ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge) and approve Keystone XL and Dakota Access Pipelines in order to keep energy prices low while creating more jobs.
• Trump signed Right-To-Try legislation, which permits terminally ill patients to consume newly developed drugs, hence bypassing the lengthy process of FDA approval.
• Trump signed the VA Choice Act and VA Accountability Act, which expanded tele-health services, walk-in-clinics, and same-day urgent primary and mental health care for veterans.
• Trump signed the First Step Act, which reforms the criminal/prison system shortening the sentences of qualified, non-violent drug offenders.
• Trump signed legislation imposing tariffs on China in response to China’s forced technology transfer, intellectual property theft, and chronically abusive trade practices.
• Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani (the second most powerful person in Iran) and ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi were assassinated and the caliphate defeated under the Trump administration.
• Trump has established a new branch of the military called the Space Force, which is engineered to weaponize space and to preclude China and Russia’s acquisition.
• NATO allies are spending $69 billion more on defense since 2016.
• Trump has nominated three justices to the Supreme Court, who will interpret laws in conformity to the U.S. Constitution and not legislate from the bench.

The post A Vote for Trump Is a Vote for Proven Success first appeared on Marcial's Law.

By Marcial Bonifacio

August 31, 2020

My friends and countrymen, as we observe National Heroes' Day on August 31, 2020, it is most appropriate to contemplate our country’s sovereignty, which includes maritime rights.  Throughout his term, President Rodrigo Duterte has repeatedly expressed the false notion that China is “in possession” of the West Philippine Sea (WPS) and that the Philippines is powerless to assert its sovereign rights therein, short of waging war with China, the latest declaration having been made in his last State of the Nation Address on July 27.  Consequently, every time he does so, his critics persistently rebut him, particularly the astute Supreme Court Justice Antonio Carpio, who was instrumental in the favorable 2016 ruling of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) on the WPS.

In my “Open Letter to President Duterte” and “Why Filipinos Should Give a Damn about Panatag Shoal,” I have presented some of Carpio’s advice on how the Philippines can, indeed, enforce its arbitral award without waging war with China, some of which I have likewise enumerated below.  Some of them are Carpio’s direct response to Duterte upon publicly asking him what action to undertake, as in the following dialogue:

“Xi Jinping [said] there will be trouble,” stated Duterte, “so answer me, Justice, give me the formula and I’ll do it.”

“My response is yes, Mr. President, there is a formula,” replied Carpio, “and not only one but many ways of enforcing the arbitral award without going to war with China, using only the rule of law.”

Without further ado, I present those options which Carpio stated should be implemented “together to fortify the award part by part, brick by brick, until the award is fully enforced.”

• The Philippines can join a convention with Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Brunei regarding the South China Sea.  The convention can declare that no geologic feature in the Spratly Islands generates an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and that there are only territorial seas from the geologic features that are above water at high tide, as ruled by the PCA.  According to Carpio, China will be "isolated" as the only country claiming EEZs from the Spratly Islands.  Countries that assert freedom of navigation and overflight in the South China Sea are also expected to follow such a convention, he added.
• The Philippines can invite Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Brunei to conduct joint FONOPs in respective EEZs facing the West Philippine Sea.  "This will be a common assertion by 5 coastal states that each of them have their own respective EEZs in South China Sea thereby enforcing the arbitral award that China's 9-dash line has no legal effect and cannot serve as basis to claim the waters of the South China Sea," Carpio said.  By conducting joint FONOPs, it will also affirm the EEZ of the Philippines in the West Philippine Sea.  Carpio said that while the Philippines should welcome and join these operations, it has instead distanced the country from them, saying the Philippines "does not take sides" in disputes between China and other countries in the area, a seemingly treacherous gesture vis-à-vis the oldest and most loyal ally, the U.S.
• The Philippines can welcome and encourage the freedom of navigation and overflight operations (FONOPs) of the U.S., U.K., France, Australia, Japan, India and Canada in the South China Sea, including the West Philippine Sea. The naval and aerial operations of these naval powers, which are in conformity with UNCLOS and customary international law, have increased in frequency since the 2016 PCA award, and are what Carpio describes as the “most robust enforcement” of the arbitral award, bridging the gap between the rule of law and the rule of justice.
• The Philippines can persuade the U.S. to declare Panatag Shoal as part of Philippine territory, which would protect it under the 1951 Philippine-U.S. Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT).  Such action would add clarity for legal ramifications, since the shoal was known to be under Philippine jurisdiction as early as the American colonial period and even under Spanish rule.  The Japanese did precisely that with their Senkaku islands, which the U.S. declared as part of Japan’s territory for purposes of the U.S.-Japan Mutual Defense Treaty.
• The Philippines could send the Philippine Navy to patrol Panatag Shoal.  “As the South China Sea is part of the Pacific,” stated U.S. State Sec. Mike Pompeo, “any armed attack on any Philippine forces, aircraft, or public vessels in the South China Sea will trigger mutual defense treaty obligations under Article 4 of our Mutual Defense Treaty.”  Of course, that would prompt the U.S. Navy to intervene.
• The Philippines can resume joint naval patrols with the U.S. in the West Philippine Sea in order to project military might, which could deter China from continuing its island-building activity on Panatag Shoal.
• The Philippine Coast Guard can send its ten 44-meter multi-role response vessels that were donated by Japan to patrol the West Philippine Sea.  These vessels, Carpio said, are ideal for patrolling and catching poachers in the Philippines' EEZ in the West Philippine Sea. Doing so will also assert the country's sovereign rights in the maritime area.
• Congress can enact legislation to make permanent the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) and the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA).  Indeed, the MDT would be rendered obsolete without either of them as elucidated by Foreign Affairs Sec. Teodoro Locsin:

The Mutual Defense Treaty without the VFA and EDCA may be compared to a deflated balloon. For all practical purposes, it becomes an extra large rubber for an Asian. Far more elastic than he can ever need for its purpose and far more suitable as a shower cap than a prophylactic against foreign aggression.

Aside from the two treaties giving teeth to the MDT, making them permanent would revitalize and fortify America’s alliance with the Philippines while deterring China and other potential aggressors, as well as quelling terrorist threats.

