RANT: LIBERALS ALL OVER THE WORLD HAVE TO REASSES THE SITUATION AND REEVALUATE THEMSELVES AND THEIR PRIORITIES

I am really tempted to gloat.  I dislike liberals of the American and even the Filipino variety, and it seems that 2016 is the year that their world fell apart for them.  Indeed, my Facebook feed is filled with their whining and gnashing of teeth.  But gloating is cruel and doing so tends to reduce the righteousness of one’s cause.  It is better to look and examine what happened?  Why did the Duterte and Trump victories catch them off guard, why did their efforts to discredit both of these people and their supporters fail?  It is too simplistic to call the supporters of these populist, firebrand politicians as bobo, retard or idiotic sheep.  Neither is it wrong to say that the liberal “cause” is wrong or unpopular—No, I think the problem is in the liberals themselves, and they should take the time to reflect, reassess and reevaluate themselves and their position.

The state of social media right now. 

How would I characterize a “liberal?”  I use this term loosely because “liberal” can mean many different things depending on context.  Generally speaking, I refer to this as a “political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties”  (Merriam-Webster Dictionary).  In the United States, these are usually adherents of the Democrat party.  In the Philippines, they are closely linked with the Liberal party.  In fairness to the Liberal Party, it is the closest the Philippines has to an actual political party in the cohesive, traditional and American sense of the word.  Sadly, it seems that their cohesion is due to a figurehead—the son of two so-called “heroes” who gained prominence during the Marcos regime.  The father of this figurehead was supposedly “assassinated” by then President Marcos while his mother became President of the Philippines in a bloodless coup.  This group professes to prioritize human rights, freedom of speech, are against discrimination of any sort, decent behavior and they generally have a favorable view of America and share a lot of these same beliefs with American liberals.  To be fair, a lot of these people are genuinely decent people, its just that they are misguided by their own self-righteousness.

Liberals are self-righteous and sanctimonious
Liberals are so convinced of the righteousness of their position, they welcome no opposing views and look down if not outright humiliate a person espousing a contrary view.  Right now, I dread opening my social media.  All I can see in it, as far as the eyes can see is the incessant whining and tears of Liberal Filipinos.  Its always about the same things:  the libingan ng mga bayani, Trump, Duterte, Delima, and, heck, even the Leni Robredo “tuhod” comment.  And a lot of those concerns are irrational and ad hominem, anyone who cares to point that out gets bashed and groups of liberals would band together and support one another in a circlejerk.  They are prone to superlative, such as comparing former President Ferdinand Marcos to people like Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot and Idi Amin, you know, people who have actually committed genocide as a policy of their state.  Dare to point out that you are cheapening the experience of Holocaust survivors by comparing Hitler to Marcos and you will get a faceful of hate for interrupting the circlejerk.  American liberals are hardly any different, point out the scandals that hound Hillary Clinton and you will be accused of being a misogynist.  

They have a poor grasp of the issues and arguments
To be fair, non-liberals haven’t been the best at “marketing” their position either.  Their position is one of drastic measures—great changes in policy.  They aren’t really accustomed to voicing out their discomfort and their concerns, so they won’t be masters at convincing right away.  Liberals on the other hand, are like professional “whiners” and are accustomed to having a “feel good” stance on issues.  In a way, Liberals have never tried to get our of their comfort zone.  Ask any Liberal what they think of “rape jokes” and they will tell you that “rape jokes are bad [period].”  Ask them to explain why that is the case and 9 times out of 10, you will get crickets.   

They block out contrary opinions
Another thing liberals should learn to do is to listen to contrary opinions.  Try to see where the “other guy” is coming from.  American liberals (AKA Democrats) are seemingly more prone to shutting out contrary opinion than their conservative counterparts.  Reuters reports:

Fourteen percent of respondents in the Reuters/Ipsos poll said they had blocked a family member or close friend from social media because of the election. For Democrats, this rises to 23 percent compared to 8 percent for Republicans.

This goes to show that liberal people are more likely to shut out contrary opinions and ideas from their own.  When thinking in a movement only exists in a circlejerk, critical thinking is lost and that is when the movement loses its relevance.  What better example of this behavior than the Philippine’s own Rappler, a news website with [obvious] liberal leanings, wrote a series of articles about a “propaganda war” predominantly blaming an ordinary blogger Mocha Uson for spreading propaganda thanks to her army of bots (!) hoping to put a stop to her blog.

