Bongbong’s SONA short on objectives

PERRYSCOPE

Perry Diaz

PRESIDENT Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr.’s first SONA before the joint session of Congress lasted for an hour and 14 minutes.  It highlighted a 19-point legislative agenda.  However, it excluded human rights, justice, and peace -- issues that have houndedthe previous Duterte regime.
    What was the message or what was he trying to avoid… or both?   Why the sudden silence on the three most important issues that would determine the paths to be taken by his presidency?  Or could it be that he isn’t prepared to elevate the priorities that he as chief steward of the ship of state to a level of highest importance? 
    At this point we can only speculate just like when he refused to participate in the debates during the campaign.  He probably surmised that by evading discussion of these important issues, the Filipino people would give him a pass just like before. 
    But skipping the debates is one thing and evading the issues is another.  After he skipped the debates, it left his future direction uncharted.  He didn’t have to make promises on how to address the pressing issues like the Covid-19 pandemic, economic downturn, drug problem, inflation, unemployment, health care, rising prices of gas and rice, and recession.
    Unlike his predecessor, former president Rodrigo Duterte, who said that he’d solve the peace and order situation and how he’d get rid of the drug and criminality problem in six months, Marcos did not mention them at all.  He did not talk about the issue of justice and rule of law, which Duterte pursued with vigor, eliminating 27,000 people as a result in the campaign against drugs, which was Duterte’s pet project.  He did not talk about how he is going to fight corruption in government.  Needless to say, by not addressing them, he did not take responsibility and own accountability.
    “Simplicity, economy, and efficiency”
    He issued Executive Order No.1, which abolished the Presidential Anti-Corruption Commission (PACC) in the guise of achieving “simplicity, economy, and efficiency.”  But instead it created another layer of bureaucracy, the Deputy Secretary for Legal Affairs (DESLA), which has its hands already full of cases investigating internal and external legal matters.
    He did not mention appointments to the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) and Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) that is tasked to recover the ill-gotten wealth of his family and their cronies. The PCGG was formed in 1986 in the aftermath of the People Power Revolution that ousted the Marcos dictatorship and ushered in the government of Cory Aquino.  It was tasked solely to recover the ill-gotten wealth of the Marcos family and their cronies.
    Cristina Palabay, secretary-general of human rights group Karapatan, also noted that there was no mention of “press freedom, disinformation, death penalty, and failed domestic accountability mechanisms.”
Justice and rule of law
    Former Senate minority floor leader Franklin Drilon said the Marcos government should not “sweep under the rug” issues concerning justice and rule of law, saying that a strong justice system could also boost investors’ confidence.
    But Marcos raised some concerns among business circles when he vetoed HB 7575 creating the Bulacan Airport Special Economic Zone and Freeport adjacent to the proposed airport city in Bulacan province.  It is expected that his veto would drive foreign investors away.  Not good for his fledgling presidency.
    Marcos, surprisingly, included in his legislative agenda the revival of the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps. (ROTC).  Surmise it to say, the ROTC could be called upon in cases of national emergency.   But short of invasion by a foreign power, the ROTC need not be activated and armed.  Unless of course a civil war erupts between the communist New People’s Army (NPA) and the Muslim separatists in Mindanao, in which case the ROTC could be armed and sent to the troubled region.  But between the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police who have a combined strength of 250,000 armed personnel, I don’t think the ROTC needs to be deployed in the war zone.
Overkill
But that just shows Marcos’ paranoia of national turbulence.  A case in point was during the State of the Nation Address (SONA) last July 25, he ordered 21,000 armed personnel to guard the National Museum of Fine Arts where the swearing-in occurred.  It was overkill.  It shows how he fear for his life.  Besides, the protestors were not allowed near the building.  They had to hold their rally miles away in Quezon City.  
    Many Filipinos are apprehensive about the prospect for martial law under Bongbong Marcos.  Although it’s unlikely that he’d declare martial law soon, a lot of people are expecting him to gradually undermine the existing system by changing the law, little by little. 
    One of the laws that he needs to address is taxation.  When he was elected, he commented that the government does “not have good collection on taxes,” citing the influence of corruption.
    “The economy of the Philippines will simply not succeed, we cannot collect duties, tariffs, etc through the BOC and we do not have good collection on taxes both on the national and local level. Hindi talaga uubra. The numbers don’t match,” Marcos said.
    He added, “So that’s why it’s very, very important and we have to at the very least reduce the corrosive influence of corruption in government as a general rule,” he added.
Marcos’ unpaid estate tax
    Last March, the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) confirmed that it sent a demand letter to the Marcos family to settle their unpaid estate tax worth P203 billion.
    When asked about corruption in the BIR, Marcos Jr., consistent with the family’s historical denialism, said that past corruption in the agency would be forgotten.   Hmm… Does that mean that he would not pursue the collection of the Marcos unpaid estate taxes?  He said that it was not under his watch.  “I was not in charge at the time. Now that I am governing, there shouldn’t be corruption anymore.  Wait until the taxpaying people stop paying their taxes, then you can say that Mr. President.
    At the end of the day, I believe President Marcos Jr.’s SONA was short on objectives.  I wish him all the best and may the good Lord guide him on the righteous path in governing the Filipino people.
(PerryDiaz@gmail.com)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Read more...

Why did Bongbong abolish PACC?