• The Philippines can emulate America’s foreign policy of imposing visa restrictions on all persons and business entities which Pompeo characterizes as “responsible for, or complicit in, either the large-scale reclamation, construction, or militarization of disputed outposts in the South China Sea, or [the People’s Republic of China’s] use of coercion against Southeast Asian claimants to inhibit their access to offshore resources.”
• The Philippines can terminate contracts with Chinese firms which are, in any way, involved in reclamation and militarization activities in the WPS.  In fact, Locsin has already publicly said he would make such a recommendation to the appropriate agencies.
• The Philippines can file an extended continental shelf claim in the West Philippine Sea beyond the 200-nautical mile EEZ off the coast of Luzon, where China is the only opposite coastal state. The Philippines can file this unilaterally with the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. China cannot invoke historic rights under its nine-dash line claim which has already been ruled without legal effect by the PCA. China’s own extended continental shelf does not overlap with the extended continental shelf of the Philippines in this maritime area.
• The Philippines can “bring China’s threat of war to another United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) arbitral tribunal, to secure an order directing China to comply with the ruling of the UNCLOS arbitral tribunal that declared the Reed Bank part of Philippine EEZ.”  He added that the “Philippines can also ask for damages for every day of delay that the Philippines is prevented by China from exploiting Philippine EEZ.”
• The Philippines can facilitate efforts of active citizens to enforce the arbitral award.  Carpio referred to the case filed by former Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert del Rosario and former Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales against Chinese President Xi Jinping before the International Criminal Court. The complaint accused Xi of crimes against humanity over environmental damage in the South China Sea.
• According to Senator Richard Gordon, the National Security Council can regularly convene and collaborate with a think tank paneled by foreign policy and defense experts.  Such regular meetings could keep the Philippines prepared for various contingencies.  “Alam naman natin na there is always contention in that area,” stated Gordon, “kaya dapat nakahanda tayo kung ano ang mangyayari diyan.”
• The Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) can and should immediately issue a clarification that China is in fact not in possession, and legally can never be in possession, of the WPS.  According to Carpio, the international law doctrine of unilateral declarations can bind the Philippines to Duterte’s statement about China’s alleged possession of the WPS, whereby China can claim the Philippines has forfeited its sovereign rights.  Hence, clarification from the DFA is essential.
• The Senate and the House of Representatives can pass resolutions declaring that China is not in possession of the WPS.
• All professional, civic, social, political, student, and alumni organizations, and all Filipino citizens, can and should overwhelm Malacañang with statements and text messages: China is not, and will never be, in possession of the WPS.

In conclusion, my friends and countrymen, lest the Philippines becomes “a province of China,” we can and must assert our sovereign rights in the WPS, regardless of Duterte’s rhetoric.  In the authoritative words of Carpio, “The Filipino people should not be intimidated by national leaders who peddle a false option that either we go to war with China or submit to China. This false option should be discredited once and for all. . . We cannot adopt a defeatist attitude and just sit idly by and let China seize what international law has declared to be our own Exclusive Economic Zone. . . This is the moment for all Filipinos to unite in defense of Philippine sovereign rights in the WPS.”

Mabuhay ang Pilipinas!

The post How the Philippines Can Enforce Its Arbitral Award without Going to War with China first appeared on Marcial's Law.

Updated: 9/8/19

My friends and countrymen, I realize this commentary comes late but is most appropriate as we observe National Heroes Day.  Indeed, I wish to shed some light on the current issue by providing some historical context, which would otherwise perpetuate misapprehensions and misperceptions about the intentions of a public servant, worthy of the same respect, honor, and adoration as Dr. Jose Rizal.  Therefore, I’ll be killing two birds with one stone.  Without further ado, I’ll begin now.

I’m greatly appalled by the spectacle of President Rodrigo Roa Duterte’s behavior on August 1, 2019 wherein he went on a tirade against Senator Richard Gordon.  When the former disclosed his decision to appoint former military officials to top government posts, the latter simply commented that having such numerous appointees could potentially be “dangerous because civilian authority must remain supreme over the military.  Dapat three years muna bago ka i-appoint… para mawala muna ‘yung ties mo, the ties that bind.” (There must be three years after relief from active duty before you get appointed...to let go of your ties, the ties that bind.)

Gordon explained, “Ang problema lang kay Presidente, mababaw ang bench niya. He comes from the province, hindi niya nakilala. So, mas nagre-rely siya sa military.” (The problem with the President is that he has a shallow bench. He comes from the province and scarcely knows anyone. So, he relies mostly on the military.)  As a result, during his speech at the 28^th founding anniversary of the Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP) commemoration, Duterte made some repugnant and bizarre remarks, which I will list below and consequently address:

"Pero kung ako ang presidente at pupunta ako ng Maynila magtrabaho dito, maghanap ako ng tao. Kung si Gordon lang naman ang makita ko, mag-resign na lang ako [sa] pagkapresidente." (If I'm the President and I go to Manila to work and look for people, if Gordon is all I'd see here, I'd rather resign as president.)

"Ang tanong niya sa akin, ano daw ang nakita ko sa military. Well, one, sabihin ko sa 'yo, I can move faster with honesty. Mahirap maghanap ng tao na honest ngayon." (His question for me is, what do I see in the military? Well, one, I'll tell you, I can move faster with honesty. It's hard to find honest people nowadays.)

"Do not be too presumptuous about your talent. Why do you criticize me? It's my prerogative. It is not prohibited by law. And the law says that the president shall be, kung may tulong siya sa mga taong Cabinet member (if he gets help from Cabinet members), it doesn't say except those who are ex-military men because they are not qualified."

“I am challenging him, give me one specific instance that the military, the police or the DILG membership disobeys a single order from me.”

“You won’t ever become vice president. I will make sure of that. You really won’t become vice president. Now if you want that title badly, what you should do is you create a private corporation, make your family the incorporators of that corporation, then appoint a president, a member of your family as president of the corporation, then find a way that you will be seated as the vice president of that corporation.”

“Kung ikaw mag-presidente, sigurado ‘yan wala talagang maniwala sa ‘yo. ‘Yang sinabi mo na ‘yan? ‘Wag ka na tumakbo ng presidente, wala kang makuha sa Armed Forces. Pag manalo ka, kargahin ka diyan galing sa Luneta diretso ka doon sa Bilibid (If you run for president, for sure, no one will believe you. Considering what you said about the military? Don't ever run for presidency, you won't get a single vote from the Armed Forces. If you win, you will be carried straight from Luneta to jail),” he added.

“Mabuti kung may away diyan sa Negros, matawag ko ba si Senator Dick Gordon magpunta doon? Magturo-turo, mag-English… Siya lang makaintindi, kinakain niya salita niya, eh (There’s conflict in Negros, it would be good if I could call on Senator Gordon to go there. But what would he do? Teach English? It’s only he who understands himself because he eats his words),” Duterte said.

“Hindi ka naman talaga Filipino, tisoy ka lang. Kami dito mga probinsyano.” (You are not pure Filipino, you are of mixed race. We, from the province, are.)

"You know, I think 'yung sabi niyang probinsyano ako, sa bagay totoo 'yan. Pero, at least, probinsiyano ako, my brain stays in my head. 'Yung utak mo, Dick, natutunaw, napupunta diyan sa tiyan mo. You are a fart away from disaster. Intindihin mo muna 'yung tiyan mo bago ka makialam sa trabaho ko." (You know, I think his remark about me being from the province, to be fair, that's true. But at least I'm from the province, my brain stays in my head. Your brain, Dick, dissolves and goes to your belly instead. You are a fart away from disaster. Mind your belly first before interfering with my job.)

“Take care of your stomach. It’s ugly. You’re just a fart, a heartbeat away from… ‘Yang laki mong ‘yan? ‘Yan ang katawan na mahirap, hindi pwede ambulansya. Karga ninyo sa truck ninyo.” (With your size? You won’t fit in an ambulance. They will carry you at the back of a truck.)

