Latest Post

No such thing as an ‘independent journalist’

IN the past couple of weeks, I have heard the term “independent journalist” more often than seems normal, mostly from those who are attempti...

No such thing as an ‘independent journalist’

IN the past couple of weeks, I have heard the term “independent journalist” more often than seems normal, mostly from those who are attempting to carve out a paying niche for themselves – and to be fair, it seems like a lot more of them are doing it successfully – on platforms that are perceived to be outside the “corporate media,” such as YouTube or Substack. As one example, there was a fairly recent (Sept. 28, I believe) post on Substack by Marlon Weems, whose commentary I enjoy reading, lamenting to some extent the platform’s catering to “star power” in the form of refugees from the “corporate media” such as Joy Reid, who was recently bounced by MSNBC. Marlon asked the question, and it was a fair one, can people like this claim to be “independent journalists” when everyone knows that, if the circumstances were a little more favorable to them, they would still be a part of the better-paying corporate media? And by inference, the second question that arises is, what does that make the vast population of people (like Marlon Weems) who are not beholden to the “corporate media” and rely on platforms such as Substack to ply their “independent journalist” trade?

I would include a link, but at the time I am writing this (1308Z on Oct. 13), Substack’s servers are being uncooperative. I do apologize for that, even though I don’t have to; the post was entitled, “Who gets to claim independence?” and it is part of Marlon Weems’ blog? page? I don’t know what they call it, called “The Journeyman” on Substack. Go find it for yourself.

Anyway.

To cut to the chase, there is no such thing as an “independent journalist.” Stop saying that.

I get where the attention to “independent journalists” comes from. The mainstream, corporate media in the US has so overtly bent over backwards to lick Trump’s tiny, tiny balls that any sense of objectivity or depth has gone right out the window. If it’s any consolation to people in the US (and it shouldn’t be), it’s not a US-specific problem, nor is it anything new. There is always a profit motive in journalism, whether at an enterprise level, or an individual one; thus, no one is truly “independent.”

Take, for example, Mr. Weems or the hundreds of other worthy “independent journalists” using Substack as a platform; as long as they have an objective to earn revenue from their work, which is not an unreasonable expectation, because work is work, none of them can be considered truly “independent.” Independent from the mainstream media exemplified by the big networks (NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, the big US newspapers, etc.), yes, but constrained both by the limits of their chosen platform, and more importantly, by what their audience (who, after all, pays them to keep doing what they’re doing) wants to hear.

Many years ago, my mentor as I was getting into this business as a second career, the late, great editor and columnist Jojo Robles, gave me a couple of pieces of advice that have always stuck with me. One of those was, “As soon as you can, find out what your paper’s sacred cows are, because everyone has got some. And while you’re at it, make sure you understand what your own sacred cows are, because everyone has got them, too.”

And, as long as one expects this work to allow one to enjoy the comforts of life, such as living in a building, eating food, and being able to turn on the light when the sun goes down, those sacred cows will matter. Even if one endeavors to honor truth, empirical reality, and fairness to all legitimate sides of a story – as one should – those sacred cows will matter. Even if one has the fortune (or misfortune, as the case may be) to rely on corporate platforms such as Substack or YouTube to distribute the content that earns them money, those sacred cows will matter.

One may have options – as I feel I am privileged to have – in dealing with those sacred cows, but they still matter, and they’re going to have to be dealt with, one way or another.

“Independent journalists?” I don’t think so. There is no such thing, and the best that our varied audiences can do, if they value truth and an accurate view of the world at any given moment, is to level out the various biases by reading as many as they can. And as for us journalists who are inclined to adopt the pretense of “independent journalists,” don’t. Stop it. No one is; not me, not you, not anybody, even when we are being as faithful to the ideals of our craft as we can be.

The Palestinian View

ON Thursday, October 2, I had the opportunity to sit down with H.E. Mounir Anastas, Ambassador of the State of Palestine to the Philippines, to discuss the brutal campaign being waged against the Palestinian people and the territory of Gaza in particular, as well as his government’s reaction to the 20-point peace proposal that had only days before been floated by Cankles McEpstein. Afterwards, I dusted off my not-frequently-used beat reporter skills and filed an actual news story about the Palestinian Authority’s statement in response to the peace proposal, and then wrote two columns, one which appeared on Tuesday,October 7, and the second published today, Thursday,October 9.

As I’ve said in the past, I do not like to run around my own paper’s paywall, but the subject matter in this case is something I feel particularly strongly about, and it needs to be shared.

Palestine for the Palestinians

 Rough Trade, Oct. 7

LAST week, I had the chance to sit down for a one-on-one interview with Ambassador of the State of Palestine to the Philippines Mounir Anastas, and the timing of our meeting, though coincidental, could not have been more tragically appropriate. On that day (Thursday, Oct. 2), and in fact, at the very time we were meeting, the State of Israel was engaged in a violent attack on the humanitarian aid convoy dubbed the Gaza Sumud flotilla, in flagrant violation of international law. At the same time, the so-called Trump peace formula, a 20-point plan ostensibly intended to end the two-year-old war in Gaza, was the subject of intense discussion in Middle Eastern capitals and in the media.

We have since learned that Israel’s right-wing prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has at least tacitly agreed to the proposal, apparently after being promised undisclosed considerations in a meeting with Trump in Washington on September 29, as has the Palestinian group Hamas, whose “surprise” attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023 – “surprise” belongs in quotation marks here and everywhere, as there are many deeply disturbing unanswered questions about that horrific event – precipitated the vicious Israeli assault on Gaza. That counterattack very quickly shifted from what at first might have been considered an understandable defensive response – Hamas fighters did, after all, kill 1,195 people in Israel, about two-thirds of them civilians, and took 251 people hostage – to a systematic campaign of genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza.

That is not an opinion. On Sept. 16, the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel found that “Israeli authorities and Israeli security forces committed four of the five genocidal acts defined by the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.” That convention, in a supreme irony, was created and adopted by the world in large part because of the atrocities carried out against the Jewish people by Nazi Germany between 1933 and 1945. Not for nothing is Netanyahu now the subject of an international arrest warrant and indictment from the International Criminal Court (ICC) on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity; such that on his recent trip to attend the UN General Assembly and meet with Trump, his aircraft had to fly a careful course to remain in international airspace, lest it stray into the territory of a nation that observes international law and would force him down and arrest him.

As Ambassador Anastas pointed out during our talk, the Convention on genocide legally obliges every member-state of the UN to do what is in their power to end the genocide and punish those responsible for it. In that sense, the recent peace proposal, despite its containing a concerning number of gaps – to put it politely – could be considered a small step in that direction, if it does in fact lead to Israel stopping its relentless attacks against the civilian population in Gaza, including its aggressively blocking humanitarian aid from reaching the territory. 

Obviously, the proposed peace formula was a significant part of our conversation, and I will get into more details about that in a subsequent column, but before I get to that, I would like to address something that I find particularly infuriating, and which became clear when I was doing some further research after my talk with Ambassador Anastas.

In every news report about the war in Gaza and the peace proposal floated by US president Trump – or rather, whoever prepares such things for him, as he has been famously known since his first term for having neither the attention span nor curiosity to engage in the finer details of foreign policy or geopolitics – the government of the State of Palestine is pointedly omitted. The news reports discuss at length what Hamas has to say and what it may think about it; they discuss at length what Israel’s views are; they discuss at length what Arab governments involved, such as Qatar, Egypt, and the UAE have to say about the proposal; and of course they indulge the bloviating Mr. Trump. The one party to the conflict which has the most at stake in how it ends, however, the legitimate government of Palestine, is simply ignored. This paper does it, too, although I am certain that is not intentional; in world affairs that do not directly affect the Philippines, we report what news comes to us from the international wires, as that is what our resources allow.  

Be that as it may, it is wrong. Israel long ago stopped being engaged in merely a military action against a terrorist group, and has been waging war of extermination on a recognized, sovereign country, whose existence is recognized by the international community as no less valid than Israel’s own. There are three key events in history that make this indisputable: UN Security Council Resolution 242 of 1967, which demanded that Israel withdraw from the territories it occupied in the Six-Day War; the declaration of a Palestinian state by Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) chairman Yasser Arafat, on behalf of the Palestinian government-in-exile, in 1988, which was quickly followed by the Kingdom of Jordan’s ceding the territory known as the West Bank for the purposes of establishing a proper Palestinian homeland; and UN General Assembly Resolution 67/19 in 2012, which conferred on Palestine the status of a non-member observer state – in other words, a sovereign nation, just one that happened not to be a full member of the UN.

The State of Palestine is recognized by 160 of the 193 member-states of the UN, and for that matter, by the other important non-member observer state, the Holy See. The Philippines was among the first countries to formally recognize the State of Palestine, in 1989. For it to be marginalized in discussions about the future of the Palestinian nation and its people, whether in the backrooms of the world where diplomatic bargaining takes place, or on the pages of the world’s newspapers, is both a gross injustice and a recipe for failure of any peace initiative.