PERRYSCOPE

Perry Diaz

ON DAY ONE of his presidency, President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. issued Executive Order (EO) No. 1, which was to abolish the Presidential Anti-Corruption Commission (PACC) as well as the Office of Secretary.  Marcos’ reason for the abolition was to achieve “simplicity, economy, and efficiency.”
    In his EO, Marcos stated that to achieve “simplicity, economy, and efficiency” in bureaucracy without affecting disruptions in internal management and general governance, “the administration shall streamline official processes and procedures.”
    Press Secretary Trixie Cruz-Angeles said there was no need to retain the PACC, saying that its powers and functions are “not in line with streamlining.”
    “First of all, its nature is investigative, which can also be conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman. So, usually, what they do is they gather evidence on presidential appointees and file the case with the Ombudsman,” she said.
    Also, lawyer Tony La Viña, former dean of the Ateneo School of Government, said Marcos’ decision to deactivate the PACC was needed, saying that its work “can be done by the Office of the Executive Secretary (OES).”
Weaken fight against corruption
But Greco Belgica, PACC head in 2021, disagreed with La Viña’s assessment.  He warned that the move could weaken the fight against corruption.  He said that PACC played a key role especially when the Deputy Secretary for Legal Affairs (DESLA) has its hands full of cases to investigate.  “Without PACC,” Belgica said, “no one would know what is happening, most especially on corruption issues.”
    He reasoned that when people are not aware of corruption in the government because cases are not resolved, “corruption will proliferate because no one gets penalized.”
    Indeed, without the PACC, “DESLA shall make recommendations on matters requiring its action, to the executive secretary for approval, adoption or modification by the President,” Marcos’ EO No. 1 said, which doesn’t really streamline the process.  On the contrary, it adds extra steps to the process.  It adds another level of administration by including the DESLA to the equation.   EO No. 1 shall promulgate rules of procedure in administrative cases under its jurisdiction, provided that those promulgated by the PACC “shall remain in force.”  But while DESLA works against corruption, it is also handling the “external and internal legal issues of the President.  It then becomes a question of priority.  The DESLA has to prioritize its workload – corruption investigation versus legal issues.   Ultimately, the President would have to intervene, whether to put more effort in fighting corruption or handling external and internal issues. 
Justification
In an attempt to justify the abolition of PACC, Cruz-Angeles said in a press briefing:  “Basically the Presidential Anti-Corruption Commission… is not in line with streamlining. First of all, its nature is investigative, which can also be conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman.”
    Cruz-Angeles said that the PACC gathers evidence on presidential appointees and then files a case with the Ombudsman. However, she pointed out that a complaint could directly be filed with the Ombudsman even without the PACC.
    However, according to former PACC Commissioner Manuelito Luna, the PACC is not a mere duplicate of the Office of the Ombudsman because they have differing jurisdictions.  He said there is coordination between them and the Ombudsman regarding the handling of cases.
    “If a presidential appointee with a salary grade 26 or up, the case is usually referred to the Ombudsman; otherwise, PACC handles the case,” Luna said. “However, the president retains the power to administratively deal with his own appointee.  When it comes to presidential appointees, the president has the power to appoint as well as to remove or discipline.”  And that’s where it becomes political.
PACC workload
Belgica said that from October 2017 to June 2022, the PACC addressed 13,000 complaints and that 154 criminal and administrative cases had been filed, 24 individuals were sent to prison and 800 government employees were removed from office.  That’s a lot of workload and the results were impressive, which begs the question: Can the DESLA handle the workload without assigning additional personnel to handle them? I doubt it.  And this could lead to further delays and backlog in investigating corruption case.  It could then lead to a repeat of the old system before PACC was created: cases piled up from three administrations before President Duterte took over. It was only when Duterte created PACC on October 4, 2017 that the backlog eased and corruption cases were investigated.
    The PACC, which was created by Duterte’s EO No. 43 in 2017, had the mandate to “directly assist the President in investigating and/or hearing administrative cases primarily involving graft and corruption against all presidential appointees.”
    The EO stated, “there is a need to create a separate commission […] solely dedicated to providing assistance to the President in the investigation and hearing of administrative cases and complaints.”
    It likewise had the mandate to conduct lifestyle checks or fact-finding investigations concerning presidential appointees and other public officers allegedly involved in graft and corrupt practices.
Going back to old problem
Belgica stressed that he respects the decision of Marcos, he said he is hoping that the government will strengthen the fight against corruption: “If DESLA will not get a boost, like enough staff, we will go back to the old problem.”
    “If the government will strengthen the Ombudsman, it’s better. Whatever it is that the government will boost, resources should be increased, jurisdiction should be widened, and there should be enough staff,” he said.
Duterte’s EO provided that the PACC shall “have the power, on complaint or motu proprio (on its own), and concurrently with the Office of the Ombudsman, to hear, investigate, receive, gather, and evaluate evidence, intelligence reports, and information.”
    It’s sad that Marcos had to abolish PACC, which had done a terrific job in pursuing corruption cases against presidential appointees.  In effect, what Marcos did was to go back to the days when corrupt presidential appointees would remain untouchable only because of a slow system of investigating corruption cases, which makes one wonder:  Why did Bongbong abolish PACC?  I can only surmise that he probably wanted his friends to know that happy days are here again.
(PerryDiaz@gmail.com)

Read more...

The myth of the Yamashita and Tallano gold

PERRYSCOPE

Perry Diaz

RIGHT AFTER Ferdinand Marcos Sr. was ousted from power and sent to exile in Hawaii, he began plotting his return.  And he almost succeeded. 
    In 1987, Marcos planned to travel by boat and land in his home province of Ilocos Norte where he’ll be met by 10,000 of his Ilocano supporters.  
    But two Americans, business consultant Robert Chastain and lawyer Richard Hirschfield blew the whistle on Marcos’ plans when they testified before the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asian and Pacific Affairs.  They played a recording in which Marcos revealed the plot to invade the Philippines.
    ″I am going to land there, I don’t care who opposes me,” Marcos said in the tapes. ″And if they oppose the landing, that is when we start the battle.”
    When asked what would happen to then-President Corazon Aquino, who was installed after the revolution,     Marcos gave this reply: “What I would like to see happen is that we take her hostage. Not to hurt her. If necessary, forcibly take her.”
    They testified that they were able to gain Marcos’ trust through their association with a Saudi businessman named Mohamed al-Fassi.  The Americans pretended that they were arms dealers who were willing to help Marcos get weapons and the money to buy them, as well as pay mercenaries who would carry out the invasion.

The Saudi business connection

Hirschfield first met Marcos during a party at his home in Hawaii in September 1986.  Marcos was intrigued when Hirschfield brought up the Saudi business connection.  A few weeks later, Marcos asked for help in obtaining a passport from another country so he could travel free from the restrictions imposed by the U.S. and Philippine governments.  Marcos also asked Hirschfield to arrange a $10 million loan from al-Fassi.

Then, during a meeting on January 12, 1987, Marcos asked for an additional $5 million “in order to pay 10,000 soldiers $500 each as a form of ‘combat life insurance.’”

Hirschfield was taken aback.  He asked Marcos if he was talking about an invasion of the Philippines.  Marcos flatly answered, “Yes.”

According to Hirschfield, Marcos had also been negotiating with several arms dealers to procure anti-tank weapons, anti-aircraft missiles, rifles, mortars, and “enough ammunition for a three-month fight.”

The two Americans were able to record their conversations with Marcos by placing microphones and tape recorders inside their briefcase and in their suits.

Marcos also told Hirschfield that he owned 1,000 tons of gold worth about $14 billion, which he had hidden somewhere, possibly in the Philippines.  Hirschfield said that Marcos was vague about where the gold was hidden.  Marcos reportedly alluded that “some of it may have come from money set aside to pay Philippine veterans after World War II and some of it may have come from the Philippines’ central bank.”