“Sabi ko nga, ikaw, para kang penguin maglakad. Totoo man sabihin mo sa kanya. Makita kami. Sabihin niya sa akin uli ‘yan. Sabihin niya in front of me.” (Like I said, he walks like a penguin. It’s true, you can tell him that. When we see each other, he should tell me what he said to my face.)

To all these insults, Gordon graciously responded, "I take no offense at the President’s comments. As I have said, everyone is entitled to an opinion, and we cannot be onion-skinned about such things. . . I am happy that the President is concerned about my waistline, but he need not worry about that.  My wife has seen to it that I have reduced it significantly of late. But I appreciate that he is concerned about my health as I am about his.”

Now that I have presented the relevant parts of the dialogue between Duterte and Gordon, I will henceforth address each of Duterte’s points.  First, Duterte detests Gordon so much that he would resign as President if he was the only prospective appointee.  However, in a speech at a Philippine Red Cross event in 2017, Duterte praisefully referred to him as “President Gordon,” which would be “only about a few more years.”  Whence came such clear inconsistency in Duterte’s view of Gordon?

Now that I have presented the relevant parts of the dialogue between Duterte and Gordon, I will henceforth address each of Duterte’s points.  First, Duterte detests Gordon so much that he would resign as President if he was the only prospective appointee.  However, in a speech at a Philippine Red Cross event in 2017, Duterte praisefully referred to him as “President Gordon,” which would be “only about a few more years.”  Whence came such clear inconsistency in Duterte’s view of Gordon?

Second, Duterte says he prefers military officials because they are trustworthy, and honest non-military prospects are difficult to find.  Generally speaking, in this seemingly cruel, dog-eat-dog world, it is difficult to find trustworthy friends and spouses, much less good, upstanding public servants impervious to corruption.  However, that is precisely why anyone running for the office of president should have an entrenched political machinery.  That is simply the nature of politics.

Surely Duterte’s close friendships with potential appointees are not limited to current military and retired military officials.  Even if so, can he not find prospects among the network of his own children in public office?  Mayor Sara Duterte or Congressman Paolo Duterte?  What about his college mates or colleagues when he was a prosecutor?  By the way, if military officials are trustworthy, what of the retired generals who are accused of plunder at the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO)?

Third, Duterte questions Gordon’s criticism, defensively stating that his intended appointments are at his discretion and lawful.  Article XVI, Section 5(4) of the 1987 Constitution reads: “No member of the armed forces in the active service shall, at any time, be appointed or designated in any capacity to a civilian position in the Government including government-owned or controlled corporations or any of their subsidiaries.”  Therefore, Duterte is correct with regard to legality and constitutionality.

However, this is not an issue of legality or constitutionality, but of national security and following the spirit of the law, rather than just the letter of the law.  Apparently, Gordon understood the principle of civilian control of the military, since the latter is not an institution “wired for democratic policymaking, governing, or statecraft.”  Rather, its nature is authoritarian and generally functions for defense, deterrence, and killing.

In order to understand Gordon’s concern germane to Duterte’s potential militarization of the government, historical context is instructive.  This concept of civilian supremacy is the trademark of American government, which distinguishes the U.S. as well as other republics (including the Philippines) from authoritarian nations, whose attempts to overturn their governments via military coups, are banal.  In order to institute such a state of affairs, America’s founders delegated some military functions to civilians.

According to Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress shall have the power "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy."  Article II, Section 2 reads, "The President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States . . .”  Such a dispersal of power with a civilian check on the military was similarly adopted and assimilated into the Philippine Constitution.

During a time when the world was less interconnected in terms of trade and national defense, a standing army or permanent military force was obsolete, even abhorred by America’s founders.  They knew from their experience under King George III, that on just a whim of a tyrannical government, their rights could easily be violated.  However, this situation changed after World War II and the specter of Communism, whereby a more dangerous world necessitated the banality of a permanent American military force and interventionist foreign policy, even more so today with the rapid spread of Islamic terrorism and the emergence of rogue states, developing nuclear weapons.

Consequently, the U.S. Congress passed the National Security Act of 1947 which mandated a 10-year minimum (currently amended to a 7-year minimum) of inactive military service prior to appointment as Defense Secretary.  Such a law, according to Kathleen Hicks of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, “is a prudent contribution to maintaining the constitutionally-grounded principle of civilian control, both symbolically and in practice, in the presence of a sizable and highly capable 21st century military.”  Gordon is fully aware of this American law and proposes it be applied to retired military appointees in the Philippines as well.  However, he suggests a mandatory 3-year (instead of 7-year) hiatus and proposes it for all top civilian posts, aside from that of Defense Secretary.  Such an interval would weaken the “ties that bind” and hence thwart coup attempts by rebels.

From our own history, Gordon has pointed out two coup d’etat attempts by the Magdalo group, which is composed of three Philippine Military Academy graduates, who served in the Bureau of Customs, namely, former Commissioner Nicanor Faeldon, Customs Deputy Commissioner Gerardo Gambala, and former Import Assessment Services (IAS) director Milo Maestrecampo.  “First of all,” Gordon asks, “is there any danger, for example, that they could be raising money for a political party like Magdalo? Is there any danger, for example, that they could be raising money to buy arms for another coup?”

V: Gordon’s interpolation

Cognizant of our countrymen’s tendency to be complacent, even in so far as to be acquiescent, Gordon is simply cautioning us, including Duterte, about the risks of appointing newly retired military officials to top civilian posts of government.  The purpose, according to Gordon, is “meant not only to protect the country but his administration."  That is his mandate as a representative of the people, and if Duterte feels hindered or threatened, perhaps he does not possess an equivalent historical acumen or erudition.  Otherwise, his despotic tendencies may be preventing him from tolerating peaceful dissent or differing public policies, qualities that comprise a thriving republic.

Aside from the ostensible domestic concerns of militarized government, negative global optics can adversely affect international relations in security and business dealings.  Among Duterte’s former military appointees thus far are: Interior Secretary Eduardo Año, Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana, National Security Adviser Hermogenes Esperon Jr., Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process Carlito Galvez Jr., Social Welfare Secretary Rolando Bautista, Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council of the Philippines (HUDCC) Chair Eduardo del Rosario, Environment Secretary Roy Cimatu, and MMDA Chair Danilo Lim.  Couple such appointments with his numerous visits to military camps throughout the Philippines, his rhetoric on the prospect of establishing a revolutionary government, his demand for authorization to use emergency powers and imposition of martial law, and his censuring of journalists.

Would such optics bode well with the international community?  Would foreign investors feel confident about infusing funds to boost our economy?  Would our allies trust us and continue to provide foreign aid in the form of humanitarian goods and services and military goods and training?  How would potential tourists feel about vacationing in the Philippines?

Fourth, on Duterte’s challenge to Gordon to cite one specific instance wherein a military official disobeyed an order from him, August 20th the day of such an instance.  It was the day Bureau of Corrections Chief Nicanor Faeldon ordered the release of rapist/murderer Antonio Sanchez against Duterte’s order.  According to Duterte, “he violated my instructions.”  That is why on September 4, 2019, the President terminated his public service.  “Faeldon has to go,” he said, “because Faeldon disobeyed my order.”  Hence, Gordon won the challenge without ever uttering a word, since Duterte essentially outchallenged himself.