It is also very easy to see how the liberal coastal cities of America and their wealthy residents can seem so out of touch with the rest of their countrymen.  To them, their main concern is advancing the feminist cause, gay marriage, Hollywood, legalization of Marijuana while non-liberals/Trump supporters had very different concerns:  jobs, immigration, perceived weaknesses in America’s foreign policy.  So therefore, shutting out contrary opinion and a cocooned existence don’t do wonders for liberal PR.  It just makes one seem “elitist.”

Victim Mentality
Liberals can’t seem to comprehend the idea of blaming oneself for one’s failures—they always try to portray themselves as the victim.  In Clinton’s case, she wasn’t seen as fit for the job by many democrats resulting in very low voter turnout.  I wonder if the democrats really expected an easy victory just because she was a woman running against a misogynist?  Worse was that after Trump gave his thank you speech which he tried to fill with as much hope for the future, the most memorable (and retweeted) part of Clinton’s concession speech was something about breaking the “glass ceiling.”  Are they seriously blaming their loss on the fact that she is a woman?

Its a pity that liberals played the gender card thinking that Americans will vote for a person simply on account of her gender.  I’m glad to see that meritocracy still exists in some form over there.  The same victim mentality is rampant among the liberals of the Philippines.  Best example is Senator Leila Delima who keeps bringing up her gender in her numerous press conferences with the liberal media of the Philippines.

What’s Next?
For Filipino liberals, the events of the past year should serve as a wake-up call.  Since you abhor Trump so much, perhaps it is time that you stop placing America on a pedestal and learn to think for yourselves. 

I understand and sympathize with your convictions.  In fact they are very honorable, so please don’t give up.  Learn from your shortcomings.  I will leave you with what I saw on my Facebook feed from a person that I respect has written:

I kind of just want to remind people who are blaming democracy these days that:
A) both Trump and Duterte did not grab power. Don't you just feel grateful that elections remain to be undisrupted in both countries?
B) democracy isn't suddenly wrong because things didn't go your way
C) it's democracy that will let you get up again tomorrow and start your 4 or 6 year campaign.
...
Good night!

Please be guided accordingly!

------
Note:  Please forgive the rant.  This was hastily written so I can get this out while this historic moment remains fresh.  I talk about America and the Philippines.  The near simultaneous elections we had seems to have caused a great deal of grief for many people regardless of whom you support and whatever your values are.  Also, I am no expert in American culture and politics, hence comments, suggestions and corrections are very much welcome.

SOME SOUND ADVICE FOR YOUR CHOICE OF VICE PRESIDENT

The campaign is in full swing and we’ve recently just concluded the CNN Vice Presidential Debates.  And what a debate it was!  It was certainly a more provocative and intellectual discourse than the Presidential debates, and with a fair amount of politicking, considering that most of the candidates are members of the Legislature.

Vice Presidential Debates Part 2 (Audio Only)

This is also a very good time to be giving some advice when you make your choice of Vice President on the ballot.  My advice is simple:  Vote for the one whom you would most like to see sitting as President.

The reason for this is that the Vice President is considered as the “substitute President” or the “President-in-waiting”, a “spare tire”, so to speak.  The 1987 Constitution does not give the Vice President any role in government, instead it provides in Article VII:

Section 7. The President-elect and the Vice President-elect shall assume office at the beginning of their terms.

 

If the President-elect fails to qualify, the Vice President-elect shall act as President until the President-elect shall have qualified.

 

If a President shall not have been chosen, the Vice President-elect shall act as President until a President shall have been chosen and qualified.

 

If at the beginning of the term of the President, the President-elect shall have died or shall have become permanently disabled, the Vice President-elect shall become President.

 

Where no President and Vice-President shall have been chosen or shall have qualified, or where both shall have died or become permanently disabled, the President of the Senate or, in case of his inability, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, shall act as President until a President or a Vice-President shall have been chosen and qualified.

The Congress shall, by law, provide for the manner in which one who is to act as President shall be selected until a President or a Vice-President shall have qualified, in case of death, permanent disability, or inability of the officials mentioned in the next preceding paragraph.

Section 8. In case of death, permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation of the President, the Vice-President shall become the President to serve the unexpired term. In case of death, permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation of both the President and Vice-President, the President of the Senate or, in case of his inability, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, shall then act as President until the President or Vice-President shall have been elected and qualified.

The Congress shall, by law, provide who shall serve as President in case of death, permanent disability, or resignation of the Acting President. He shall serve until the President or the Vice-President shall have been elected and qualified, and be subject to the same restrictions of powers and disqualifications as the Acting President.