Palestine’s uncertain future

Rough Trade, Oct. 9

IT has been a week since I had my conversation with His Excellency Mounir Anastas, the ambassador of the State of Palestine to the Philippines, and events have unfolded at a rapid pace. This is both a blessing and a curse for the Palestinians. For the sake of saving lives, anything that stops Israel’s campaign of genocide against the people in Gaza at the soonest possible time is needed. On the other hand, the deeply flawed peace proposal advanced by US president Trump and driven by his and Israel’s ulterior motives – but mostly his – almost certainly will result in continuing strife in the region.

Ambassador Anastas and the government he represents did not say that, of course; the official response of the State of Palestine was what was appropriate to the occasion of the peace proposal in the context Palestine finds itself in. “We highly value the sincere efforts exerted by President Donald J. Trump to end the war in Gaza,” the government’s statement shared by the ambassador said, “and the State of Palestine affirms its readiness to work constructively with him and with all relevant partners to achieve a just and comprehensive peace.”

I am not a diplomat (most people who know me would certainly agree with that), but I can understand and communicate in that language when I need to, and the careful construction of that statement was obvious. When asked to disambiguate it, Amb. Anastas explained that, from Palestine’s point of view, there was reason for optimism in this or any proposal that addressed the most important priorities, namely, an immediate cease-fire; allowing humanitarian aid to reach the people of Gaza; and the guarantees that Israel would not annex Gaza, nor would the Gazan population be otherwise displaced. Their home has been destroyed by the Israeli onslaught – according to Amb. Anastas, 76 percent of the housing and 80 percent of the infrastructure in Gaza has been wiped out – but they and their government are nevertheless eager to rebuild.

Beyond that, however, there are some nagging questions about Trump’s so-called 20-point peace formula. It proposes the formation of a “Board of Peace” to be headed up by Trump and former UK prime minister Tony Blair, which would manage Gaza as the Israelis withdraw and the recovery and rebuilding gets underway. Given that Palestine has an organized and internationally recognized government, and that Gaza is a part of the State of Palestine, the first question is, why is the “Board of Peace” even necessary?

The government and its representative here in the Philippines did not speculate on the answer to that question, although I would assume they certainly have an idea of what that answer is. Dan Steinbock’s column here in The Manila Times this past Monday (“The real estate bonanza for the post-genocide Gaza,” Oct. 6) rather starkly and in great detail explains it, and it is not good.

The other big question highlighted by Anastas is that the peace proposal lacks timelines. It calls for a phased withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza, but does not suggestion deadlines for that to happen. Likewise, there is no schedule for the withdrawal of the proposed “International Stabilization Force,” a peacekeeping force that is supposed to be made up of contingents from the Arab countries, that will replace the Israeli forces as the latter are withdrawn. And the biggest question, of course, is that there is no timeline for the return of the Palestinian Authority, so that they may govern their own territory.

The Palestinian government’s statement on the details of the peace proposal that require “clarification and adjustment,” as Amb. Anastas put it, sums up what the solution should be in several bullet points. The key principle of this is that any actions that undermine the Palestinian Authority, the physical security and integrity of the State of Palestine (which comprises the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem), and the broader “two-state solution” that would allow Palestine and Israel to coexist peacefully – a formula that is explicitly acknowledged in every country’s and the UN’s formal recognition of Palestine – must not be allowed. And to ensure that this is the case, the government’s statement said, “It is crucial that a United Nations Security Council resolution be issued, based on the consent of the State of Palestine as the legitimate sovereign, to confer international legitimacy on any transitional arrangements, including the deployment of any international mechanism or stabilization and security mission in the Gaza Strip.”

That is not all there is to it, of course, because Israel – whose indicted war criminal prime minister Netanyahu told the few UN delegates who could stomach listening to his speech at the UN General Assembly at the end of last month that, “Israelis will not commit national suicide by allowing the creation of a Palestinian state” – has been carrying out a slow pogrom against Palestine for decades before the war in Gaza erupted. As Amb. Anastas explained, Israeli security forces have erected 1,200 checkpoints in the West Bank, designed to restrict the movement of Palestinians and strangle their economy. Israel has also stolen about $3 billion in tax revenue from the Palestinian Authority.

Before I interviewed Ambassador Anastas, I asked a few people what issues and questions they would raise if they were in my shoes; I find doing that a useful practice, particularly when an upcoming discussion will be a topic on which I already have a strong opinion. The best question came from my college-age daughter, who thought about it for a moment and said, “Well, I would ask, ‘what’s next for Palestine?’”

The ambassador appreciated that question, and he had a concise answer for it. Palestine’s relationship with Israel until now, he explained, has simply been “conflict management,” something which is ultimately unsustainable. To move forward, the international framework of the two-state solution, which begins with the end of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, has to be implemented and respected.

I am ironically hopeful that the Trump peace formula will the two states involved on the right path. Not because the plan is good – it most certainly is not, beyond offering a chance for the Gazan people to receive desperately needed aid – but because its outcomes under the direction of that grifting fool Trump may very well wake the rest of the world up to demand the solution that the Palestinians, and for that matter, the majority of Israelis who just want to live their lives without always having to look over their shoulders, have known all along.

Trump’s wack-ass speech to the generals: The full transcript

IT took me a couple of days to find time to organize this, but it is still the most batshit-crazy thing I’ve read since...well, whenever Trump’s previous speech was. The transcript comes from Roll Call; on their page, it comes with 20-30 second audio clips of Cankles McEpstein actually delivering the speech, but no one needs to hear that again. Try to hear it in someone else’s voice in your head as you read it.

Except for removing the audio clips, I have not edited or otherwise altered the transcript in any way. And, after having read through it, I dispensed with my original idea of annotating it with my own observations, fact checks, etc. There is nothing I could say about this vat of verbal vomit that it doesn’t already say for itself.

***

Speech: Donald Trump Addresses Military Leadership in Quantico, Virginia - September 30, 2025

Thank you very much, Pete. And great job you're doing too, fantastic job. I've never walked into a room so silent before. This is very -- oh, don't laugh, don't laugh. You're not allowed to do that. You know what, just have a good time. And if you want to applaud, you applaud. And if you want to do anything you want -- you can do anything you want.

And if you don't like what I'm saying, you can leave the room. Of course, there goes your rank, there goes your future, but you just feel nice and loose, OK, because we're all on the same team. And I was told that, sir, you won't hear -- you won't hear a murmur in the room. I said, we got to loosen these guys up a little bit.

So you just have a good time, but I want to thank Secretary Hegseth and General Caine, General Razin Caine, for a reason they call him that. When I heard his name, I said, you're the guy I'm looking for. The Joint Chiefs of Staff and so many others in this room, who together represent the greatest and most elite fighting force in the history of the world, the United States military.

We're very proud of our military. I rebuilt the military during my first term. It's one of the greatest achievements. We had the greatest economy in history and I built the military. Those are the two things I say more than anything else. And I also kept us safe at the borders. We had very good borders. We didn't have people coming in from jails and prisons and everything like took place over the last four years.

They'll never forget what happened to this country over the last four years with the incompetence. There could be no higher honor than to serve as your commander in chief. It is a great honor. I look at you, you just incredible people, central casting, I might add. To each and every one of you, I thank you for your unwavering devotion to the armed forces and to the country that we've all sworn a sacred oath to defend.

We all have that oath, every one of us. I'm thrilled to be here this morning to address the senior leadership of what is once again known around the world as the Department of War. I know Pete spoke about it. He gave a great speech, I thought, great speech. I don't want him to get so good -- I hate that, you know?

No, I hate it. I almost fired him. I said, you can't -- I don't want to go on after that. No, he gave -- he gave a great speech, but he talked about Department of War. We were sitting there, I said, didn't it used to be called the Department of War? And he goes, yes, sir, they changed it like in the early 50s. So we won the First World War.

We won the Second World War. We won everything in between and everything before that. We only won. And then we went, in a way, woke. That was probably the first sign of woke-ness and we changed it to defense instead of war. And I said, what do you think -- how do you think if we change it back? Would that be a nice idea?

And Pete loved it immediately. Some people thought about it. You know, they gave it a little thought. But in the end, we did it. And I have to be honest, it's so popular. It's -- I thought it would be met with fury on the left, but they're sort of giving up, I must be honest with you. They've had it. They've had it with Trump.

They've been after me for so many years now. Here we are. Here we are. Come to the White House anytime you'd like. No, they've given up, bad -- a lot of bad people. But all over that's been so popular. It's been a very popular. I really thought that we were going to have to sort of fight it through. There's been no fight.

There's been no fight. Like when I called the Gulf of America, the Gulf of America, because to me, it was always the Gulf of America. I could never understand. We have 92 percent of the frontage. And for years, actually 350 years, they were there before us, it was called the Gulf of Mexico. I just had this idea.