Fifth, it seems that Duterte has given advice to Gordon on how to become Vice-President.  I must say that I am a bit perplexed.  I was not aware that Gordon has sought or currently seeks such a post.  Therefore, I cannot comment on that, but I will ask: How is that pertinent to the BFP commemoration?

Sixth, Duterte states that should Gordon run for the presidency, nobody would believe him, and the military would not vote for him, due to insulting them.  Why wouldn’t anyone believe Gordon?  He has been consistent in his principles and is even known as “Aksyon Gordon” because he “walks the walk” and doesn’t just “talk the talk.” What precisely was Gordon’s insult to the military?  That the government may become militarized?

Perhaps he shares the same sentiment as one of America’s founders, Samuel Adams, who warned that, “Even when there is a necessity of military power, within the land… a wise and prudent people will always have a watchful & jealous eye over it.”  Why wouldn’t the military vote for Gordon?  I’ll let him defend himself in his own words:

During my first term as Senator, we authored and passed RA 6948 or the Act Standardizing and Upgrading the Benefits for Military Veterans and their Dependents. We even pushed for a higher budget for the military and defense. In fact, during the deliberations of the TRAIN Law, we proposed that 15% of the collections from it be earmarked for military modernization and it passed the Senate. When it was later removed, I threatened to filibuster until the President called and assured me that the executive would ensure that it would be implemented.

Seventh, Duterte expressed his desire for Gordon to accompany him in Negros with regard to the recent killings allegedly committed by the New People’s Army, the military arm of the Communist Party of the Philippines.  However, he questioned what he would do there.  Teach English?  What an excellent idea, since English is a most essential language!  According to the British Council:

English is the main language of books, newspapers, airports and air-traffic control, international business and academic conferences, science, technology, diplomacy, sport, international competitions, pop music and advertising. Over two-thirds of the world’s scientists read in English. Three quarters of the world’s mail is written in English. Eighty percent of the world’s electronically stored information is in English. Of the estimated forty million users of the Internet, some eighty percent communicate in English. . .

Gordon speaks both fluent English and Tagalog.  He is even adept in utilizing English colloquialisms, clichés, and idioms.  Therefore, Gordon would be the ideal English instructor for the people of Negros, unlike Duterte who is fluent in neither.

Of course, a well learned and accomplished man as Gordon can contribute in other ways as well.  As a crisis manager for the Red Cross, he could provide emotional and inspirational support, as well as disaster logistics and rescue aid to the victims.  As a legal luminary, Gordon could advise Duterte on any proposals with regard to military and counter-terrorist action and the legality or constitutionality thereof.  After all, he was a lawyer and delegate to the 1971 Constitutional Convention, and is currently an effective lawmaker in the Senate.

Eighth, on the issue of Gordon not being a real Filipino, If Duterte is referring exclusively to ethnicity, then he is incontrovertibly correct.  He is only 50% Filipino due to his Caucasian father, who chose to renounce his American citizenship, become a Filipino citizen, betroth and live with a Filipina in the Philippines, serve Filipinos as their mayor, and eventually die and be buried in the Philippines.  Gordon followed suit, notwithstanding his birth and rearing in the Philippines and is yet to be deceased.

If, on the other hand, the definition of a Filipino is expanded to include a Philippine citizen who religiously performs his civic duty, then Gordon is 100% Filipino.  If the definition includes a citizen who contemplates and honors Filipino heroes and martyrs, then Gordon is 100% Filipino.  If the definition includes a public servant who defends and upholds Filipino institutions and the Philippine Constitution, then Gordon is 100% Filipino.  In a word, if the definition of being a Filipino is simply one who embraces Filipino culture and supporting causes and policies which will advance or uplift the Filipino people, then Gordon is 100% Filipino.  Is that not all that should matter?  Duterte will not even fulfill his constitutional mandate of protecting the Philippines’ territorial sovereignty in Panatag Shoal.  Perhaps we should rightfully say that he is 50% Filipino and 50% Chinese for acquiescing this fundamental right to China.

Ninth, from where did all Duterte’s derogatory and puerile comments about Gordon’s intelligence (or lack thereof) and excess weight emanate?  One can only speculate.  Perhaps this was a display of the former’s own intelligence (or lack thereof).  Perhaps it was another typical demonstration of his character (or lack thereof).  Perhaps such histrionics was simply an indicator of his own inadequacies or insecurities projected deeply from his own subconscious.  Perhaps it is due to his upbringing in the province. de0a  Whatever it may be, one thing is certain: Digong’s obsession with Dick finally overwhelmed him.  Indeed, ranting about Dick for approximately twenty minutes in a speech, which was supposed to commemorate the BFP, made this clearly transparent.

In conclusion, I wish to inculcate our countrymen with some important points.  First, we must always remember that a popular president does not equate to a good president.  That is why Gordon’s grasp of history, his foresight, and his persistent vigilance are qualities we should come to appreciate and cultivate within ourselves.

Second, we must understand that Gordon’s civility and humility in handling Duterte’s excoriation exalts him and makes him the better man, as well as the better public servant.  Indeed, his restraint in personal attacks against Duterte is a display of good character, diplomacy, and cognizance of domestic, as well as global optics, which could impact international relations.

Third, we must appreciate the founders and their concept of civilian supremacy over the military in order to preserve our government’s peaceful transfer of power.

Finally, my friends and countrymen, we must never, under any circumstances, underestimate or take for granted, the value and impact of Dick . . . Dick Gordon, that is.

The post Is Dick Hindering Digong or Is Digong Suffering from Dick Envy? first appeared on Marcial's Law.

My friends and countrymen, in the midst of the longest federal government shutdown in U.S. history (35 days), many Americans insist the Republican and Democrat parties come to a compromise.  Others hold President Donald Trump responsible for the shutdown, and hence holding federal employees hostage in exchange for border wall funding.  While there have been various issues made into spectacles, such as Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s cancellation of Trump’s State of the Union address (traditionally delivered in the House of Representatives) and Trump’s allegedly retaliatory cancellation of Pelosi’s Air Force One flight to Belgium, many focus on the approximately 800,000 furloughed federal employees.  Their sympathizers claim that they are financially suffering as a result of the gridlock from partisan politics.

Are they, indeed, or could this be yet another display of the very same partisan politics which they decry?  First and foremost, federal government shutdowns are not only not a new phenomena, they are anticipated whenever each chamber of Congress is dominated by opposing parties.  In such cases, federal employees are furloughed until both parties compromise.  Each party gets and concedes something, a new budget is legislated, the government reopens, and federal employees resume their regular work schedule with back pay.

One would think that federal employees, aware of such a prospect as a government shutdown, would be financially prepared.  Even if they are oblivious to history, it is conventional financial wisdom to have a minimum of 6 months of expenses saved for emergencies, such as being unable to work.  This applies equally to the private sector, wherein corporate downsizing or layoffs occur.  It is basically a self-prepared and self-regulated insurance policy, and since their average salary is $80,000 (some even earning as much as $100,000), saving seems hardly difficult.