Please dwell on the phrase “...the Vice-President shall become the President to serve the unexpired term”.  This phrasing means that the Vice President literally becomes the President in case of the President's death, permanent disability, removal from office, resignation or disqualification.  The Vice President becomes a President.  Additional support for this is that the Vice President shares the same age, citizenship and literacy requirements as the President.

Why is this important?

Two of our recent Vice Presidents have acted as “shields” for the President, helping to insure that they stay in office.  Noli de Castro during President Arroyo’s term and the incumbent Vice President Jejomar Binay in this present Aquino administration.  Both of the Presidents they served under have faced impeachment complaints and been asked to resign, but the intelligentsia in both cases have not supported such moves because the would-be successor was not seen as an acceptable alternative: Noli de Castro was considered weak; and Jejomar Binay is considered corrupt.  The sitting President was considered the lesser evil.  Indeed, this very situation seems so absurd, it shows great disrespect our system of Presidential succession and a failure to understand the duties of the Vice President.

Let me be clear, I do not want to see this situation happening in the next administration.  Indeed, the next administration may very well see a Vice President succeed to the Presidency.  Let us go over the candidates:

Duterte – He pledged that he will end criminality in 6 months, after which, will resign. 

Defensor-Santiago – Sick with cancer and with one foot in the grave, bless her soul.

Llamanzares – Contrary to appearances, the decision in Poe vs. COMELEC leaves a disqualification case open at the Presidential Electoral Tribunal.  She may win the elections, but she may still be disqualified.

Binay – The plunder cases filed against him may also disqualify him even if he were to win the elections.

Roxas – He is so far down in the polls that in the unlikely event he will win, it will be because of cheating and he may just get disqualified.

The Candidates

(Source: globalbalita.com)

The possibility of a Vice President succeeding to the Presidency is very real.  Vote for the one whom you would most like to see sitting as President.

ANALYSIS OF THE IGLESIA NI CRISTO DEMONSTRATION

RELIGIOUS, PHILSOSOPHICAL AND LEGAL BASIS? RESULT?

(Note: First posted September 4.  4 days after the end of the demonstration. Edited September 5, 2015)

This essay is anti-Iglesia ni Cristo, to INC readers, you have my permission to hate.  It doesn’t matter.  At the end of the day, reflect on what I had to say.  Much of what I wrote is based on my observations and through careful study of the law so you may have chance to cleanse your image before your countrymen.

(source: Catholic defender blog)

It is an understatement to say that when the Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) massed in front of the Department of Justice building in Padre Faura on August 27 in order to demonstrate against what they thought was religious persecution, we were all caught off guard.  Then by the afternoon of August 28, we see that they have moved their rally to the busy thoroughfare of EDSA.  This truly had analysts, the press and politicians stumped.  

The backlash from social media was tremendous.  The sect was vilified by most netizens who had suffered the inconvenience of the long-weekend “Carmaggedon”.

This begs so many questions.  What were the INC trying to achieve?

When does religion end and politics begin?  It seems that the homegrown sect Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) does not know the boundaries either.

Merits of the argument for the separation of Church and State are easily dispensed with

I've been monitoring developments regarding this INC protest rally and so far none of the arguments they have posted on social media or what they have been chanting on the streets are compelling or on point. The Church leadership is very weak intellectually and rely only on the "Unity" it has demanded from its members.

From the very first argument, on the Separation of Church and State, it is clear that the DOJ investigation that triggered the protest never affected the member's religious freedom. It is completely not on point.

The claim that government should focus on Mamasapano, DAP, Yolanda, etc. only serve to muddle the issue and to garner sympathy as well as discredit the government. To be fair to Secretary Leila de Lima and to Samson, his act of going straight to the head of the DOJ is justified. The INC is a very influential sect, at the grassroots, they possess thugs and goons ready to intimidate lowly prosecutors--its very hard to get a criminal case filed if it involves the an INC member, all the more if the suspect is the Sanggunian itself. I have seen this happen personally and I'm sure that many have experienced their mafia-like way of doing things, so going to the Prosecutor's Office simply isn't enough. The Philippine Daily Inquirer editorial staff seems to agree:

But it needs to be said; precisely because the church is an influential institution, the Samson family was justified in filing the case with De Lima’s office herself, not with a local prosecutor. There is nothing unusual about this arrangement; it happens all the time. Indeed, the INC has been known to go straight to the DOJ on certain occasions, rather than to, say, the prosecutors’ office in Quezon City where its headquarters is located. No abuse of discretion; no unusual attention. It was as it should be.