Golden Buddha

In 1970, Roger Roxas, a treasure hunter, discovered a Golden Buddha when he and a friend, Albert Fuchigami, excavated a site shown on a map that was given by Albert’s father, who was an officer in the Japanese army during World War II.   The map pinpointed the location of a secret tunnel system where the Japanese had left a treasure of gold bars.

Make story short, Roxas and Fuchigami excavated the site and they uncovered a large solid gold statue of Buddha.   They ventured further inside the tunnel until they found boxes of solid gold bars.  They decided to dynamite the tunnel to hide the treasure.  They planned to sell the Buddha to buy trucks and equipment so they could come back and get the gold out of the tunnel.

Roxas took the Buddha home.  A potential buyer confirmed that the Buddha was solid gold.  Roxas then found out that the Budha’s head was removable.  Inside were handfuls of diamonds.  Roxas hid the diamonds in a closet.

News of the discovery spread until it reached President Marcos. 

Two months later, soldiers invaded his house.  Then out of nowhere the potential buyer appeared.  Roxas realized then that he’d been double-crossed.

Roxas later found out that Marcos had put a price on his head. He and his family went into hiding.  They never heard of the Golden Buddha again.  To this day, the gold bars remain hidden in the tunnel.

“Island arrest”

After the tapes were made public, the US government under then-President Ronald Reagan put Marcos under tight restriction.  He was placed under “island arrest” and couldn’t go anywhere without approval from the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).

Save the world

In 2013, Imelda Marcos said her family was willing to share gold bars of her late husband not just to Filipinos but also to the rest of humanity, as “this will save the world.” 

Eight years since Imelda’s words, supporters of the Marcoses are betting on the dictator’s son, Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr., to win the presidency in 2022 and thus end the guessing game on the lost Yamashita treasure, which has long been linked to their family.

In 2017, when asked about the fabled treasure, Bongbong told reporters, “Kung mayroon kayong mahanap, inyo na” (If you find it, you can keep it).

But then-president Rodrigo Duterte claimed that an emissary for the Marcoses had reached out to say that the family was willing to return “a few gold bars” that they had hidden away.

Today, Imelda has yet to make good her promise to return “a few gold bars.”

Tallano gold

Then there is the myth about the Tallano gold.  Believe it or not, the Tallano gold was a cache of 617,500 metric tons of gold that was purportedly deposited in the Central Bank of the Philippines to comply with requirements of gold reserves.   And this was where Marcos and a certain Fr. Jose Antonio Diaz came into the picture.   

According to some sources, the Tallano clan paid Diaz and Marcos 30% commission in gold for a total of 192,000 metric tons of gold, which made them the richest men in the world at that time.  Marcos withdrew his share of gold from the Central Bank and re-minted them “RP-CB.”  Later on, Marcos and Diaz allegedly brought their gold to Switzerland at the Swiss Bank Corporation in Zurich, Switzerland.  

Accordingly, the remaining 400,000 metric tons of the Tallano gold was deposited in the 3rd floor basement of the Central Bank Minting Plant in East Avenue, Quezon City.

Evidently, the myth about the Tallano gold was propagated by Bongbong’s election supporters, who promised that they’ll all be given P5 million each upon Bongbong’s election as president.  However, after Bongbong’s landslide victory, talks about the Tallano gold stopped.

According to history professor Francis Gealogo, former head of the Department of History of the Ateneo de Manila University, there are no historical accounts to prove these claims. “A narrative that is not factual is fiction,” he said.

According to claims of Marcos supporters, the wealth of the Marcos family came from the gold bars that were payments from the Tallano-Tagean Royal Family, a supposedly Maharlikan Empire that ruled the country. This “royal family” purportedly owned the Philippines and was among the parties that signed the Treaty of Paris.

However, it was revealed that there are no records of a Tallano-Tagean Royal Family; much less the latter’s representative signing the Treaty of Paris.  Apparently, the story was a total fabrication by Marcos supporters who dreamed of a comeback to power.

Researchers also found no Fr. Jose Antonio Diaz. Instead, his purported photos were that of a certain Fr. Antonio Aglipay but the latter was never listed as among the richest in the world.

Historians also debunked the claim that the Marcoses returned the gold bars to the Philippine government after World War II.

Gealogo also debunked the claim that Marcos Sr. withdrew and deposited gold in the Swiss Bank in Zurich, Switzerland and that the remaining 400,000 metric tons of the Tallano gold were deposited at the Central Bank office on East Ave, Quezon City.   No such thing.

But what was found out was that Marcos Sr. and wife Imelda Marcos deposited $950,000 in Credit Suisse in 1968, under the aliases William Saunders and Jane Ryan, based on the findings of the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG).  Historians said that the accounts show that what was deposited was not gold but stolen money from public coffers.

According to independent think-tank IBON Foundation, the ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses is approximately pegged at P1.87 trillion ($36.4 billion), assuming that the family just had US$4 billion in 1989. This could have inflated to at least US$38.4 billion by 2021 from interest on deposits, earnings from investments, and appreciation in the value of real properties and assets.

Now, the question is: Which would you believe: the existence of the Yamashita and Tallano gold treasure or the “ill-gotten wealth” of the Marcoses? (PerryDiaz@gmail.com)

Read more...

Should Trump be prosecuted?