Surely, they could utilize their credit cards or state unemployment benefits.  They could even withdraw money from their 401k plan without accruing any financial penalties.  Otherwise, they could do the old-fashioned thing and simply implement austere measures on their household budgets.

The aforementioned remedies are perfectly viable and temporary, but sufficiently compensatory for the average time employees are furloughed due to a government shutdown.  Business Insider policy reporter Bob Bryan makes this ostensible in his estimation:

On average, the 20 previous shutdowns lasted eight days, though they have been longer in recent decades. The six shutdowns since 1990 have lasted nine days on average. And removing the short, nine-hour funding lapse caused by Sen. Rand Paul in February, recent shutdowns have averaged 11 days. Most of these shutdowns weren't severe, with 11 of the 20 lasting five days or fewer, and seven lasting three days or fewer.

Furthermore, the current economy is such that those furloughed employees can be assimilated into the private sector.  Indeed, the unemployment rate is at 3.7%, which is the lowest since 1969 (nearly five decades ago) while the labor participation rate has steadily risen in the past five years.  In fact, the number of job openings currently exceeds the number of available workers by more than a million according to the Wall Street Journal.  Such a labor shortage accounts for the 3.2% increase in wages over the past year.

Aside from the matter of so-called financial hardship for furloughed employees, is the matter of constitutionality.  According to the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”  Hence, the current size and scope of the federal government has far exceeded its original design, which is precisely why America’s founders would scarcely notice the ongoing or even the past government shutdowns.

In conclusion, my friends and countrymen, let us pivot back to the original question along with some follow-up questions: Should the government shutdown end in sympathy for furloughed federal employees?  Should Americans contribute to a cancer fund in sympathy for the elderly who acquired lung cancer via smoking their whole life?  Should serial killers and rapists be paroled in sympathy for their austere life in prison?  I would hope that sensible, responsible Americans would respond with a resounding “Absolutely . . . Not!”

The post Should the Government Shutdown End in Sympathy for Its Employees? Absolutely . . . Not! first appeared on Marcial's Law.

Now that I have presented my reasons for supporting the American paradigm on which the Philippines can model, in full or in part, its federal form (namely, a limited, federal, presidential government), I will henceforth present a few key features and safeguards of the U.S. government which I propose be assimilated into the new Philippine constitution.  However, it must be noted that, albeit the Philippine government was partially modeled after the American government, these key features were excluded from being incorporated into the Philippine constitution.

Such safeguards are not only what starkly differentiate the U.S. government from the Philippine government, but they are precisely what account for the general effectiveness of the former’s system of checks and balances---namely, a federalist system by which power is equally divided by a central government and the states, an electoral college to elect the president, a Senate with its members elected by their districts rather than at large, and recourse for the states whenever their sovereignty is threatened by a tyrannical federal government.  Due to much of the public’s oblivion to these distinctions, I have elucidated them in my commentary entitled “Is the Philippine Government an American Replica?”

Senate

First, I propose the restructuring of the Philippine Senate pursuant to the American model of equal regional representation, whereby each region or state will elect two senators.  Indeed, this is a drastic deviation of the current method of the populace voting for twenty-four senators nationwide or at large.  Not only would this arrangement be congenial to the unique situation of each region or state, it would empower the small states as well.  Indeed, as American founder William Davie stated, “The protection of the small states against the ambition and influence of the larger members, could only be effected by arming them with an equal power in one branch of the legislature.”  Hence, equal representation in the Senate is a safeguard against what American founder James Madison called “the tyranny of the majority.”

Since the lower chamber of Congress known as the House of Representatives is composed of members elected directly by the people, it has been characterized as embodying the unfettered “passions” of the people.  By contrast, members of the upper house known as the Senate shall be elected or appointed by the regional or state legislatures, whose members are inclined to be refined and informed.  That is why Madison wrote, “The use of the Senate is to consist in its proceedings with more coolness, with more system and with more wisdom, than the popular branch.”  Put more simply by American founder George Washington, the scalding heat of the “tea” of the House is placed into the “senatorial saucer to cool it.”

Additionally, the election or appointment of senators by regional or state legislatures will decrease the influence of special interest groups on senatoriables, since they often fund costly state-wide races.  Political commentator John DeMaggio elaborates:

Senators would no longer be bound by allegiances to these special interests. Candidates would not be obliged to receive funding from political parties for their nonexistent campaign limiting a Senator’s obligation to the national political party. Senators would be more obligated to serve the interests of their State . . . rather than a national political party or special interests.

Hence, the republican nature of the Senate serves as a check and balance on the democratic nature of the House, a distinct feature of American federalism, which ultimately keeps an overreaching federal government at bay.

Electoral College

Second, I propose the establishment of an electoral college (EC) to elect the president as opposed to the current form of direct or popular election.  Being comprised of what American founder John Jay characterizes as “the most enlightened and respectable citizens. . . their votes will be directed to those men only who have become the most distinguished by their abilities and virtue. . . As an assembly of select electors possess. . . the means of extensive and accurate information relative to men and characters, so will their appointments bear at least equal marks of discretion and discernment . . .”

By contrast, the current presidential electoral system via popular vote is often dominated by man’s raw passion and impulse (as in the House) because as American founder Elbridge Gerry stressed, the “people are uninformed, and would be misled by a few designing men.”  Perhaps that accounts for the banal election of incompetent politicians, unfavorable dynasties, and inexperienced celebrities in the Philippines.  Hence, the EC, much as the Senate, serves as a check and safeguard against the populace’s unfettered passion and impulsive drive.

The EC also serves to ensure fair representation for the small and least populated regions or states just as it does in the U.S. Senate.  Consider that of the seventeen regions, the two most populous ones are Southern Tagalog (Region IV) at 14,414,774 and the National Capital Region (Region XIII) at 12,877,253.  Naturally, a direct election of the president would be largely in their favor to the detriment of the less populous regions, such as the Cordillera (Region XIV) at 1,722,006 or Caraga (Region XVI) at 2,596,709.

That is why I propose, in addition to the equivalent number of House members, two representatives be elected or appointed by each region or state in order to constitute a Philippine electoral college (EC) similar to the U.S., whereby each region will be equally represented, regardless of its size.  In so doing, the president will be the president of the whole Philippines, not just of the largest regions or metropolitan areas.

The final purpose of the EC is to facilitate the preclusion of voter fraud.  However, in order for this to be effective, the presidential electoral system must become decentralized.  Just as in the U.S., each individual state legislates its own election laws, each Philippine region or state must do likewise.  In so doing, corrupt federal election officials would find it virtually impossible to fix or “rig” the presidential election due to the electoral autonomy of every region or state and the functioning of local election judges, tasked with multiple responsibilities.

Even when anomalies are discovered after the voting results, they can easily be isolated to one or only a few regions or states, which would make for speedy recounts, as was the case in the 2000 U.S. presidential election wherein a voting dispute occurred between George W. Bush and Al Gore in Florida for only a few weeks.  Contrast that with the dispute between Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos and Leni Robredo which has persisted for over two years.  Consider also how cost-effective the electoral process would be due to decentralization and curtailing of lawsuits.