I'm looking at a map. I'm saying, we have most of the frontage, why is it Gulf of Mexico? Why isn't it the Gulf of America? And I made the change and it went smoothly. I mean, we had a couple of fake news outlets that refused to make the change and then one of them, AP took us to court and we won. And the judge, who was a somewhat liberal judge said, the name is the Gulf of America, because AP refused to call it the Gulf of America.

They wrote -- they're not a good outfit by the way. They call it the Gulf of Mexico. I said, no, the Gulf of America is the name. And the judge actually said that, in fact, you can't even go into the room because what you're doing is not appropriate. The name is the Gulf of America. Google Maps changed the name.

Everybody did, but AP wouldn't. And then we won in court. How about that? Isn't that so cool. As Secretary Hegseth beautifully described, the name change reflects far more than the shift in branding. It's really a historic reassertion of our purpose and our identity and our pride. That's when we go with the word war.

And you know, we want war because we want to have no wars, but you have to be there. And you know, sometimes you have to do it. I have settled so many wars since we're here. We're here almost nine months and I've settled seven and yesterday we might have settled the biggest of them all. Although, I don't know, Pakistan, India was very big, both nuclear powers, I settled that.

But yesterday could be the settlement in the Middle East. That hasn't happened for 3,000 years. I said, how long have you been fighting? 3,000 years, sir. That's a long time. But we got it, I think, settled. We'll see. Hamas has to agree. And if they don't, it's going to be very tough on them, but it is what it is. But all of the Arab nations, Muslim nations have agreed.

Israel has agreed. It's an amazing thing. It just came together. War is very strange. You know, you never know what's going to happen with war. The easiest one of them all is Putin. I said, number one, it's a war that would have never happened if I were president, if the election were rigged. And if I were president, that war would have never happened, not even a little chance.

And it didn't happen for four years. But I knew Putin very well and I thought that would be easy because I know him so well. Well, that one's turned out to be the hardest of them all. We had some that were not sellable and they all got settled. So if this works out, that we did yesterday with the Middle East, then that's more than a war.

That's lots of wars that's all combined. That's a lot of wars. Many of you were over there in many different capacities, in many different countries. That was a -- that's a big -- that's a big part of the earth. But if that works out, it would be eight plus I'm going to give myself two or three for that one.

And then we just have the one to settle; we have to settle it up with President Putin and Zelenskyy, going to get them together and get it done. But the only way we can do that is through strength. I mean, if we were weak, they wouldn't even take my phone call. But we have extreme strength. We had the horror show in Afghanistan, which is really the reason I think that Putin went in. He saw that horror show by Biden and his team of incompetent people.

And that showed -- I think it gave him a path in. I wasn't there any longer. I watched that and it was so, so horrible. I think it was the most embarrassing day in the history of our country. And now we're back and that's it. We're not going to have any of that crap happen, I can tell you. That was terrible, so terrible.

Together we're reawakening the warrior spirit and this is a spirit that won and built this nation. From the cavalry that tamed the Great Plains to the ferocious, unyielding power of Patton, Bradley and the great General Douglas MacArthur -- these were all great men. In this effort we're a team. And so, my message to you is very simple.

I am with you, I support you and as president I have your backs 100 percent. You'll never see me waver a little bit, that's the way it is. And that includes our great police officers and firemen and all of these people that are doing so well. Together over the next few years, we're going to make our military stronger, tougher, faster fiercer and more powerful than it has ever been before.

I rebuilt our nuclear, as you probably know, but we'll upgrade that also and just hope we never have to use it. We have to hope we never have to use it because the power of that is so incredible. I see things -- I don't think they'd show it to you. I really wouldn't want them to show it to you. But when you see the result of what's left, you never want to use that.

Never, never ever. We were a little bit threatened by Russia recently. And I sent a submarine -- nuclear submarine, the most lethal weapon ever made. Number one, you can't detect it, there's no way. We're 25 years ahead of Russia and China in submarines. Russia is actually second in submarines, China's third.

But you know, they're coming up, they're coming up. They're way lower in nuclear too, but in five years they'll be equal. They're coming up. And you don't have to be that good with nuclear. You could have 1/20th what you have now and still do the damage that would be, you know -- that'd be so horrendous. But I announced that based on his mention of nuclear, and it was really a stupid person that works for him, mentioned the word nuclear.

I moved a submarine or two, I won't say about the two, over to the coast of Russia, just to be careful because we can't let people throw around that word. I call it the "n" word, there are two n words and you can't use either of them. You can't use either of them. And frankly, if it does get to use, we have more than anybody else.

We have better, we have newer, but it's something we don't ever want to even have to think about. But when somebody mentions it, that submarine started immediately thereafter and it's just lurking. But I'm sure we're not going to have to use it. But it's an amazing -- it's undetectable totally. Ours is -- theirs isn't. Theirs are totally detectable.

We can detect them easily. We go right to the spot. But we have a genius apparatus that doesn't allow detection. It doesn't allow detection at all by anybody above water or below water. It's incredible, we're way ahead of everybody in that and other things. As a result of the exciting renewal of the spirit of our armed forces, and that's what it is, it's really reaching that spirit, unprecedented heights.

Over the past eight months, new enlistments -- I'm so proud of this -- have surged to record highs, the highest we've ever had. And we used to have recruiting shortages. If you remember about a year and a half ago, I was at the beginning stage of a campaign and things came out that you couldn't get people to join the armed forces.

And by the way, the police also, fire department. I always put the fire department in because they're great. They're great, and I got 95 percent of their vote too, that helps. When you get 95 percent of the vote, you always have to mention them, but they're great. And they're brave in our inner cities, which we're going to be talking about because it's a big part of war now, it's a big part of war.

But the firemen go up on ladders and you have people shooting at them while they're up on ladders. I don't even know if anybody heard that. And actually don't talk about it much, but I think you have to. Our firemen are incredible. They're up on one of these ladders that goes way up to the sky rescuing people, and you have animals shooting at them -- shooting bullets at firemen that are way up in death territory.

You fall off that ladder, it's over, it's over. They don't even have to inspect you when you hit the ground. And you have people shooting bullets at them in some of these inner cities. We're not going to let that happen. So, I always mention the firemen because that's actually a big problem we have. They are unbelievable.

Like you, they're unbelievable people. For the first time on record in 2025, the Navy, Air Force and Space Force all met or surpassed their recruiting goals three months early. That never happened before, and the Army did even better. Congratulations, Army. They met everything, and these were the highest standards because we're making it larger.

So, these were much higher standards than you had four years ago, three years ago during the Sleepy Joe Biden era. And the Army did it four months early. And you remember, a year and a half ago, they said the big stories that we're way behind with the Army, Air Force, the Navy, the Marines, we're way behind, Coast Guard and even Space Force.

I love Space Force because that was my creation. You know, when you create something, I love it and the people we put in there were good. I got that right. We put in great people initially and we really dominated -- we really dominate in that sphere now we. We were way behind China and Russia and now we dominate.

Space force turned out to be a very important thing. I said from the beginning, you know when Biden came into office, he wanted to terminate it, he said and this thing called Space Force, so we can get rid of that. And he got hammered by the people in this room for even suggesting it because it's very important.

One of the most important. And as time goes by, it'll get more and more important, but we're now at 106 percent of our recruiting targets for the year, and that's the best in far more than a generation. And for the Marines, morale is so strong that the Marine Corps will meet its 2026 retention targets before the end of October, which never happens.

And that's the earliest it's ever happened in the history of our country, and it makes you feel good, you know. I felt guilty. I'd go make a speech in front of -- never people like you, you are the -- you are the leaders, but people, soldiers. And I felt embarrassed because there would be stories about, you know, you couldn't -- we couldn't fill up our Army, Navy, Air Force, we couldn't fill them up. And it was headlines, is headlines, it was during Biden's four years -- the autopen, I call him the Autopen.

How would you like to have your thing signed by an Autopen? You know, when I have a general and I have to sign for a general because we have beautiful paper, the gorgeous paper, I said throw a little more gold on it, they deserve it. Give me, I want the A paper, not the D paper. We used to sign a piece of garbage, I said this man's going to be a general, right?

Yeah. I don't want to use this. I want to use the big, beautiful firm paper. I want to use the real gold writing when you talk about the position. And they're beautiful and -- but how would you like to have that where you -- some kid sitting in the back office is having it signed with an autopen? I thought about it and I thought about you people first, admirals, generals.

I said somebody works his whole life, he gets into maybe the academies or wherever. But however you got there and you go through years of work and now you become an admiral or a general or whatever. And when you do the president of the United States signs your commission, as you know, and that commission is beautifully displayed.