PERRYSCOPE

Perry Diaz

WATCHING THE PUBLIC HEARINGS of the January 6th Select Committee makes one wonder: Why is Trump not being prosecuted in spite of the various damaging testimonies given by witnesses?  And by all accounts, why is Attorney General Merrick Garland hesitant to indict Trump for witness tampering and other serious crimes?  And without Garland’s indictment, Trump will remain scot-free.   That’s a lot of power held by one man, who was appointed Attorney General by President Joe Biden. 
    But Garland—who is facing increasing pressure to indict Trump over his alleged role in the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot—has so far refrained from directly addressing the possibility of prosecuting former President Donald Trump.
    As the country’s chief law enforcement officer, Garland—who was once former President Barack Obama’s pick for a seat on the Supreme Court—has vowed to “follow the facts wherever they lead—in holding those behind the attack responsible.
Pressure on Garland
For some time now, Garland has faced pressure to indict Trump as revealed in the ongoing series of hearings from the House Select Committee investigating the riot.  It has placed the spotlight on the Attorney General’s lack of official action against Trump.  
    Members of the January 6th Select Committee have been presenting findings, which showed a coordinated effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election results and prevent the transfer of power to President Joe Biden.  Had Trump succeeded in overturning the election results, it would have resulted in a coup d’état.   Garland pledged to follow evidence wherever it leads.
    However, according to Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, President Biden won’t pressure Garland to indict Trump.  He’ll leave it up to the Department of Justice to decide whether or not to indict Trump on charges related to the January 6th insurrection.
Independent Department of Justice
"The Department of Justice (DOJ) is independent. The president chose Attorney General Garland because of his loyalty to the law and our Constitution, and to restore the independence and integrity of the Justice Department," she said. "That's exactly what the attorney general is doing, so we leave it up to the Department of Justice."
    The congressional hearings have once again questioned the DOJ’s lack of action against Trump into national debate.  If Garland were to prosecute Trump, he would be the first former president to ever be prosecuted for criminal conduct. 
    It must be remembered that Garland’s role as  Attorney General is not the same as when he was a judge.  A judge is a public official whose duty it is to administer the law, especially by presiding over trials and rendering judgments.  A judge is a person who decides the fate of someone or something that has been called into question.
    A prosecutor or attorney general is a lawyer who decides whether to charge a person with a crime and tries to prove in court before a judge that the person is guilty.
    Clearly, Garland seems to think that he’s still acting as a judge.  He wants to hear all the arguments before he passes judgment.  As attorney general, he prosecutes cases before the judge and acts as the cases progress.   
Democrats want to indict Trump
Some of the same people who once considered Merrick Garland a martyr to Republican treachery—when he was bypassed for Supreme Court confirmation by the Senate—now consider him a disappointment, or worse, as attorney general.
     What the Democrats want to do, most all: Indict former president Donald Trump. And rightly so.  Trump had pressured Vice President Mike Pence to block congressional certification of Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 presidential race. Trump engaged in this pressure campaign even though many people—federal judges, state officials and his own advisers—had indicated that he lost the election, the widespread fraud he kept invoking had not occurred.  And the Constitution had demanded that Biden take office.  There simply is no reason why Trump shouldn’t be indicted.    He should never be allowed to run for office again.
    With Garland’s apparent sympathetic feelings for Trump, there is a good chance that Garland would allow him to go free.   First of all, Garland’s hesitance may be of his fear that an indictment would bring the MAGA right wing supporters of Trump to rise up in arms.  Just imagine the same people—the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, and other pro-Trump right wing groups—who rioted at the Capitol coming back armed to the teeth.  It would ensue in total chaos!  It would spark a real—and bloody—insurrection.   And it will spread nationwide.
Garland’s dilemma
Indeed. Garland has a serious dilemma:  Indict Trump and he’d see a MAGA uprising.  Free him and he’d ignite the ire of the people.  It’s a no-win situation for him.   But which would be more palatable for Garland.  Trump’s one-time chief strategist Steve Bannon had warned Garland: “Indict Trump and we’ll impeach you!” 
    Garland could avoid getting involved directly by letting the January 6th Select Committee make the criminal referrals to the DOJ and the committee staff will turn over the evidence they have gathered.  Thus, Garland would avoid being involved directly.
    In such a referral, the committee might reference several statutes that the DOJ can use to prosecute Trump and others, which would include obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy, and seditious conspiracy.
The seditious conspiracy statute provides that “if two or more persons . . . conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States. . . or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, they can be fined and imprisoned for up to twenty years.”
     Conspiracy is a powerful charge. And it looks like the January 6th Select Committee is closely examining the facts to see if they line up.  The committee is exploring whether “Trump oversaw an unlawful conspiracy that involved coordination between the ‘political elements’ of the White House plan communicated to Republican lawmakers and extremist groups that stormed the Capitol.” 
    But proving the existence of a conspiracy can be difficult, as evidence of an agreement would need to be shown, though juries can draw inferences from behavior and testimony without a smoking gun.   However difficult it might be, it’s doable.
    Unafraid of Steve Bannon, Garland could then prosecute Trump based on the evidence gathered by the January 6th Select Committee.  As the Attorney General, Garland would only provide the vehicle driven by the January 6th Select Committee, a clean and straightforward job.
    At the end of the day, Garland would have achieved something that would satisfy his boss, President Biden, and the American people, preserve democracy, and prosecute Trump criminally. 
(PerryDiaz@gmail.com)
 

Read more...