The electors shall not hold public office in any branch of the federal government, be given a salary, or have tenure, and whereupon its sole function of electing the president and vice-president is executed, the EC shall immediately be dissolved.  Hence, they will be insulated from national political pressure.  Such a temporary function certainly addresses American founder Alexander Hamilton’s concern that presidential selection should not “depend on any preexisting bodies of men who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes.”  The manner by which electors are selected shall be at the sole discretion of each individual state or region---e.g., via a state or region’s legislature, via a state or region’s governor on the authority of that state or region’s legislature.

It is ostensible that the EC has a positive impact and wide implications on governance.  Such a significant feature, with all its safeguards, is the cornerstone of American federalism, of which the Philippine government is bereft.  Indeed, the EC is also an alternative to a direct democracy (as is currently the case), authoritarianism, and parliamentary government.

Nullification

Third, America’s founders brilliantly concocted two checks as a remedy for the states to counter an overreaching or tyrannical national government.  The remedies are state nullification of unconstitutional federal laws and an Article V Convention of States (COS).  The former is, according to Jefferson, “the rightful remedy” against “all unauthorized acts done” by the national government and was executed effectively in defiance of a federal embargo, the Alien and Sedition Acts, and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.  In my commentary entitled The Peak of Tyranny and End of Its Destruction, I cited two more recent examples in which Montana, Alabama, and Wyoming amended their state constitutions, nullifying Obamacare.

In defiance to President Barack Obama’s executive orders to banning certain types of firearms, several governors, state legislators, and sheriffs have taken measures to quell or nullify any presidential decree, which did not conform to their own state’s gun regulations.  Some legislators have gone so far as to prepare legislation which would criminalize any attempt of federal agents to enforce the new federal gun ownership restrictions.  One sheriff in Oregon (Tim Mueller) even wrote a letter to Vice President Joe Biden in which he declared that neither he nor his deputies would enforce any federal gun law, which he deems unconstitutional.  Among the states which exercised such recalcitrant acts were Mississippi, Kentucky, Oregon, Minnesota, Alabama, Tennessee, Wyoming, Utah, Alaska, Florida, and Texas.

Convention of States

In Federalist 85, Hamilton alludes to the second remedy when he says, “. . . we may safely rely on the disposition of the state legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority.”  He is referring to assembling a Convention of States (COS), which is actually embodied in Article V of the U.S. Constitution:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress ….

Put plainly and simply, thirty-four states of the U.S. must consent to deliberation in a convention of states (not a constitutional convention, which would be a formidable option) to propose constitutional amendments.  Thirty-eight states must ratify the amendments in order for them to become binding and effective.  In this way, the states can put the national government in check regardless of who occupies the presidency, Congress, or the Supreme Court.  As of this writing, twelve states have passed a COS resolution.  Furthermore, the aforementioned remedies as state nullification and an Article V COS are essential in lawfully preserving federalism, while precluding “mob rule.”

In the Philippine context, a clause pertinent to regional or state nullification of intrusive federal laws can and should be annexed to the draft constitution in order to preclude jurisdictional discrepancies, wherein both the regions and national government purport to defend and uphold the Constitution.  Unfortunately, such a clause is nonexistent in the U.S. Constitution, which has been the cause for the aforementioned discrepancies and can thus serve as an example of unintended consequences from which the Philippines can learn.  In terms of annexing a COS clause to the draft constitution, the number of regions needed for deliberation and ratification will be smaller than our U.S. counterpart, since the number of regions created and established via federalism will be significantly smaller than the fifty states of the U.S. (e.g., eleven pursuant to LDP Institute’s model and eighteen pursuant to RBH 8).

Furthermore, a Senate elected by the regions or states, an electoral college to elect the President, and recourse for the regions or states against an overreaching federal government are checks and balances safeguarding the sovereignty of the regions or states and the people.  They are elements, which, in spite of their historical significance to American federalism, have never been assimilated into Philippine government.  Perhaps now is the time in the clamor for federalism and as an alternative to a costly and more drastic shift to a federal parliamentary system.

However, in spite of the ostensible advantages of my federalist proposal, it must be noted that it is not a “magic bullet” or the single, perfect solution to everything ailing the Philippines.  Rather it is a remedy to address certain issues, which, in order to have maximum positive impact, must be executed in concert with other measures, e.g., the enforcement of current laws, economic liberalization to curb protectionist policies and attract direct foreign investments, and cultural changes in order to cultivate an informed, disciplined, industrious, and active citizenry which will strengthen preexisting, fundamental, social institutions.  The latter is imperative, lest the electorate continues to elect incompetent or corrupt politicians, and that will occur under any system of governance—unitary or federal, presidential or parliamentary.

This is excerpted from “The Philippine Case for Federalism, Its Form, and Its Safeguards” by Marcial Bonifacio.  Parts 1, 2, 3, and 4 are accessible by clicking on their links.

The post A Federal Philippines: A Modest Proposal first appeared on Marcial's Law.

Having presented my reasons for the federalist shift while also addressing contrarian views, I also propose that the Constitutional Commission scrutinizes, adapts, and includes the American government’s model---in full or, at least, in part.  If only in part, I propose a few particular safeguards be assimilated into the new Philippine constitution.  In the meantime, it seems appropriate to scrutinize my reasons for including the U.S. model in making the transition to federalism.

Best Ideas

First and foremost, America’s republic is comprised of the best historical ideas.  Indeed, the founders scrutinized the governing systems of the predominant Western civilizations---ancient and contemporary.  These include Greece, Rome, France, and England from which the founders derived the concepts of liberty, justice, trial by jury, separation of powers, democracy, republicanism, and self-government.  The founders meticulously studied the rise and fall of tyrannical governments in those nations, as well as their own experience with King George III in framing a constitution which would preclude such occurrences in the U.S.

Preexisting Government Infrastructure

Second, since the Philippine government was largely framed after the U.S. government, the familiar preexisting federal infrastructure or apparatus of the separate executive, legislative, and judicial branches facilitates a more congenial transition to federalism much more so than abolishing it as parliamentary government advocates and proponents of PDP-Laban Federalism Institute’s model seek to do.  Even the anti-colonialist Delegate Manuel Roxas defended the ratification of the 1935 Constitution (although it is a gross variation of America’s original constitution):

Why have we preferred the Government established under this draft?  Because it is the Government with which we are familiar.  It is the form of government fundamentally such as it exists today; it is the only kind of government we have found to be in consonance with our experience, and with the necessary modification capable of permitting a fair play of social forces and allowing the people to conduct the presidential system.

It must be noted that I do not oppose a parliamentary form of government per se.  I simply would support it only as a last resort, i.e., when all reforms under a presidential federal system (e.g., the establishment of an electoral college to elect the president and a Senate elected by regional legislatures instead of at large) fail, but I digress.