And I sign it -- actually, I love my signature, I really do. Everyone loves my signature. But I signed it very proudly. And I always think to myself, how can you have an autopen sign this? It's just so disrespectful. To me it's just totally disrespectful. And it turned out that almost everything he did was signed by autopen, except for when he gave his son, Hunter, a pardon, he signed that one.

And that's actually the worst signature I've ever seen. That was a bad -- the autopen looks much better. But as leaders, our commitment to every patriot who put on the uniform is to ensure that American military remains the most lethal and dominant on the planet, not merely for a few years, but for decades and generations to come, for centuries.

We must be so strong that no nation will dare challenge us, so powerful that no enemy will dare threaten us and so capable that no adversary can even think about beating us. And we've had it recently. I had -- India and Pakistan were going at it and I called them both. And in this case, I used trade, I'm not going to trade with you.

You saw, two nuclear nations, big nuclear. And no, no, no, you cannot do that. I said, yes, I can. You go into this freaking war that I'm hearing about -- you know, actually they just shot down seven planes, seven planes. It was starting. It was a lot of bad blood. And I said, you do this, there's not going to be any trade.

And I stopped the war. It was going -- it was raging for four days, but that was just the beginning, and we stopped it. It was a great thing. And the prime minister of Pakistan was here, along with the field marshal, who's a very important guy in Pakistan. And he was here three days ago. And I didn't even realize it as beautiful as he said it, but he said that to a group of people that were with us, two generals, but a group, he said, this man saved millions of lives because he saved the war from going on and that war was going to get very bad, very, very bad.

President Trump saved millions and millions of lives. That was a bad war. And I was very honored. I loved the way he said it. Susie Wiles was there. She said, that was the most beautiful thing. But we saved a lot of them, saved a lot of them. Even in Africa, we saved the Congo with Rwanda. They'd been fighting for 31 years, 10 million people dead.

I got that one done and I'm very proud of it. So if this works out, we'll have eight, eight in eight months. That's pretty good. Nobody's ever done that. Will you get the Nobel Prize? Absolutely not. They'll give it -- they'll give it to some guy that didn't do a damn thing. They'll give it to a guy that wrote a book about the mind of Donald Trump and what it took to solve the wars.

And he'll get -- the Nobel Prize will go to a writer. No, but we'll see what happens. But it'll be a big insult to our country, I will tell you that. I don't want it. I want the country to get it. It should get it because there's never been anything like it. Think of it. So if this happens, I think it will.

I don't say that lightly because I know more about deals than anybody. That's what my whole life was based on. And they can change and this can certainly change. But we have just about everybody. We have one signature that we need and that signature will pay in hell if they don't sign. I hope they sign for their own good and we create something really great.

But to have done eight of them is just such an honor. And then we have Putin and Zelenskyy, the easiest one of them all. I said, that one I'll get done. I thought that was going to be first. The others were much harder, some of them. Azerbaijan was -- this was going on for 36 years. They said, it's not solvable, sir.

You can't -- don't do it. I said, I will do it. I will do it. And I got on the phone with the two countries. They were great. They were great. I knew immediately. I knew as soon as I started talking to them, we were going to solve that war. We did. Now they're so happy. Mow they're friends. One said he's been president for 32 years, 22 years.

He said, you know, for 22 years I did nothing but kill his people. They were in the room together at the Oval Office. And they started off spread like this. I have the beautiful resolute desk, and one was here and one was here. You couldn't get further away. That's the furthest I've ever seen two people in front of me. And as the hour went by, they got closer, closer, closer.

And at the end of the hour, we had it done and they hugged and hugged and hugged. And I said, that's so nice and you're going to remain friends. And I spoke to them, one of them the other day. He said, no, he's now my friend. But for 22 years, he's been the head of Azerbaijan for 22 years and the other guy, great guy too, seven.

And you know, that war, that was a war that was not solvable. He said, for seven years, the other one said, for 22 years, all I did was kill his people. That's all I've done. I said, well, we're going to put a stop to that. So we solved that. So it's a great thing. It's a great feeling. You know, you're saving Kosovo and Serbia.

You're saving so many lives doing this, if you can do it. But our people deserve nothing less than the very best and we'll never going to let them down. And if we can solve wars instead of you having to fight wars, wouldn't that be wonderful, right? Wouldn't that be wonderful? That's why one of the first executive orders I signed upon taking office was to restore the principle of merit.

That's the most important word, other than the word tariff. I love tariffs, most beautiful word, but I'm not allowed to say that anymore. I said, tariff is my favorite word. I love the word tariff. You know, we're becoming rich as hell. We have a big case in front of the Supreme Court, but I can't imagine -- because this is what other nations have done to us and we have, you know, great legal grounds, but you still have a case of being very bad if something happened.

But I said, my favorite word in the English dictionary is the word tariff and people thought that was strange. And the fake news came over and they really hit me hard on it. They said, what about love? What about religion? What about God? What about wife, family? I got killed when I said tariff is my favorite word, so I changed.

It's now my fifth favorite word and I'm OK with that. I'm OK with that, but they hit me hard. But it is. I mean, when you look at -- we've taken in trillions of dollars. We're rich -- rich again and they'll never be -- when we finish this out, they'll never be any wealth like what we have. Other countries were taking advantage of us for years and years.

You know that better than anybody. And now we're treating them fairly, but the money coming in is -- we've never seen anything like it. The other day, they had $31 billion that they found, $31 billion. Sir, we found $31 billion and we're not sure from where it came. A gentleman came in, a financial guy. I said, well, what does that mean?

He said, we don't know where it came. I said, check the tariff shelf. No, sir, the tariffs haven't started in that sector yet. I said, yes, they have, they started seven weeks ago, check it. Comes back 20 minutes later, sir, you're right, it came from tariffs. $31 billion, that's enough to buy a lot of battleships, Admiral, to use an old term.

I think we should maybe start thinking about battleships, by the way. You know, we have -- Secretary of the Navy came to me -- because I look at the Iowa out in California and I look at different ships in the old pictures. I used to watch Victory at Sea. I love Victory at Sea. Look at these admirals. It's got to be your all time -- in black and white.

And I look at those ships, they came with the destroyers alongside of them and man, nothing was going to stop. There were 20 deep and they were in a straight line and there was nothing going to stop them. And we actually talk about, you know, those ships. Some people would say, no, that's old technology. I don't know.

I don't think it's old technology when you look at those guns, but it's something we're actually considering, the concept of battleship, nice six-inch size, solid steel, not aluminum, aluminum that melts if it looks at a missile coming at it. It starts melting as the missile is about two miles away. Now those ships, they don't make them that way anymore.

But you look at it, and -- your secretary likes it and I'm sort of open to it. And bullets are a lot less expensive than missiles, a lot of -- a lot of reasons. I should take a vote, but I'm afraid to take that vote because I may get voted out on that one. But I tell you, it's something we're seriously considering.

They were powers. They were big powers. They were just about as mean and scary as you could be, and so we're looking at that. One of the biggest cases that we won was the decision of the United States Supreme Court to allow us to proceed on the word merit, merit. So those two words are right up there. So this is, I would say, the opposite if you ask for a definition, the opposite of political correctness.

We went through political correct, where you had to have people that were totally unfit to be doing what they were doing for many reasons. I won't get into them. But for many reasons, they were unfit. Now, it's all based on merit. That was such an unbelievable decision. I didn't expect we were going to win that one.

We went in, we said we need it. We went in for colleges, you know, where kids with a C average are getting into the best colleges and the kids with A averages won't get in. And kids with the highest boards and the highest marks and the best marks couldn't get into the best schools. And people that had not good boards and not very good marks, I mean, OK, but nothing special.

They were getting into our best colleges. I said this is just crazy. We can't run -- you can't run a country like this. And it was lingering for years and it got to the Supreme Court and we won that decision, merit. Everything's based on merit. You're all based on merit. We're not going to have somebody taking your place for political reasons because they are politically correct and you're not.

We take the people that are going to do the best job. That's all; it's very simple. And that's the way our country was built. We were built on merit. We got away from it for a long time and everyone understands it. And it was done, it was approved. I give great credit to the Supreme Court because I thought they had tremendous courage.

I didn't think they'd do that. That was tremendous. I give them maybe for that decision almost more than anything because it's a hard decision to make. It's really hard. The apparatus of our country was not set up for merit; it was set up for political correctness. And you can never be great if you're going to do that and we're going to be greater than we ever were before.

We're bringing back a focus on fitness, ability, character and strength. And that's because the purposes of American military is not to protect anyone's feelings, it's to protect our republic and it's the republic that we dearly love. It's to protect our country. We will not be politically correct when it comes to defending American freedom and we will be a fighting and winning machine.

We want to fight, we want to win, and we want to fight as little as possible. You have to count on people like me to keep you out of wars because we don't want to go into wars. Many of the wars that I just told you about, we could have entered those wars and settled them in a different way, lose a lot of our troops.