Political fireworks greet Bongbong on Day One

PERRYSCOPE

Perry Diaz

JUNE 30, 2022 marked the date of the Marcoses’ return to power in the Philippines.   It was the most remarkable comeback of one family that was booted out of power 36 years ago during the EDSA People Power Revolution and sent the Marcos family to exile in Hawaii.
    It rained that day, which seemed foreboding of the newly inaugurated 17th President of the Philippines, Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr.   The day’s festivities included a “show of force” by the Philippine military.  Tanks rolled down on the parade ground.  Uniformed soldiers from the various military units of the Armed Forces of the Philippines were in their best uniforms.  And across the parade ground were the dignitaries and other government officials in their best barongs to match the new President’s simple barong.
    In Bongbong’s 26-minute inaugural address, he said:
    “I fully understand the gravity of the responsibility that you’ve put on my shoulders. I do not take it lightly but I am ready for the task.  I will need your help; I want to rely on it. But rest assured, I do not predicate success on the wide cooperation that’s needed.”  He asked for the people’s help, but he made it clear that he doesn’t need their cooperation to succeed.  So what is he going to do if he doesn’t get the people’s cooperation?  Declare martial law and rule by decree just like what his father did?
A divided house
“In this fresh chapter of our history, I extend my hand to all Filipinos. Come, let us put our shoulders to the wheel; and give that wheel a faster turn — to repair and to rebuild; and to address challenges in new ways; to provide what all Filipinos need; to be all that we can. We are here to repair a divided house; to make it whole and to stand strong again in the Bayanihan way, expressive of our nature as Filipinos.”
    It must be remembered that during Marcos Sr.’s brutal regime, he amassed billions of dollars in unexplained wealth and was accused of looting the country’s treasury.  Excessive foreign borrowing plunged the Philippines into debt and millions of Filipinos were mired in poverty. To quell dissent, he jailed political opponents, shut down media outlets, and imposed nine years of martial law, which witnessed tens of thousands of human rights violations.
Defended father’s legacy
And after claiming victory, Bongbong vowed to be a leader “for all Filipinos.”  To the world, he said: “Judge me not by my ancestors, but by my actions."  Hmm…  But he went on to praise—and defended—his father’s legacy and glossed over its violent past.   
    He said his father accomplished many things that had not been done since the country’s independence.  “I once knew a man who saw what little had been achieved since Independence in a land of people with greatest potential for achievement and yet they were poor. But he got it done,” Bongbong said.  “So will it be for his son. You will get no excuses from me."
    Bongbong promised to bring the country back to its “golden age” during his father’s rule.  But the truth of the matter is: The economy was in shambles when President Cory Aquino took over from Marcos in 1986.  The Central Bank was bankrupted and was put out of business. The country’s gold reserves mysteriously disappeared and the peso lost its international monetary value.  It became worthless.
    Bongbong took over an economy that was on the brink of imminent collapse.  The exchange rate went down to P55 to the US dollar.   Taxes became uncollectable including the Marcoses’ estate tax, which ballooned to P203-billion.  How do you expect to collect taxes from the people when their own president refuses to pay his taxes?  Bongbong should lead by example.
Charter change
But on Day One of his presidency, Pampanga Rep. Aurelio Gonzales Jr. introduced a resolution to change the presidential term of office from six years without reelection to five years with one reelection. 
    It seems that he’s more interested in laying the groundwork for him to stay in power much longer.  And perhaps stay in power long enough to pass it to his son Ferdinand Alexander Araneta Marcos III, also known as "Sandro" Marcos, who is now 28 years old.  He’ll be 40 years old in 12 years and would be eligible to run for president. 
    In his resolution, Gonzales cited the “overwhelming electoral mandate” that Marcos and Vice President Sara Duterte received in the May 2022 elections.
    “The clear majority mandate of our new President and Vice President would be the green light from our citizenry to proceed to the discussion on Charter change,” Gonzales said in a statement.  Well, things could drastically change by then.  There is no point in discussing charter change right away.  Why don’t they wait for a little while longer and see how Bongbong’s presidency performs.
Confidence in the future
Bongbong must be commended for his confidence in the future: “I have 110 million reasons to start with you. Such is my faith in the Filipinos.”  However, he must make sure that he delivers on the promises he vowed to deliver.  Otherwise, he’d end up with 110 million unhappy Filipinos who would bring him down like they did to his father.
    He promised food self-sufficiency as his top priority.  And he will continue Duterte’s “Build, Build, Build” despite ballooning debt.  He also promised to fix shortcomings in Duterte’s Covid response.  
    He also promised to pursue an independent foreign policy, which is questionably unrealistic in today’s geopolitical reality where small countries have to kowtow to one of the superpowers to remain “independent.”  But he was mum on human rights, low on detail, and high on false claims.
    But there are certain things that he did not talk about in his address.  He did not talk about the corruption cases hounding his family.  Will he keep the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), which was created in 1986 for the sole purpose of recovering the ill-gotten wealth from the Marcoses and Marcos’ cronies?
As of 2021, the PCGG said it has recovered a total of P265 billion, or P175 billion in cash and P90 billion in assets.  About P125 billion in Marcos wealth remains under litigation.   So far, Bongbong has not appointed new members of the PCGG who serve at the pleasure of the president.  Until then, there is no active PCGG.  Critics raised the alarm that a second Marcos presidency could undermine PCGG’s mandate.
    On his first day in office, Bongbong also exercised his veto power on House Bill 7575 creating the Bulacan Airport Special Economic Zone and Freeport adjacent to the proposed airport city in Bulacan province.  
    He justified his veto because of its provisions that "pose substantial fiscal risks to the country" and its "infringement on or conflict with other agencies' mandates and authorities."
    Marcos also said that he decided to veto HB 7575 because it would be an additional burden to the taxpayers.  He said the measure was in contrast to the government's objective of developing a tax system with low rates and a broad tax base, as it "will significantly narrow our tax base with its mandated incentives applicable to registered enterprises.”
    Incidentally, the main sponsor of the bill was Sen. Imee Marcos, Bongbong’s sister.   Hmm… Was this another family moro-moro?  Perhaps, Bongbong should have solicited expert advice instead of killing the bill on his first day in office.  It will drive away foreign investors.
    The veto is reportedly seen as a sign of animosity between Bongbong and Imee, who has reportedly been pushed to the sidelines while First Lady Liza Araneta Marcos emerges as a major power broker in her husband’s administration.   
    It seems that political fireworks have greeted Bongbong on Day One.
(PerryDiaz@gmail.com)

The future of US- Philippines alliance

Perry Diaz

LAST MAY 11, 2022, U.S. President Joe Biden called President-Elect Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. to congratulate him on his recent election.  President Biden expressed his intentions to continue strengthening the alliance between the two countries.