Resiliency

Third, America’s system has proven to be the most resilient.  Constitutional law Professor Hugh Hewitt points out:

The work of collective genius that is the Constitution has been tested by everything from an actual civil war that claimed 600,000 lives to various panics, two world wars, the Great Depression, and the Great Recession, not to mention impeachments and assassinations, political-judicial meltdowns like Florida in 2000, and dozens of scandals---and it does not break.  It is more resilient than any other modern constitution, a remarkable, nearly perfect balance of competing powers and separated authorities that has endured and will endure.  Those who fear it is off the road and in the ditch have to ignore history’s many examples of America righting itself after trauma and setback.

Consider America’s progress in the abolition of slavery, suffrage for women, and civil rights for blacks, all of which happened within 229 years of the establishment of the U.S. government.  In spite of such turbulent occasions, the world’s oldest written supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution, remains largely intact.  Contrast that with our three Philippine constitutions---of 1935, 1973, and 1987---all promulgated and implemented within a single century.  Additionally, President Rodrigo Duterte has raised the specter of a revolutionary government, which all betokens the instability of the Philippine government.

Unequivocal Language

Fourth, the language of the U.S. Constitution is very clear in distinguishing the powers of the federal government from that of the states.  Article 1, Section 8 enumerates the federal powers:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States…To borrow Money on the credit of the United States…To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes…To coin money…To establish Post Offices and post Roads…To raise and support Armies.

The Tenth Amendment, the last of the Bill of Rights, betokens the threshold at which the states (or the people) are sovereign, which is the cornerstone of federalism.  It states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People.”  The American founder and principal author of the Constitution, James Madison, elaborates on the nature of these powers in Federalist 45:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace negotiation, and foreign commerce . . . The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the state.

Indeed, it is those “few and defined” powers of the federal government which accounts for a simple, comprehensible, and short constitution.  Contrast that with our lengthy constitution of 1987, which manifests a government exceeding the size and scope imposed by America’s founders.

Based on Natural Rights

Fifth, it is the first written constitution based on our timeless, ubiquitous, natural rights, which intrinsically circumscribe the national government and betoken the vast range of our individual liberty.  Indeed, the U.S. Declaration of Independence (upon which America’s constitution is based) betokens man’s universal and intrinsic equality and endowment of “certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  Even the Philippine revolutionary and anti-colonialist Apolinario Mabini acknowledged such rights, stemming from “natural law,” when attributing the success of the U.S. government to the major work of two of its founders, Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine:

The ruler’s success is always to be found in the adjustment of his practical measures to the natural and immutable order of things and to the special needs of the locality, an adjustment that can be made with the help of theoretical knowledge and experience. The source of all failures in government can therefore be found, not in (mistaken) theories but in unprincipled practices arising from base passions or ignorance. If the Government of the United States has been able to lead the Union along the paths of prosperity and greatness, it is because its practices have not diverged from the theories contained in the Declaration of Independence and of the Rights of Man, which constitute an exposition of the principles of natural law implanted by the scientific revolutions in the political field.

This is excerpted from “The Philippine Case for Federalism, Its Form, and Its Safeguards” by Marcial Bonifacio.  Parts 1, 2, 3, and 4 are accessible by clicking on their links.

The post A Federal Philippines: The Time-Tested Model first appeared on Marcial's Law.

Second of 4 parts

Apart from the ostensible advantages of federalism, critics persist in their tenacity.  Their recalcitrance dissuades others from supporting or even learning more about federalism, hence perpetuating the status quo.  That is why I have addressed some of their criticisms below.

Economy May ‘Go to Hell’

Critics commonly point to the findings of DOF Secretary Carlos Dominguez III who stated that the national government may incur a 6.7% deficit, interest rates would rise by up to 6%, 95% of national government employees may be laid off, and the country’s investment-grade credit ratings may “go to hell.”  ConCom technical working head Wendell Tamayo estimates the cost of establishing 16 federated regions, Bangsamoro and Cordillera regions, four federal courts, and six constitutional commissions at P2.2 trillion, while Rosario Manasan of the Philippine Institute of Development Studies estimates that approximately P55 billion per year will need to be appropriated for the salaries of new federal state elected officials.

Some economists like Victor Abola (professor of the University of Asia and the Pacific) point to a few federal countries which are imperiled by hyperinflation and fear that a federal Philippines may be subjected to the same aftermath.  Due to Venezuela’s current inflation rate of 25%, things cost 250 times more today than a year ago.  Other federal countries like Mexico and Brazil have a similar result due to their localities’ reckless spending on elections, which Abola states is “the primary reason for their hyperinflation episodes . . . which exceeded 4,000% inflation.”

In spite of such negative financial analysis, there are potential measures which could preclude or mitigate some of the aforementioned effects.  For example, ConCom spokesman Ding Generoso has proposed the appropriations for implementing federalism emanate from one of several sources: regional taxes/fees, share of top revenue sources, share of equalization fund, the General Appropriations Act, or natural resources income.  Political scientist Antonio Contreras suggests that some of federalism’s additional costs can be compensated for by the lower costs of transactions, travel, and communication due to decentralization.

Another source would emanate from an expanded tax base due to increased domestic and foreign investments.  In order to be competitive, the American Chamber of Commerce (AmCham) suggests the corporate income tax (CIT) be lowered from 30% to 20%.  Although the Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion 2 (TRAIN 2) law will lower the CIT to 25%, the average rate of the Philippines’ Southeast Asian neighbors is 22.7%.  Hence, a more competitive CIT would attract more investors and create more jobs which, in turn, would translate into more tax revenue.

Also, fiscal incentives for foreign investors in economic zones should be maintained.  For example, the Bases Conversion and Development Act of 1992 grants free port locators a 5% tax on gross income earned.  Unfortunately, TRAIN 2 will repeal such incentives, which the AmCham claimed would “lead to an end to expansions by many foreign investors and a reversal of the success in recent decades in attracting thousands of foreign firms to invest in the country.”

Indeed, this concern is shared by Subic Bay Freeport Chamber of Commerce President Danny Piano who fears the prospect of “capital flight” and Charito Plaza, director general of the Philippine Export Zone Authority, who will continue to defend the fiscal incentives.  Aside from retaining the 5% tax, the financial giant HSBC suggests loosening foreign ownership restrictions via charter change, which would increase the Philippines’ share (currently the lowest) in ASEAN’s “FDI windfall.”

Additionally, all business tax cuts and fiscal incentives should be made permanent, as well as repealing the protectionist clause of the 1987 Constitution in order to boost long-term commitments by investors.  Indeed, such “productive investment,” stated UP professor Maria Bautista, “will generate future streams of income that will not only increase domestic output and income, but also allow the country to service its debt.”  Perhaps the anticipated 95% of laid off national government employees can be reabsorbed into the revitalized private economy or continue their public service on a local level.  Either way, different economic opportunities will abound due to the reallocation of capital precipitated by tax reform and economic liberalization.

ConCom Atty. Rodolfo Robles points out that the national budget is approximately P3.75 trillion and that 40% of it is illegally misdirected.  “Sa simple arithmetic po,” stated Robles, “ayan ay 1.5 trillion, ang napupunta sa graft and corruption.”  He continued to say that at least half of it can be retrieved with a sufficient supply of attorneys.