And we're going to settle them I guess differently, maybe not actually. Actually, you might not have been able to settle them, but we just would have been in the middle of a lot of firepower. But when we do need it, you're going to be so ready, and you know it. But very importantly, with that goal in mind, I've committed to spending over $1 trillion on our military in 2026 and that's the most in the history of our country. $1 trillion, that's a lot of money.

I hope you like that, ma'ams and sirs, I hope you like it. That's a hell of a lot of money. We have the best of everything. Every branch is seeing major investments. And as I announced in the Oval Office in March, we are rapidly moving forward with the first ever sixth generation fighter jet. I didn't name it; I did not name it. Boeing came in and they said, sir, this is our submittal.

It's the greatest fighting jet ever done and, you know, they're testing all these planes. All the companies are testing and this one tested like through the roof. And they said we'd like to name it the F-47. I said let me think about it. Then after thinking for about two seconds, I said OK. You know that means 47, I'm 47. So, I'm 45, 46 and 47, you know, if you think about it, I just don't want the credit for 46. I don't want to have their open borders and people coming in from all over the world including jails and mental institutions.

I don't want that on my record, but I like -- I like having it. We're investing tens of billions of dollars in modernizing our nuclear deterrence capabilities like never before. And we've begun construction on what we call the Golden Dome missile defense shield. It will be the most sophisticated in the world.

You watched it do well until they had some problems at the end with a little bit of a lack of ammunition, defensive ammunition, but they've got that taken care of. But I tell you it's -- what we're doing is so good and we deserve it. You know, we help other countries with it, we don't have it ourselves. And Canada called me a couple of weeks ago, they want to be part of it, to which I said, well, why don't you just join our country, you'd become 51, become the 51st state and you'd get it for free.

So, I don't know if that made a big impact, but it does make a lot of sense. It actually makes -- because they're having a hard time up there in Canada now because, as you know, with tariffs, everyone's coming into our country. We have more investment than we've ever had before, $17 trillion coming in. As an example, in four years Biden didn't have $1 trillion.

We have $17 trillion more than that in eight months coming in. And they're coming in from Canada, Mexico, from Europe, from all over -- AI, auto plants -- everybody's coming back to the United States. Under my budget, we will be expanding the US Navy by at least 19 ships next year including submarines, destroyers, assault ships and more.

And it's going to be much more than that as we go along because we basically don't build ships anymore. We do build submarines, but we don't build ships. Do you know in the Second World War, they were freighters and different types, but we were doing a ship a day and now we don't do ships. And I'm not a fan of some of the ships you do. I'm a very esthetic person.

I don't like some of the ships you're doing esthetically. They say, oh, it's stealth. I say that's not stealth. An ugly ship is not necessary in order to say you're stealth. By the way, the B-2 Bombers were incredible. That is stealth. They went into that -- I was with General Caine and every -- and Pete were in the -- we call it the war room, but we're watching them go in and they were totally untouched.

They were not seen. They were literally not seen. They dropped their bombs. They hit -- every single one of them hit its target. It was total obliteration. CNN, when we came back -- fake news CNN. Oh, their camera just went off. You know, their camera, every time I mention them, they turn the camera off because it's never good.

They say this is a problem, but I don't blame them. You're better off keeping it off. But they have some scammer, reporter who started saying, without any knowledge, that he may not have hit the targets as well as they thought. It may not have been obliteration. He did hit the targets -- you've got to give us a little credit, right?

It was obliteration it turned out. The Atomic Energy Commission said it was obliterated. They had -- not only did they hit the target, they had these chutes -- and think of this here, way up in the sky, there was no moon. It was dead dark; you couldn't see a thing -- you couldn't see them. But they had, I guess, a beam going right into these chutes.

Every single one of those bombs went right down those chutes into a granite mountain. I think it's the last time they're going to build air chutes -- they had these air chutes that were nice, beautiful, they were meant for us. But it was total obliteration and now they give us credit for that. But these people were phenomenal.

I tell you, for the Air Force people here, you can be very proud. That B-2, we just ordered a lot of new ones, new ones and updated ones. But I'd take the other ones. Let me tell you, they couldn't have worked any better. So, they flew for uh 37 hours total back and forth, no stops, no nothing. We had 52 tankers loading them up and that's a job I wouldn't necessarily want too much flying, a tanker loaded up with hundreds of thousands of gallons of fuel.

I don't know if I'd do that job, General. I asked the question, what happens if it gets hit? Sir, you don't want to know about that, right? I don't want to know about that. But those guys, they're just heroes. They're incredible. I had them all to the Oval Office. We had the B-2 pilots and a lot of the people -- even the people that took care of them, the maintenance people, just as important, we had them all to the White House, gave them a big party on the lawn, brought some of them into the Oval Office.

But on top of all this, we'll deliver a hard earned pay raise of 3.8 percent to every soldier, sailor, airman, Coast Guardsman, Space Guardsmen and Marines, something you weren't getting from the past administration. They did not treat you with respect. They're Democrats, they never do. Not only are we rebuilding our great strength, but for the first time in years, my administration is actually using that strength to defend the core and vital interests of America.

And very simply, we are putting America first. And I have since I've been elected, I've always put America first. It's sort of simple, you know, when you think. It's -- my campaign was run on common sense and we did great. We had the highest numbers every received in terms of, uh districts. You know, they have it broken up: 2,500 versus 525. We won every swing state.

We won the popular vote. We won everything. We won everything. You have to take a look at the map. It's almost entirely red, except there's a little blue line on each coast, and I think that's going to disappear, too. We did really great, and part of it is because of our success with the military, the rebuilding of the military, the vote that I got from the military.

And they were -- they're vicious people, you know, that we have to fight, just like you have to fight vicious people. Mine are different, a different kind of vicious. But they spread all these horrible -- you know, they made up statements, and said what I said about everything, but even about the military.

But fortunately, the military didn't believe it. It's hard. You know, they make up a statement and they say you say it. We had 25 people that said he never said that. 25. We had 25 affidavits. And they said, well, we're going with it anyway. You know, these sleazebags. And that's why the press is really losing all power, because people aren't believing it. We need an honest press.

We need borders. We need borders, we need an honest press, we need fair elections. I mean those three things. And we don't have an honest press. We have a really corrupt press, but we fight through the corrupt press, and the people understand. You have to do this stuff a lot. You have to go on television a lot because you can't get a fair shake if you're going to rely on somebody else.

It's -- they're just -- they don't understand. They've destroyed the -- the image of media now is at the lowest point it's ever been. It's lower than Congress. Can you believe that? It's something. But together, with many of you in the room, we've brought back the fundamental principle that defending the homeland is the military's first and most important priority.

That's what it is. Only in recent decades did politicians somehow come to believe that our job is to police the far reaches of Kenya and Somalia, while America is under invasion from within. We're under invasion from within, no different than a foreign enemy, but more difficult in many ways because they don't wear uniforms.

At least when they're wearing a uniform, you can take them out. These people don't have uniforms. But we are under invasion from within. We're stopping it very quickly. After spending trillions of dollars defending the borders of foreign countries, with your help, we're defending the borders of our country from now on. We're not going to let this happen.

Biden let people come in from prisons, mental institutions, drug dealers, murderers. You know, we had 11,488 murderers allowed into our country by this guy who had no clue. He had no clue. He shouldn't have been there in the first place, but he had no clue. The people that ran the office, the White House, were, people that surrounded him, radical left lunatics that are brilliant people, but dumb as hell when it came to policy and common sense.

And they allowed people from all over the world, from the Congo. They opened up prisons in the Congo. They came into our country totally unmatched, unvetted, unchecked. And from all over South America, not just South America. You know, you think South America, no, but from all over. A lot came in from Venezuela.

Venezuela emptied its prison population into our country. That's why they have Tren de Aragua, one of the worst gangs ever, but we took care of them. We took good, strong care of them and I just want to thank the National Guard in Washington D.C. It was -- it's embarrassing to say this. Now I can say it because we solved it, but Washington D.C. was the most unsafe, most dangerous city in the United States of America.

And to a large extent, beyond and beyond that. Go to some -- you go to Afghanistan, they didn't have anything like that. You go to countries that you would think there's problems, they didn't have that. And now, Washington D.C. after 12 days of serious, serious intensity, we took out 1,700 career criminals.

If you have five career criminals, they can make your numbers look very bad because they'll commit many crimes a day. But we took out 1,700, and they took them out. There was no doubt who the boss was. They did an unbelievable job. Then they started even cleaning. I said, I don't want them doing that. Sir, they wanted.

They were cleaning it up. I drove through it two days ago, it was beautiful. People were walking down the street, holding hands. Man and wife coming from Iowa, they're not worried about being shot. Washington D.C. is now a safe city. In fact, I went out to dinner with my crew. I haven't done that. In theory.