    Biden said that he looks forward to working with Bongbong to continue strengthening the century-old US-Philippines alliance, “while expanding bilateral cooperation on a wide range of issues, which includes the fight against Covid-19 pandemic, addressing the climate crisis, promoting broad-based economic growth, and respect for human rights.”
    Bongbong’s spokesperson, Atty. Vic Rodriguez, said that the Philippines’ relationship with the U.S. “will get better” under Marcos Jr.’s presidency.
    Rodriguez said that the foreign policy of Bongbong would be “inclusive” while also ensuring that the interests of the Filipino people “come first and are never compromised, especially on our territorial integrity.  We will not be exclusive to anyone.”   Hmm… I think that should be directed at China and not the U.S. 
    Bongbong, however, said he would maintain the Philippines’ alliance with the U.S., and tread carefully with Beijing over a West Philippine Sea territorial dispute.
    Military deals between the U.S. and the Philippines “are advantageous to both countries,” Marcos told a virtual forum. The alliance between the two nations is “a special relationship,” and the U.S. “can do many things” to help the Philippines, he said.
    But he rejects the idea of aligning with just one country, and said the Philippines should carefully navigate its tensions with China.   “You have to be friends with everyone. You don’t want to be enemies with anyone,” he said.  Well, the Philippines has always been on friendly terms with everyone including China, which often borders on maritime disputes.
Treaty alliance
But Marcos Jr. should be reminded that the Philippines has only one defense treaty, which is with the U.S.  The U.S.-Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) has been in effect since 1951.  The two countries also have a Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), which was just extended recently.  They also have the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) and the U.S.-Philippines Mutual Logistics Support Agreement (MLSA).  In other words, the U.S. and Philippines are bound to each other like Siamese twins.  You attack one and you attack the other.   
    I think Marcos Jr. should take advantage of such military and defense arrangements.  Under EDCA, it allows the U.S. to rotate troops into the Philippines for extended stays and allows the U.S. to build and operate facilities on Philippine bases, for both American and Philippine forces.   
    However, the U.S. is not allowed to establish any permanent military bases.  It also gives Philippine personnel access to American ships and planes.
     Bongbong is eyeing a deal with China to resolve the West Philippine Sea territorial dispute.   He vowed never to give up “a single square inch” of the area where the country has sovereign rights.
Maritime dispute
The maritime dispute was one of the topics that Marcos Jr. and President Xi Jinping talked about over the phone when the Chinese leader congratulated him for winning in the presidential election.
    Marcos said he does not believe in the old thinking of the Cold War, where countries were either allies of the United States or the then-Soviet Union.
    "I think that we have to be just fine with independent foreign policy where we are friends with everyone.... We have to be good neighbors and we ask them to be good neighbors to them. It is of mutual benefit to our countries," he said.
    "We have to form alliances and partnerships because no country can do this, can recover or can change the geopolitical situation on their own. And that's why we have to forge partnerships, and those are the partnerships that will keep things stable," he added.
Continue Duterte’s policy
Although Bongbong vowed to continue Duterte’s pro-Beijing foreign policy and downplays the US-Philippines alliance, the fact remains that the Philippines is aligned with the U.S., having four defense agreements from mutual defense, to allowing U.S. forces on Philippine soil, to providing bases for American forces, and using the Philippines as a facility to store weapons.  Indeed, the Philippines is aligned with Uncle Sam in any way you look at it.
    However, he laid out his position on China, saying that he would set aside the landmark 2016 Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague ruling on the West Philippine Sea in favor of the Philippines over China.   In essence, it effectively ruled Beijing’s nine-dash line claim to the sea had no legal basis under the UNCLOS.
Bongbong’s naivete
It’s his opinion that the Philippines’ arbitral victory against China was “not effective” and that the “only practical option” for resolving the territorial dispute was a bilateral agreement with China.  He believes that he can come to an agreement with China, which just shows his naivete about how China operates on the world stage.
    Bongbong went further in saying he would dismiss any potential offer of assistance from Uncle Sam in negotiating with China, which makes one wonder:  How is Bongbong going to deal when more than 200 Chinese ships cordoned off the Whitsun Reef that prevented Filipino fishermen from fishing in the area?  
    It happened not too long ago and Duterte couldn’t do anything until American warships led by an aircraft carrier sailed through as Chinese warships began dispersing away.
    Evidently, Marcos Jr. is veering towards appeasing China hoping that diplomacy would prevail.   But by the same token, his relationship with the Biden administration is undergoing some adjustments.   He’ll never forget the day when the U.S. Sen. Paul Laxalt called the senior Marcos on February 26, 1986.  “Senator,” Marcos asked, “what do you think?  Should I step down?”     
    Laxalt, who felt a rush of sympathy for Marcos, replied, "I think you should cut, and cut cleanly. I think the time has come."
    There was a long pause that seemed to last for minutes. Finally, Marcos said softly, in a dispirited voice, "I am so very, very disappointed."
    In the end, Marcos got the bad news that his 20-year rule had to end from the senator who had brought him warnings from President Reagan four months earlier and who, he knew, spoke with presidential authority.
    Marcos Sr. then realized that without President Reagan’s support, he didn’t have a chance of survival.  He and his family boarded an American helicopter that flew them to Clark Air Base.  Then they boarded an American airplane on their way to exile. 
    Marcos had one last wish: To go to Paoay, Ilocos Norte and stay in the safety of his home province.  However, the pilot had an explicit order: Bring the Marcoses to Hawaii.
    Bongbong should—nay, must—never forget that.  History has a way of repeating itself.
(PerryDiaz@gmail.com)
 

 

 

 

Read more...

Carnage in America

PERRYSCOPE

Perry Diaz

THE MASSACRE that killed nineteen students and two teachers in Uvalde, Texas last May 24, has sent shockwaves across America.  The killer was an 18-year old kid, Salvador Ramos—a high school dropout—who barricaded himself inside a fourth-grade classroom before fatally shooting 21 people.   According to the Texas Department of Public Safety, the shooter walked into the elementary school ‘unobstructed’ through a door that was apparently unlocked and nobody confronted him.   
    It all began when the shooter posted on social media that he shot his grandmother in the face.  Then posted saying he’ll shoot up an elementary school without naming the school. Within 15 minutes he drove to Robb Elementary School where the shooting occurred.
Bloody timeline
The gunman took his grandmother's truck and crashed it just outside of Robb Elementary School.  At around 11:30 a.m., he took an AR-15-style rifle and a backpack with him and went to enter the school. Another rifle was later discovered in his truck.  The shooter was wearing a plate carrier but not ballistic armor.   
    At the school, the shooter first encountered school resource officers but made it inside the school through a back door.  He walked down the hallways before entering a classroom.  The gunman then began firing at the students.   It’s not clear how many students and teachers were killed at that point.
    At 11:35 a.m., two school police officers and five Uvalde officers rushed inside the school.  Bullets grazed two of the officers.  The door was closed at that point.
    At 11:37 a.m., 16 more shots were fired. A few seconds later, police heard another shot.  More shots were fired at 11:38 a.m., 11:40 a.m. and 11:44 a.m.
    At 12:03 p.m., a terrified teacher called 911. She was inside room 112, she whispered.
    By that time, there were as many as 19 officers inside the building.  At 12:10 p.m., the teacher called back. The gunman had killed several of her students.
    She called again, three minutes later, and again at 12:16 p.m.
    Eight or nine of her students were still alive, she said.Minutes later, at 12:19 p.m., a child in the adjacent classroom called 911. The call was brief: she ended it when another student told her to hang up.
    At least two more calls came in over the following 22 minutes. The last one, from a student, lasted several minutes as the child stayed on the line, trying to quietly whisper updates to the dispatcher.
    By then, frantic parents had gathered outside the school, urging police to act. Instead, video showed officers preventing parents from trying to get to the school, and in some cases, handcuffing parents.
    Inside the school, officers searched for a janitor so they could get a master key to open the locked door, and waited for more highly trained, heavily armed SWAT operators from Border Patrol’s elite BORTAC squad.  Why didn’t the police force their way inside the classroom?  Nineteen armed police officers didn’t have the courage to do so?  They ought to be fired!
    At 12:21 p.m., the gunman fired three shots; the sounds were audible in one of the 911 calls dispatchers received.  It was at that moment when members of Border Patrol’s BORTAC unit arrived, with ballistic shields.  But still, officers took no action.
    At 12:43 p.m., the girl who had remained on the line told dispatchers that the gunman shot the door.  Students could hear the police next door, she said.  She pleaded with police to come help.
    At 12:47 p.m., after more than an hour huddled in terror among the bodies of her murdered classmates, the girl made the same plea again.
    “Please,” she said, “send the police now!”
    Police finally unlocked the door at 12:50 p.m. and killed the gunman. They began pulling students out moments later. But 19 students lay slaughtered, along with two teachers.  Seventeen others were seriously injured; and in the days after, the husband of one of the murdered teachers would suffer a heart attack and die, leaving their four children orphans.
Spate of killings
The massacre was the deadliest shooting at a U.S. grade school since the massacre that killed 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton, Connecticut, a decade ago.  Ten days prior to the Texas shooting, a gunman killed 10 Black people at a supermarket in Buffalo, New York.
    The spate of killings has raised concerns that too many assault rifles are in circulation across the nation, which led someone to say, “If Children Aren’t Safe at School Where Are They Safe?”  All too often, school children are being killed across America and nothing is being done.  Congress refused to act, all because they don’t want to touch the Second Amendment.
    Texas authorities on Wednesday said they were still seeking answers about a possible motive and what sparked the attack from a man who had no criminal adult record and no known mental health history. 
    It was revealed that the gunman recently purchased two semi-automatic rifles on separate dates, on May 17, the day after he turned 18 and on May 20. He also purchased 375 rounds of 5.56 ammunition, and seven 30-round magazines.  Four days later he murdered 21 people. 
Abbott’s press conference
At a press conference, Texas Governor Gregg Abbott insisted that since Texas became a state it’s been legal for 18-year-olds to buy long guns. 
    But long guns of today are often semi-automatic, which did not exist 200 years ago.  What we have now are “killing machines,” not hunting rifles like they used then.
    Fred Guttenberg, whose daughter Jaime was murdered in the Parkland school shooting, blasted Abbott, saying, “The governor seems completely unable to understand that he can easily make a distinction when you’re talking about whether an 18-year-old should buy an assault rifle or not. And all he cares about is a century of history in Texas on long guns. We didn’t have AR-15 style assault weapons back then.  He can easily make a distinction and say, ‘you can go hunting, here are the rifles you can do, you can buy, you can possess – and here’s an assault-style rifle.'”
    “If he (Abbott) thinks that people are stupid and unable to understand that there is a clear distinction between a killing machine and a hunting rifle, that he’s taking us all for fools.”