Recently, in the U.S., Sen. Rand Paul and Rep. Mark Sanford introduced the “Penny Plan” or the “One Percent Solution.”  It mandates Congress to reduce federal spending in all departments by one cent on the dollar.  This would drastically curtail inefficiencies from wasteful spending and balance the budget over a period of five years.  Surely, the Philippines can adapt such a plan in order to cap or mitigate the anticipated deficit as a result of instituting federalism.  Call it the “Centabo Plan.”

I would add that with the regions assuming more fiduciary responsibility, the people will be able to retain more of their hard-earned income, while their region more effectively delivers services otherwise performed by the national government.  Such an arrangement would also allocate resources more efficiently and fairly, since taxpayers residing in Manila would no longer have to fund the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps) or condoms for lazy, mendicant perverts residing in Zamboanga City (presuming 4Ps and the RH Law get repealed, or the regions have the option to nullify them by virtue of federalism, just as the U.S. is currently in the process of repealing the unconstitutional Affordable Care Act, putatively “Obamacare”).  Indeed, such decentralization echoes ConCom member Dr. Julio Teehankee’s sentiment that “the proposed draft federal constitution encourages the national government to go on a diet and the regions to go on a muscle-building regimen.”

In terms of hyperinflation, it is highly misleading and even disingenuous to attribute it to federalism per se.  Indeed, Venezuela’s centralized federalism (an oxymoron) is simply a euphemism for its federalized socialism, whose perpetual budget deficits and inability to borrow money, has resorted to excessive printing of increasingly devalued money.  Consequently, hyperinflation has become pervasive.  In the case of Brazil and Mexico, it is ostensibly due to poor management and or flawed public policy in election campaign financing which has led to such high inflation rates.  That could be remedied by transparency legislation or strict penalties for exceeding a fixed limit on campaign financing or outright privatization of campaign financing.  Ergo, hyperinflation need not be attributable to federalism.

Comparing the Philippines to the U.S. and Germany an Apples to Oranges Comparison

Some opponents assert that presenting the economic success of advanced, western, federal countries like the U.S. and Germany is disingenuous, since the Philippines is generally still a developing, Asian country---an apples to oranges comparison.  However, the eastern, federal states of India and Malaysia more closely resemble the Philippines and have a relatively stable government and growing economy.  Malaysia’s economic growth is at 5% with a GDP of $863.3 billion and foreign direct investment (FDI) at $9.9 billion.  India, whose history is also influenced by colonialism and the English language, has a growth rate of 7.3% with a GDP of $8.7 trillion and FDI at $4.5 billion.  Compare those economic indicators to that of the Philippines with a 5.8% growth rate, a GDP of $805.2 billion, and FDI at $7.9 billion.

Increased Power to Local Dynasties and Oligarchs

Apart from the ostensible advantages, some are fearful that federalism will enable political dynasties to dominate the regions.  However, a vigilant and informed citizenry can prevent such occurrences or take counter measures after the fact, such as passing and enforcing anti-dynasty and transparency laws as Senator Nene Pimentel suggests.  However, as I wrote in my commentary entitled Why Manny Pacquiao’s Defeat Could Be a Win for the Country, “I do not oppose dynasties, insofar as their members are fairly and democratically elected and serve the interests of their constituents. However, when they are self-serving or hold power only for namesake, I oppose them and any office holder—dynasty clan or not.”

Anyway, should all remedies fail, citizens and businesses can simply migrate to another region, which is more congenial to their own interests, values, economic preferences, or lifestyle.  Over whom would the dynastic oligarchs rule and depend on for tax revenue, if everyone migrated elsewhere?  Would they then not be compelled to compete with other regions by providing quality government services, e.g., infrastructure, public safety, property rights protection, and contract enforcement?

 Federalism Too New and Foreign to the Philippines

Some opponents stress that since federalism is a foreign concept or that the Philippines lacks historical experience in regional autonomy (in contrast to the U.S., Malaysia, and Germany), such a system would be inappropriate or not viable.  However, I contend that El Filibusterismo, a sewer system, jeepneys, smart phones, and a Red Cross did not always exist, and, indeed, did change Philippine life for the better.  Hence, should we have opted to never have introduced them as well?  A prosperous nation demands openness to positive change, and education can accommodate any kind of change, despite its drastic implications.

Anyway, as Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban points out, “The idea of federalism is not really new to us. Salvador Araneta, a delegate to the 1971 Constitutional Convention (ConCon), proposed it in his ‘Bayanikasan Constitution.’ Jose Abueva, the secretary of the same ConCon, has written several papers detailing his version of federalism.”  Even as early as 1900, an Ilocano intellectual named Isabelo de los Reyes, envisioned a federal constitution with seven states comprising the Philippines.

 A Sufficient Government Local Code

In terms of regional autonomy, critics point out that the Government Local Code renders federalism obsolete, since the Code is intended to devolve power and disburse internal revenue allotments (IRAs) to localities.  “And yet,” stated Panganiban, “these do not seem to be enough because our Constitution mandates one national police to which the local police are legally beholden, and the Department of Budget and Management which could withhold IRAs.”  Such local autonomy “with strings attached” makes them prone to corruption, or, at least, apathetically unresponsive to the demands of their populace.  Federalism will cut those strings and enable the regions or states to determine their own future.

Neglected Poor Regions

Naysayers of federalism also raise the issue of impoverished regions worsening due to reduced national support.  However, I contend that such dependency or mendicancy is precisely what has retarded their capacity to cultivate their own resources in order to produce prosperity.  It is conventional economic wisdom that prosperous economies consist of most, if not all, of the following key variables: few or no entry barriers to trade, an educated labor force, natural resources, adherence to the rule of law, sustainable infrastructure, and high-scale technology.  Those variables can be cultivated by an efficient, corrupt-free government, quality educational institutions, economic liberalization, and pro-growth tax policy.

Recent history is certainly instructive in providing the proper perspective.  Consider the economic development and growth in post-World War II Japan after the atomic bomb converted its cities into ruins, yet the nation is currently the world’s third largest economy.  Within our own borders, after the recall of American naval bases in Subic Bay and the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991 (wherein the territory was reduced to an ash heap), it was shortly transformed and lauded by various world leaders as a successful trade port and a paragon for economic growth.  I elaborate on Subic in my commentary entitled Why the Senate Needs More Dick.  If Japan and Subic can prosper, under such overwhelming odds, why not any other region or state in the Philippines?

Perhaps special concessions can be made to the more disadvantaged regions like Mindanao, which should be targeted and temporary as an incentive to be self-sufficient.  Indeed, I would not be averse to Chief Justice Reynato Puno’s concept of “evolving federalism” by which the lesser developed regions remain in the status of “autonomous regions” until they are capable of graduating to the status of “full states.”  In that case, benchmarks should be established instead of a timeline.

This is excerpted from “The Philippine Case for Federalism, Its Form, and Its Safeguards” by Marcial Bonifacio.  Parts 1, 2, 3, and 4 are accessible by clicking on their links.

The post A Federal Philippines: Naysayers Debunked first appeared on Marcial's Law.