I wouldn't do it. And I felt totally safe. And nobody's been attacked. Nobody's been hurt. Washington D.C. went from our most unsafe city to just about our safest city in a period of a month. We had it under control in 12 days, but give us another 15 or 16 days, it was -- it's perfect. And people other than politicians that look bad, they think.

You know, the Democrats run most of the cities that are in bad shape. We have many cities in great shape too, by the way. I want you to know that. But it seems that the ones that are run by the radical left Democrats, what they've done to San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, they're very unsafe places and we're going to straighten them out one by one.

And this is going to be a major part for some of the people in this room. That's a war too. It's a war from within. Controlling the physical territory of our border is essential to national security. We can't let these people live. You know, we had no people enter in the last four months, zero. Even I can't believe that.

You know, we had millions coming in, pouring in. 25 million all told and of those 25 million, many of them should never be in our country. They would take their worst people and their people from prisons and jail and they put them in a caravan and they'd walk up. CNN was interviewing one person. Oh, why are you coming?

I want freedom. Good. Were you in jail? Yes. For what? Murder. I said, you're in for -- you had to see this anchor, a young woman. She's like I couldn't believe. She'll probably lose her job, but -- because the left doesn't want to hear that. But we're running it based on common sense and based on love of our country.

But I want to salute every service member who has helped us carry out this critical mission. It's really a very important mission. And I told Pete, we should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military National Guard, but military, because we're going into Chicago very soon. That's a big city, with an incompetent governor, stupid governor, stupid.

They threw him out of his family business. He was so stupid. I know the family. He becomes governor. He's got money, not money that he made. But he ran for governor, he won and now he criticizes us all the time. And last week they had 11 people murdered, 44 people shot. The week before that, they had five people murdered, 28 people shot.

Every weekend they lose five, six. If they lose five, they're considering it a great week. They shouldn't lose any. You shouldn't lose any. This is civilization. And he's always up there saying, we're in very good shape, we don't need the military. No, they need the military desperately. How about Portland?

Portland, Oregon, where it looks like a war zone. And I get a call from the liberal governor, sir, please don't come in, we don't need you. I said, well, unless they're playing false tapes, this looked like World War II. Your place is burning down. I mean, you must be kidding. Sir, we have it under control.

I said, you don't have it under control, governor, but I'll check it and I'll call you back. I called him back, I said, you -- this place is a nightmare. It's probably -- it's certainly not the biggest, but it's one of the worst. It's brutal. They go after our ICE people, who are great patriots and -- tough job too, but they love it. They love it because they're cleaning up our country.

And so you look at some of the things where they took over parts of Seattle. They actually took over a big percentage of Seattle. Think of that. You remember that. That was a while ago. And I sent in the troops and they were gone as soon as I sent them in. Oh, when we send in the troops, if you have a real leader that says you're going to do what you have to do. I put that out the other day, you got to do what you got to do, because we don't want our people hurt as they stand by. I was watching -- during Biden, they had troops standing up like this, brave, standing up at attention, the way I should stand all the time, and -- like this.

And people are standing there. Their mouth is this far away from their mouth and they're spitting at them and they're screaming at them. And that soldier standing there, he wants to knock the hell out of the person, but he's not allowed to do anything. So they just stand there and they get abused. And a woman was this far away from his face and she starts spitting in his face and he's not allowed to do anything.

If it's OK with you generals and admirals, I've taken that off. I say, they spit, we hit. Is that OK? I think so. They spit -- it's a new thing. They spit, we hit. How about the cars, where the cars are coming at -- they get brand new cars, border patrol, ICE, beautiful, nice, new cars. And they're driving along and they have to go through a gauntlet of rocks being thrown at the car.

So here's this beautiful, brand-new car. By the time it goes 100 yards, it's destroyed. These guys have pretty good arms, some of them, and they're throwing bricks at full force into the window and into the car. It looks like it's a war zone. And I said, never let that happen again. From now on if that ever happens, and I say it here, you get out of that car and you can do whatever the hell you want to do, because those people are -- you know, you can die from that.

Those bricks go through the windows, you can die. They'd like it to. They'd like it to go through the window. But this was a couple of months ago, they just kept driving and bricks are hitting the car. And I said, why aren't they stopping? Because they were under orders from the past administration, never stop.

But that's different with this. We stop. And since I gave that order, we haven't had that problem. It's very interesting. It's amazing. It's just like in Venezuela you've seen the boats going. We can't find any more boats. They're carrying drugs, massive -- every boat kills about 25,000 people. That's what they have.

They had fentanyl mostly and a lot of other drugs. And we take them out and we've taken out four, so. And it's on air. Everybody gets to see it, not that we like to do that. But every boat kills 25,000 on average, 20 -- some people say more. You know, you see these boats, they're stacked up with bags of white powder, that's mostly fentanyl and other drugs too.

And now we have a problem. General Caine says, sir, there are no boats out there, not even fishing boats. They don't want to go fishing. I don't blame them. There'll be no fishing today, you know. But it's amazing what strength will do because all we want to do is stop drugs from flowing into our country, it's destroying -- we lost -- 300,000 people died last year.

Everybody knows friends, many friends probably, that you lost a child or adults too, but you lost a son or daughter because of what's coming into our border. And we're making it very hard -- oh, and we haven't even started yet. Last month, I signed an executive order to provide training for a quick reaction force that can help quell civil disturbances.

This is going to be a big thing for the people in this room because it's the enemy from within and we have to handle it before it gets out of control. It won't get out of control, once you're involved, at all. They all joke, they say, oh, this is not good. You saw it in Washington. We had gangs of Tren de Aragua, say 10, 12, 15 kids.

And these military guys walk up to them, and they treat them with disrespect, and they just got pounded. They just got pounded, the gang just pounded, then thrown into paddy wagons and taken back to their country. Some are so dangerous we don't even do that because -- we don't want to -- some of them, stone-cold murderers.

We don't have the confidence, even though they're not coming back very easily, we don't have the confidence. We put them in jails. But these service members are following in a great and storied military tradition from protecting frontier communities to chasing outlaws and bandits in the Wild West. And our history is filled with military heroes who took on all enemies, foreign and domestic.

You know that phrase very well, that's what the oath says, foreign and domestic. Well, we also have domestic. George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Grover Cleveland, George Bush and others all used the armed forces to keep domestic order and peace. Many of our leaders used the military to keep peace. Now they like to say, oh, you're not allowed to use the military.

And you know what the people say, the people in those cities where they're being raped and shot and beat up, you know, they say we love the military. You ever see where they're interviewing the people on the street? I've never seen somebody say they don't unless they're radical and paid off because a lot of these insurrectionists are paid by -- whether it's Soros or other people, but they're paid by the radical left.

So, today, I want to thank every service member from general to private who has bravely helped us secure the nation's capital and make America safe for the American people. It's amazing. The whole world is watching. Everybody in the White House, they come up to me, young women, sir, thank you. I know immediately what they're thinking, they don't have to say it. They walk to work now to the White House.

We haven't had a crime in Washington in so long because we got the careers -- we call them the careers. We got these lunatics out and they'll never be any good. You know, I hate to tell this to the liberal media. You could spend time with them. You could do whatever you want. You could send them to the finest schools, which they couldn't get into anyway, mentally they couldn't get in. But no matter what you do, they'll never be good.

They're bad. They're career criminals. They're -- I don't know, maybe they were born that way. Some people don't like me to say that, but maybe they were. Certainly, some were. Together with the leaders here today, we're also restoring a needed focus on defeating threats in the Western Hemisphere. Throughout this region, cartel terrorists have been allowed to wage a relentless campaign of death and destruction on our country, all because we had weak leadership on top.

And we did a great job with it first term, but this is something else what we're doing now. We're taking it to the next level -- probably next level times three. But we had COVID come up and we had to take care of that. We did a great job with COVID. We had the therapeutics -- it was just Regeneron. So many things we did for COVID, but we had to focus on that.

And every other country in the world was being decimated by COVID. So, we had to change gear a little bit to take care of that. But under our leadership, the military is now the knife's edge in combating this sinister enemy. We have to put the traffickers and cartels on notice, and we've done that, and we've put them -- a lot of them, we've called them a terrorist organization, which is actually a big thing to do. Nobody's done it, but I've done it with a lot of them.

It gives you a tremendous advantage. If you try to poison our people, we will blow you out of existence because that's the only language they really understand. That's why you don't see any more boats on the ocean. You don't see any boats around Venezuela there's nothing. As president, I will never hesitate to defend our people from threats of violence from the horrible plague that's taking place from within.

The Iran nuclear power, the Iran -- all of the great power that we thought existed. We blew it out to Kingdom. We took advantage of it and we just really took advantage of it and it was a beautiful thing to see and that's what military power can achieve. That's why I chose Razin Caine. He's fantastic by the way.