    Yesterday, Vice President Kamala Harris called on Congress to pass assault rifle legislation.  But with the grip the National Rifle Association had on Republicans, it is doubtful if it would ever come to pass.  
Assault rifles were once banned in 1994 when then-president Bill Clinton signed the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.  But Congress let it expire after the 10-year sunset was reached. Congress let the bill expire because many Democrats that supported the ban didn't have the majority they needed for a vote.
    At the end of the day, it is hoped that the Uvalde massacre would awaken America. It’s time for Congress to take the bull by the horn and pass legislation banning the use of assault rifles.  It’s time to stop the carnage in America. (PerryDiaz@gmail.com)

Roe v. Wade under siege!

Perry Diaz

IT ALL BEGAN WHEN a Supreme Court draft opinion leaked out that Roe v. Wade will be stricken down.  Justice Samuel Alito’s "sweeping and blunt draft majority opinion" striking down Roe v. Wade and the constitutional right to abortion remains the Supreme Court's "only circulated draft in the pending Mississippi abortion case."  And there are no dissenting draft opinions circulating among the justices, which means that national abortion rights appears imminent.
    With six conservatives on the high court right now, it’s conceivable that Chief Justice John Roberts—usually a swing voter—would cast a dissenting vote that would end in a slim majority 5-4 vote.  However, he could introduce an amendment that would water down the ruling and lessen the impact of the decision.  He might even be able to convince another justice to go along with his amendment; thus, ending up with something that is palatable to the liberal justices. That’s just the way politics at the Supreme Court work.  But still it’s politics at play.
Roe v. Wade was a landmark decision passed in 1973 in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction. The decision struck down many U.S. federal and state abortion laws.
Alito’s draft opinion
In Alito’s 98-page argument, he wrote that Roe v. Wade should be overruled because the Constitution “makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional amendment, including the one on which defenders of Roe … now chiefly rely — the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
    Alito then went on to differentiate between abortion and other rights guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, writing that the procedure is “fundamentally different … because it destroys ... what the law now before us describes as an ‘un-born human being.’”
    Clearly, the mention of abortion would immediately spark controversy, regardless of which side you’re with.   Majority of American women are very protective of their reproductive rights while a small minority driven by their religious beliefs are against abortion and they are as well pretty vocal about it.
Abortion rights bill fails
In an attempt to pre-empt Alito’s anticipated opinion, Senate Democratic leaders introduced a bill—Women’s Health Protection Act—that would enshrine abortion rights in federal law.  The bill failed in a 49-51 vote with all 50 Republican senators, along with Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin opposing.  But even if all the Democrats had voted for the bill, it would still fail to pass because it didn’t have enough support to overcome the 60-vote filibuster threshold.  If passed, the bill would have protected abortion access across the country and ensured the procedure remains legal in every state without additional restrictions.
    Manchin, an abortion opponent who represents a conservative state, said he voted against the bill because it went further than just codifying Roe v. Wade into federal law.  He said the proposal “expands abortion.”  He said he had been “pro-life all my life” but did believe in some exceptions to abortion bans.  “And with that, that's not where we are today," he said. "We should not be dividing this country further. We're already divided."  He just divided it by voting against the bill.
    Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who said they support abortion rights and have offered a more narrowly tailored piece of legislation to codify Roe, also voted against Wednesday's bill.
The vote demonstrated the Senate’s inability to pass important legislation like the Build Back Better bill, which failed on a 49-51 vote that didn’t require a 60-vote filibuster threshold.  Again, it was Manchin who dealt a blow.
If Roe v. Wade is overturned, 13 states with so-called trigger laws, poised to go into effect if the Supreme Court strikes down Roe v. Wade, the time of restricted access to birth control is unfolding in states that narrowly define when life begins.  Some states are even considering legislation that would limit the kinds of birth control residents can acquire.
    Some conservative lawmakers wasted no time signaling they were looking into restricting or banning certain types of emergency contraception, such as Plan B and certain types of intrauterine devices—IUDs—could be restricted, or other morning-after pills that can be used within 72 hours of intercourse to prevent pregnancy.
In Louisiana, legislation was introduced that would classify abortion as a homicide and define “personhood” as beginning from the moment of fertilization.  Anything that would prevent a fertilized egg from turning into a pregnancy and being born into a baby could be considered a homicide.   And abortion providers would be prosecuted as criminals.
    With all the maneuverings in the Senate, the Women’s Health Protection bill doesn’t have a chance of seeing the light of day.  It has unnecessarily become too controversial that Republican women senators junked the bill.  So what’s next?
    At this point in time, it doesn’t seem that Congress would ever pass anything that resembles the Women’s Health Protection bill, which means that the Supreme Court’s draft opinion to strike down Roe v. Wade will soon be deliberated by the justices.  And unless Chief Justice John Roberts can come up with a anti-abortion ruling that can get the support of one more justice, which would give them a slim 5-4 majority decision. Otherwise, if the Supreme Court fails to fashion a palatable anti-abortion decision – like something that would legitimize abortion of pregnancies caused by rape or incest.
    At the end of the day, unless the Senate gets its act together, Roe v. Wade will soon cease to be the law of the land.   Yes, Roe v. Wade is under siege in America!
(PerryDiaz@gmail.com)

Quo vadis, Donald Trump?