Comparison to the Black Nazarene and the Papal Visit aren't on point either. These events are proper exercises of religious freedom, and in the case of the Papal visit, it may also be treated as the visit from the head of a foreign government. From a planning and execution standpoint, permits and detours had been planned well in advance giving commuters a chance to find alternate routes and be appraised of the situation.

The INC have only succeeded where they have not on the strength of their beliefs, but on the strength of their 2 million voters, the wealth of their church which could sustain moving thousands from the provinces (money which could have been better used in missionary and charitable activity) and the general low intelligence and blind allegiance of its members.

Columnist Bobi Tiglao opined that the reason why the DOJ is investigating the members of INC’s Sanggunian is because the INC has refused to support Mar. Roxas’ bid for Presidency. If this is the case then, this whole demonstration was mere Political Zarzuela.  Was freedom of religion merely invoked as an afterthought?  An attempt to pull the heartstrings of the emotional and religious Filipino?  It seems that the majority has seen through the artifice.  

The political bandwagon

A number of big name politicos have decided to place their bets on this crisis, namely;

VP Jejomar Binay - “[A] clear act of harassment and interference from the administration . . . Religious freedom is guaranteed by our Constitution. Yet the administration chose to trample on this sacred right. What we are seeing are people fighting for their faith.”

It seems that our dear Vice President and lord of Makati has been reading conspiracy theories.  Be that as it may, prosecution for crimes does not equal persecution of religion.

Sen. Grace Poe - “Huwag nating mamaliitin ang importansya ng relihiyon . . . Para sa akin, ang mga tao na yan, ang dinedepensahan nila ay ang kanilang paniniwala. Nirerespeto natin 'yan at kailangan ay pangalagaan din ang kanilang mga karapatan”

To be fair to Grace Poe and to Jejomar, they do have a point.  Everyone has a right to free speech.  Most important of this is political free speech.  As held in Reyes vs. Bagatsing:

Free speech and peaceable assembly, along with the other intellectual freedoms, are highly ranked in our scheme of constitutional values. It cannot be too strongly stressed that on the judiciary, — even more so than on the other departments — rests the grave and delicate responsibility of assuring respect for and deference to such preferred rights. No verbal formula, no sanctifying phrase can, of course, dispense with what has been so felicitiously termed by Justice Holmes "as the sovereign prerogative of judgment." Nonetheless, the presumption must be to incline the weight of the scales of justice on the side of such rights, enjoying as they do precedence and primacy.

It seems that what riled people up is the seeming favoritism that was given to the INC.  The feeling that the government was not working for the common good and that the ordinary “mamamayan” was left out again.  In this case, it seems that these statements made by Sen. Grace Poe and Jejomar, while legally correct, came out as callous and insincere.

It also comes out as ironic that we must defend the right of the INC to free speech and demonstration when the INC itself does not grant the same right to its members.

Sen. Bongbong Marcos - “For justice to triumph, the DOJ must not only be impartial in its procedure and ruling; like Caesar's wife, it must also be seen as being fair to all . . . The DOJ's handling of the case leaves much to be desired. Instead of allowing the legal process to take its course, DOJ secretary Leila de Lima immediately held a press con to discuss the merits of the case. This created the impression, rightly or wrongly, of undue interest in the case.”

I expected more from you Senator Bongbong to be honest.  Though I admit that you have a point.  This war of the Zombies (see below) was a war to win the hearts and minds of the Filipinos.  It seems however that where you and the INC saw de Lima taking undue interest in the case, the majority became indignant at the self-righteous, hypocritical and iskwater act of the INC in holding the demonstration.

Secretary Mar Roxas - “While all citizens have the right to be heard and to peaceful assembly, the exercise of these rights cannot impinge on the rights of others or cause inconvenience to anyone.”

His message however was diluted by his instruction to the police to exercise maximum tolerance.

All in all, these politicians have made valid arguments.  The problem however is that the anger of the majority was running at an all-time high such that those caught defending the INC received criticism.  To be fair, the standard operating procedure of the government, when it comes to rallies from religious groups is to treat the group with kids gloves.  The practice is indeed different for militant groups who will be sprayed with water the moment they get too rowdy.  I suppose that it has to do with the high regard Filipinos traditionally place on religion.

War of the Zombies

Here, two zombie groups clashed.  On one side were the Manalo Cult Zombies: urban and provincial poor were told by their leaders to troop over to EDSA in order to defend their religion.  These people may be likened to zombies because of their seemingly blind allegiance and obedience to their leaders, many of whom, when interviewed, could not explain the reason for their demonstration.

Aftermath

The INC dispersed on August 31, Monday.  They claimed victory and their spokesperson claimed that they had come to an agreement and understanding with the government.  