I hope you all agree. If anybody disagrees, could I please have your hand? Who disappears that Razin Caine is no good? Just raise your hand. I don't see any hands raised, all right. That means you're OK. That means that he's OK now, but I saw his results. He took out ISIS. I was told he was going to take four years; it took four weeks.

I went to see him, and he took him out in four weeks, knocked them out, knocked them to hell. And I was told by military people; it was going to take four to five years to do it. And I don't even know if we'll have it then, sir. These were the Washington generals; I call them the television generals. But Razin Caine did it in four weeks, took out 100 percent of the ISIS caliphate.

As a result of these actions and many others since my inauguration, we are witnessing the triumphant return of peace through strength. We have great peace through strength. America is respected again as a country. We were not respected with Biden. They looked at him falling down stairs every day. Every day, the guy's falling down stairs.

I said it's not our president. We can't have it. I'm very careful. You know, when I walk downstairs for -- like I'm on stairs like these stairs, I'm very -- I walk very slowly. Nobody has to set a record, just try not to fall because it doesn't work out well. A few of our presidents have fallen and it became a part of their legacy.

We don't want that, need to walk nice and easy. You don't have to set any record, be cool. Be cool when you walk down but don't -- don't bop down the stairs. So, one think with Obama, I had zero respect for him as the president, but he would bop down those stairs -- I've never seen, da da da da da da, bop, bop, bop, he'd go down the stairs, wouldn't hold on. I said, great, I don't want to do it. I guess I could do it, but eventually bad things are going to happen and it only takes once.

But he did a lousy job as president. A year ago, we were a dead country. We were dead; this country was going to hell. We were dead in every way, from immigration to miliary. We didn't have the weapons, we had given everything to Ukraine, we had nothing. And by the way, I have to tell you, now, as you know, I went over and I met with NATO.

And NATO raised from 2 to 5, which everyone said 5 percent of GDP. Millions and now trillions of dollars are pouring in. They didn't pay the 2 percent because we were there to pay it. And now they've paid the 5 percent. That's trillions of dollars and we're not spending any money on that one, not $0.10. We sell our equipment to NATO; NATO pays us for the equipment, and they give it to Ukraine -- or whoever they give it to, but they can keep it. But we're not involved; we have no money going out.

Biden gave $350 billion -- not sustainable -- $350 billion, and we have a war that should have never started. But we're not doing that anymore, so I just want you to know, we're selling equipment, our people are buying equipment -- they are buying the equipment at full price, a fair price. So, I don't want to say we're making money because our -- I don't want to say -- I don't want to be making money on a war.

It's too many people dying. They're losing 7,000 soldiers a week. A lot of them are Russian soldiers, but between the two countries. Mostly soldiers, by the way. Sometimes, you know, in Kyiv they'll lob a missile in or some drones in, kill some people. But mostly, it's soldiers. Russia and Ukraine are losing 7,000 souls.

And you know, they're not -- they're not American. They're not us. They're not you, where I have a special obligation. But they're soldiers, they're young people. They leave their parents, they wave goodbye. And then two days later, they're blown up so unnecessarily. And so that's the primary reason I want to get it done.

We got to get it done. It's crazy what's going on. That's the worst war there's been since World War II. The number of soldiers that are being killed. There is just crazy. From 5,000 to 7,000 soldiers die a week, think of that. So I think we'll get that done, but that's turned out to be the toughest one. I'm so disappointed in President Putin.

I thought he would get this thing over with. He should have had that war done in a week. And I said to him, you know, you don't look good. You're four years fighting a war that should have taken a week. Are you a paper tiger? And it's a shame, but I think eventually we'll get that one done just like we -- in theory, I want to knock on wood because you never know.

It's like we're going to have the Middle East done, which is actually a much harder thing to do. I mean, thousands of years, but we have to get that war done. So now we're -- just think of it, we were a dead country. I was with the king of Saudi Arabia, a great guy. I was with the Emir of Qatar. I was with the great leadership of UAE.

I was over there. We brought back $2 trillion and more. They ordered 200 planes, Boeing's. They ordered so much and they were great, but they all said essentially the same thing. They said, one year ago, you were a dead country and now you're the hottest country anywhere in the world. We are. We're the hottest country in the world right now, the absolute hottest country in the world.

We have -- there's nobody even close. Putin said that to me. We met in Alaska. We had a good meeting. Then he went back and started sending drones into Kyiv. I said, I thought we had a good meeting, but it's one of those things. But we were a dead country a year ago and now we're the hottest country anywhere in the world.

Think of that. You could be proud of that. And you must have felt like hell, when you have a wife or a husband at home and you used to read the numbers that we can't get people to join the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard. You must have felt like, you know, I have a job that nobody wants. That doesn't feel good.

Well, now you have a job that is brimming over with people wanting it. They want it. And you're able to get a much higher quality because now you have your choice. You know, you want so many and we're going to have many, many people that aren't going to be able to join because of the fact that we don't -- you know, we don't need them at this moment.

But think of it, what a difference that is from -- I could just imagine two years ago, you're reading front page articles in the New York Times, of course, and Wall Street Journal. They always give us unfair stories, but they played it so big. They were playing it so big, nobody wants to join the Army, the Marines, the Air Force.

They want -- they don't want to join. They don't want to join the Coast Guard at all. Nobody wants to join. Nobody wants to join our police forces, our police forces also. It almost went hand-in-hand. And I used to say, boy, you know, I'm speaking in front of the military today and it's embarrassing because I'm speaking in front of people who have a job that other people don't want.

But now you have a job that everybody wants. So I think that has to make you feel good. It's one of the reasons I love being here today because I wanted to say that. I have to say that. Everybody wants to be in the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marines. If you think -- the Coast Guard and Space Force, our beautiful Space Force, it's a whole different world.

And now they're signing up, by the way, seriously big numbers for the police. Dangerous job, isn't it, huh, fire department. But that's the paving the way for progress once thought almost impossible. I mean, a year ago, you wouldn't have thought that was possible. A year ago they were talking about making the military smaller because they can't get the people to join.

We're thinking about making it larger because we have so many people. And it's nice to be able to cut people because of merit that aren't really qualified for any reason, a physical reason, a mental reason. You don't have to take them anymore because you have -- you have the pick of the litter and they all want to be with you.

They all want your job. They want to be with you. They want to work with you. They'll even take your job, you know? You got to be a little bit sharp. You got to watch it. But everybody wants to be doing what you're doing now. What a difference when I speak to you and I can say that as opposed to a couple of years ago when I was talking to rooms, where they were desperate to get people and they couldn't get them.

What a difference a presidential election can make. That's all it is. It's just a presidential election. Yesterday at the White House, we put forward a plan for peace in Gaza. We announced it and we're going to create something that was my idea. But unfortunately, I got drafted. It's going to be called the Board of Peace and it's going to reign over that territory.

And we're going to get that done and they asked if I'd be the chairman of the Board of Peace, I wasn't counting on that. I had the idea for the Board of Peace, but I said yes. And I guess because of that, every leader, every -- everybody wants to be on the Board of Peace. And we're going to watch over that very volatile part of the world and keep it nonvolatile, so you don't have to get involved.

We want to save you for other things or save you for nothing from that standpoint. We don't want you fighting wars, but if you have to, you're going to be -- you're the most lethal fighting force in the world. And I would say that even two or three years ago, but now I say it with great enthusiasm. It's so true.

And we're striving tirelessly to end the terrible war in Ukraine. And as you know, we're also working hard to get the allies to share more of the burden of our defense. Much of that has really already taken place, but all NATO members have committed to the increase that I talked about. Think of that. That was unthinkable.

It used to be one percent, then we got it up to two in my last term and they did not like it. And now I got it to five and I get along great with all of them. In fact, they call me the President of NATO. I said, I don't think so. But they're great. They're great people and they're spending a lot of -- they're spending a lot of money and a lot of money that they should have been spending in the past.

But I think Putin -- was a wake-up call for them, really. We're now selling large quantities of American made weapons to NATO and we're getting really fair pricing. We're making a lot of money. It's my hope that from Europe to Asia, to the Middle East, our allies will make similar commitments to increase their military capabilities and this will greatly strengthen our alliances.

And also, it will make war far less likely. You know, if you have a strong -- if you're a strong presence like we are, we are such a strong presence now. And I go around bragging about that. I said, we have the strongest military anywhere in the world. I say it. You never heard Biden say that. You never heard him say anything, but you never heard him say -- did you ever hear him say we have the strongest military?

He doesn't say that. I say it. We have the strongest military anywhere in the world and we have great leadership. And I'll tell you, Pete and General Caine and all of the people that I've met that have been lifted up in rank. And we got many of them out of here. To be honest with you, I didn't like doing it, but we got many of you out of here because we weren't satisfied.

We have -- we know everything about everybody. It'll also help the United States rapidly rebuild our defense industrial base. Each of you can play an important part in getting allies to do their part. So to that end, Secretary Hegseth will soon be announcing major reforms to streamline military acquisitions and expedite foreign military sales.