Perry Diaz

BEATEN AND DISGRACED in November 2016 by Democrat Joe Biden, former president Donald Trump wants a comeback in 2024.  He’s been holding rallies in various cities around the country, bringing together a cultic following among Republicans. 
    Initially, he managed to demonstrate his hold on Republicans who see him as the leader that would lead them to victory in the forthcoming midterms in November.   But not all Republicans are beholden to him.  
    There is a growing number of Republicans who want to see another Republican lead the GOP to recover the White House in 2024.  And there are at least a dozen presidential wannabes who’ll be running in Republican primaries challenging Trump. 
    While it is most likely at this time that Trump is still the man to beat in the primaries, there is likelihood that one of them would emerge the leader in the pack, which begs the question: Who would that be?
Electability
The answer depends on several factors, foremost of which is: Electability. 
    There are a few at this time who would be considered “electable” someone who could face up to Trump in state primaries.   Two come to mind: Representatives Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger.  Kinzinger mocked the celebrated MAGA firebrand Representative Madison Cawthorn’s defeat over his defeat by “RINOs”—Republicans In Name Only—in last Tuesday’s primary election in North Carolina.   Cawthorn, a first-time congressman, is a pro-Trump who vowed to defeat the “RINOs” who had set out to defeat him.  Humbled by his defeat, Cawthorn immediately conceded defeat a few hours after the polls closed. 
    However, Kinzinger has been targeted by right-wing Republicans for his criticism of Trump.  He announced his retirement after voting to impeach Trump for inciting the attack on the Capitol.  But he made clear that he’s not running away from the political arena.  “This isn't the end of my political future, but the beginning," he said in his retirement announcement video.
    Kinzinger launched a PAC earlier this year, dubbed "Country First," to challenge the GOP's embrace of Trump's election lies and root out what Kinzinger has described as a "cancer" inside the party.
    Kinzinger is reportedly “actively weighing whether to seek his political fortunes in the Senate, the Illinois governor's mansion or even the White House, despite serious questions about whether there's any future at all for a Donald Trump critic like him in today's GOP.”  But Cawthorn’s defeat promises to elevate Kinzinger’s viable political future.
Declaration of war
Meanwhile, Liz Cheney raised eyebrows when she announced she’s going to New Hampshire in November.  There is only one reason why someone would go to New Hampshire – to test the political water for a possible run for the presidency.
    As early as last April Cheney had left the door open to a presidential bid in 2024. "I'm not ruling anything in or out — ever is a long time,” she said.  Shortly after being removed from her third ranking post in House leadership for her criticism of Donald Trump, Cheney reportedly said she “would do ‘whatever it takes’ to ensure that Trump was not the Republican standard-bearer in 2024.”  Does it seem like it’s a declaration of war?  You bet.
    Trump was angry that Cheney was one of 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach him for his role in the January 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol.  He has called Cheney a “warmonger” and a “disloyal Republican.”   He has endorsed a primary challenger to Cheney and is promising to defeat her.  
    Cheney has not backed down in the face of Trump's assault.  Instead, she has rallied the GOP establishment.   
    Reportedly, “former President George W. Bush is set to hold a fundraiser to benefit Cheney in October in Dallas and she has also received campaign contributions from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, as well as former House Speakers John Boehner and Paul Ryan. Cheney has already raised more than $3.4 million this year and had nearly $2.9 million left in the bank, according to her last campaign finance report.”  Not bad for a warmonger and disloyal Republican, which just shows the deep division among GOP stalwarts, particularly those who don’t want a Trump resurgence leading to 2024. 
    If Cheney wins her primary next year, she would emerge in GOP circles as the one who slayed the Trump dragon.  She will prove that standing up to Trump doesn’t have to be a death sentence for a Republican elected official.
Trump’s Waterloo
As a matter of fact, Georgia might prove to be where Trump would meet his Waterloo on March 24.  Early on, Trump has endorsed former Senator David Purdue against incumbent Governor Brian Kemp, who is leading by 32-point margin against Purdue.  Incidentally, former Vice President Mike Pence has endorsed Kemp, a smart move to line himself up against Trump’s candidate.  Another prominent Republican who is supporting Kemp is former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who will join Kemp in his campaign before the primary.
    Purdue’s defeat would be the latest sign that a Trump endorsement would not guarantee a candidate’s victory.  A case in point was Representative Madison Cawthorn’s primary defeat. The young firebrand lost to state Senator Chuck Edwards after an aggressive attack campaign by Democrats and Republicans alike.  After his defeat, Cawthorn called for “Dark MAGA” forces to take revenge on establishment Republicans.
    Cawthorn reportedly posted a list of people who supported him when the "establishment turned their guns on me."  The list included Trump, who pleaded for voters to give Cawthorn a "second chance" despite "some foolish mistakes," as well as Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., as well as others that Cawthorn said "came to my defense when it was not politically profitable."
    Cawthorn’s supporters should now be wary because the voters could deal them the same fate that he was dealt with.  And as Trump ponders what effect it would have on his own fate, the die would soon be cast against him in 2024.    
    While it is too early to predict Trump’s 2024 comeback, there seems to be a silent undercurrent going on in the Republican Party that could deal him a fatal blow in 2024.   The signs are growing.   After Georgia, what’s next?
But for sure, there will be serious challenges to a Trump presidential nomination.   Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger would be at the forefront and they would give Trump a run for his money.
    At the end of the day, Trump’s endorsed candidates might win in the primaries, but how would they fare in the midterms and general elections?  Will the American people vote for them if they would think twice before electing Trump as president again?
    Quo vadis, Donald Trump? (PerryDiaz@gmail.com)
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 

Read more...