The lack of details regarding this agreement has troubled the citizens, with President Noynoy Aquino once again being accused of secret negotiations.  The Palace has denied the existence of any agreement.

The victory claimed by the INC is a hollow one.  Its ability to actually deliver the bloc vote has been questioned.  Its ability to muster its members to a cause is doubted.  Reports stated that members of the INC who were against the rally have received physical threats and/or were threatened with expulsion.  It is quite possible that their flock has been diminished after this ill-advised demonstration.

The below quotation possibly sums up our impression of the demonstration:

Samson’s counsel, Atty. Trixie Cruz-Angeles, said the rally reeks of “irrationality and non-responsiveness” since it happened at the heels of the former minister’s decision to file a case against Santos and the rest of the Sanggunian, a council of ranking church officials, for illegal detention.

“Instead of answering the allegations at preliminary investigation, they immediately call out the Department of Justice officials as being biased, based solely on their perception that the mere docketing of the case at the main office is already proof of said ‘selective justice.’ And instead of seeking recourse with the courts, they resort to what they think will be the equivalent of public pressure,”

The political ramifications are also immense.  VP Binay and Sen. Grace Poe were both widely panned for their defense of the sect.  The government of Noynoy Aquino was once again perceived as “inutil” for want of speedy resolution of the crisis.  A movement of “reverse block voting” also seems to be brewing whereby politicians endorsed or who have sought endorsement from the INC will be boycotted.  Will this further dilute the INC’s political power?

The lesson here people is to exercise your right to suffrage properly.  And one thing's for sure, the practice of block voting must be stopped.

CRITICS OUT TO ERODE PNOY’S ENDORSEMENT POWER

A PREPOSTEROUS ALLEGATION

It is nearly 2016 and in spite of the popularity of movements like One More Term for PNOY, the rule of the second Aquino Presidency will inevitably end. Because of this, many frustrated PNoy supporters are just calling for an end to the criticisms and calls for resignation and to just “wait” for the President’s term to come to an end.

This President is not known for savviness and indeed he may be considered Genre Blind the way he behaves so predictably - refusing to take responsibility for anything and continually blaming past administrations for his shortcomings, at the same time invoking the saintliness of his past and his cause.

According to a March 24, report of the Philippine Star, the President claims that the reason why he is still being criticized is because his enemies want to diminish his endorsement capability. (Read the full report: Noy: Critics out to erode my endorsement power)

“Aquino said a lot has changed since he took over, and he could not help but ask why he remains a target of criticisms when he is not a candidate in 2016”

According to the President:

“The answer to that is simple: If I am able to do good and maybe our critics acknowledge this, naturally, if we endorse (a candidate), it will have importance”

Well thanks for the lesson Capt. Obvious. I’d say that PNoy is only trying to distract us from the real issue of his performance.

Why the President’s Endorsement is Irrelevant

The big problem is that candidates shouldn't be about one person's “brand” - that he shouldn’t be voted for simply on the recommendation of a celebrity or a public figure - they aren’t a product that someone has tried and will recommend.

We must not forget that a prospective candidate has their own brains, their own mouths. A person should be elected on his own merits, rather than because he/she was endorsed or by what the party he's running under stands for. This fact seems to have escaped our President and the entire electorate for that matter.

This is an obsession stemming from the fact that we are such a star-struck and ignorant people. We are too obsessed with celebrity endorsements that we fail to see how irrelevant this is to the actual issue of a sitting President’s performane.

Kuya Noynoy

To think that criticisms levelled against one is intended to prevent deserving people from getting elected is simply preposterous. It shows the mental state of the person elevated to the highest position in the land.

Rather than be concerned about his “endorsement ability”, the President should be concerned with his own credibility and leadership ability. Will the President continue on with his “lame duck” track or will he try to maximize his last year in office?

Endorsements are Important in a Party System Stupid!

Let me point out that the President was referring to a personal endorsement of a candidate. He is worried about tainting the next Liberal Party candidate and ruining his chances to win the 2016 elections. This was pretty much what happened to Gilbert Teodoro, whose endorsement by the reviled outgoing President Arroyo was widely regarded as the “kiss of death” for an otherwise qualified candidate.

Gilbert Teodoro: regarded as qualified, yet tainted

(source: www.wn.com)

Nevertheless, this should serve as a warning that endorsements should not matter at all. In a progressive society, we should look at the candidate’s (or his party’s) platform and track record. Endorsements should merely be regarded as a side-show.

Clearly, the President seems to be clutching at straws with this one.