We have tremendous numbers of countries that want to buy our equipment. And you know, in many cases, it takes too long. They're backlogged. We're backlogged on all the equipment, which is something that's new to us a little bit. And I told those companies, you better get your ass going, because we're buying -- we're selling you a lot of equipment.

We're getting countries to buy your equipment. You got to produce the equipment. Some of the countries -- I'm not going to mention, but some of the countries are buying a lot. And that's a good thing. They're on our side, 95 percent. I'll never say 100 percent because they can always turn, right? You know about that.

But they're on our side. The problem is, we have to get the companies that make this equipment -- and we make the best equipment in the world, but they got to make it faster. We have orders for the F-35. We have orders for everything, the new F-47. We have orders for everything. They got to make it faster, a lot faster.

Ammunition, they have to make faster. In the coming months, we'll be making even more historic announcements to fully embrace the identity of the Department of War, I love the name, I think it's so great. I think it stops wars. The Department of War is going to stop wars. If we are as ruthless and relentless as our enemies, the United States Armed Forces will be totally unmatched in the future.

We have a group of enemies that are very ruthless and very smart, but they can't match us. They can't match us. They don't even come close to matching us. Again, you know, it's very important for me to say we have the greatest military in the world, but we make the best equipment in the world. I watched our anti-missile missiles; I watched our patriots just knock things out like a needle hitting another needle on this stage.

There's a needle up there and you send another needle up and it hits it every time. During the war, we went 14 for 14. We had 14 -- this is with Iran. We had 14 missiles coming at us. All 14 were knocked out of the sky, every one of them. We make the best equipment. From Sparta to Rome to the British Empire to the United States of America, history has shown that military supremacy has never been simply a matter of money or manpower.

At the end of the day, it is the culture, the spirit of our military that truly sets us apart from any other nation. Our ultimate strength will always come from the fierce people and those brilliant -- people with such pride and the unbending will and the traditions of excellence that have made us the most unstoppable force ever to walk the face of the earth.

And that's what we are. Remember, we never want to use it, but we have the most powerful nuclear capability, and I call it nuclear deterrent of any other country, nobody close. The men and women in this room inherit the legacy built and won by Washington and Jackson, Grant and Pershing, Eisenhower and Patton, Nimitz and LeMay.

We carry forward the majestic military heritage passed down from father to son, soldier to soldier and one generation of warriors to the next. You are warriors, you know that, right? You're great warriors or you wouldn't be in this room. You're the best of the best. From Concord Bridge to Fort McHenry, from Gettysburg to Manila Bay, from Normandy to Sicily, and from the jungles of Vietnam to the dusty streets of Baghdad, America's military has charged into hellfire, climbed up jagged mountains, crossed roaring oceans, and thundered across open deserts to defend our flag, our freedom and our homeland.

Nobody does it like you. Now we are discovering American muscle, reasserting American might and beginning the next story/chapter in American military legends and lore, that's l-o-r-e. It is lore. When it comes to defending our way of life, nothing will slow us, no enemy will stop us. They cannot stop us. And no adversary will stand in our way.

They won't stand in our way. We don't want them to stand in our way. We don't want to even put them in that position, but they're not going to stand in our way ever again. You'll never see four years like we had with Biden and that group of incompetent people that ran this country that should have never been there, because we had the United States military the best, the boldest, the bravest that the world has ever seen, that the world has ever known.

With leaders like we have right here in this beautiful room today, we will vanquish every danger and crush every threat to our freedom in every generation to come, because we will fight, fight, fight and we will win, win, win.

I want to just thank you once again and God bless the United States military and God bless America; God bless you all. Thank you very much. Thank you.

The next Asian domino to topple? Maybe, maybe not

LAST Sunday (September 21), there were large – they were substantial, but I wouldn’t call them “massive,” as many news outlets have – public demonstrations in Metro Manila and a few other locations around the Philippines, protesting the legitimately massive corruption scandal that has come to be known as “Floodgate.” As this scandal has exploded just shortly after the Indonesian government faced a serious existential threat from a citizenry enraged about government corruption, and the government of Nepal was ousted in spectacular fashion for the same reason, the world media and talking heads have speculated the Philippines might be the next Asian country to be similarly upended.

Fun fact: I think I’m the one that popularized that term, “Floodgate,” although I didn’t invent it. I heard it somewhere and started making it a point to use it in the editorials I write for The Manila Times, and now it is starting to stick. It’s those little instances of being able to move the world, even if just a tiny bit, that keep one motivated.

Anyway, I digress. I’ve had a drink or two (got a really excellent bottle of wine from the boss the other day, I’ll have to find a way to reciprocate for Christmas), it’s rather late on a Friday evening, and my linear thinking skills have taken the night off. Deal with it.

To explain it as simply as possible, Floodgate is a broad web of corruption primarily involving flood-control projects of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), whereby a small number of favored contractors cornered most of the projects in exchange for kickbacks to DPWH officials, who in turn provided kickbacks to members of Congress as repayment for Congress’ adding huge amounts to unprogrammed allocations for the DPWH in the national budget each year. The actual projects, of course, were either shoddily built or not built at all, resulting in hundreds of thousands of Filipinos affected by floods – which is a top-of-mind, everyday concern here, we’ve had two serious tropical storms just this week – that they otherwise shouldn’t have been.

The amount of money snatched from the public funds is breathtaking. Estimates for the losses due to corruption have been estimated to be between P650 billion and P1 trillion over the last 10 years ($11 billion to $17 billion); testimony in Senate hearings from some of the key players in the DPWH has revealed that between 30 and 70 percent of the budget for individual projects is siphoned off by the various collectors.

So far, the scandal has already rolled a few big heads. The Secretary of the DPWH was the first to go, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Martin Romualdez – first cousin of President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. and until all this happened, Marcos’ presumptive successor in 2028 – resigned after being implicated in the scandal, although he remains a member of the House, for now. Just today (Sept. 26), the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) recommended the filing of charges against 21 people, including three current senators, one former senators, two members of the House of Representatives, a former undersecretary of the DPWH, several other DPWH officials, and a handful of contractors and bagmen.

One of the senators facing indictment is Francis “Chiz” Escudero, who was until the end of July the Senate President, but was ousted in a sort of mini-coup within the Senate. At the time, that didn’t seem to have anything to do with the Floodgate scandal, but rather the fact that Escudero (who for good measure is married to one of the Philippines’ several hundred identical actresses and “celebrity endorsers,” Heart Evangelista) is kind of a weenie, and made a big mess of the attempt to impeach Vice President Sara Duterte on graft charges stemming from her embezzlement of a couple hundred million pesos in government funds during her short-lived, disastrous stint as Education Secretary. However, there have been somewhat credible rumors that other senators knew or at least suspected Escudero would get snagged in the growing scandal, asked him to step down before that happened to avoid causing an embarrassing political crisis (the Senate President is second in the line of succession, after the Vice President and ahead of the Speaker of the House), and when he refused, saw to his removal by way of new election for the post.

In announcing the recommended indictments, the Department of Justice assured the public that there would be others to follow shortly, after the i’s were dotted and the t’s were crossed. These would include former House Speaker Romualdez, former Senator and now mayor of Makati City, the country’s financial capital, Nancy Binay, several other members of Congress, other officials and employees of the DPWH, and several of the construction firms involved in the mess.

Back to the protests. My personal view was that they were rather strange, because they really didn’t have a clear demand for action other than “stop corruption.” Unlike in Indonesia and Nepal, public anger here is not directed at the government generally, but rather at Congress. President Marcos himself sparked the entire scandal by ranting about the corruption in his State of the Nation Address to Congress at the end of July; he endorsed the protest actions, and has otherwise taken some very visible steps toward addressing the problem, such as forming an independent investigative committee, and appointing his personal fireman, a guy named Vince Dizon, to clean up the mess at DPWH. Dizon responded by immediately firing a long list of DPWH officers and employees, and having the assets of those implicated in the corruption scandal seized or frozen.

Thus, the protests amounted to what they call here “indignation rallies,” just an opportunity for an angry public to blow off some steam. And I suppose that’s fine, but to the outside world watching what is going on, they were in no way indicative of a potential government collapse, at least not yet. There were two main rallies in Metro Manila, one in Luneta Park, the large park in central Manila surrounding the grave and shrine of national hero Jose Rizal, and one centered on the so-called Edsa Shrine not far from where I live. “Edsa” is short for Epifanio D. Santos Avenue, and is Metro Manila’s main drag; it was the site of the famous uprisings that ousted the dictator Ferdinand Marcos (the current president’s father) in 1986, and the corrupt buffoon Joseph Estrada in 2001. I live along Edsa, in a building about a mile south of where the Edsa Shrine is. It is about the most Filipino location you could imagine; a Catholic church built in 1960’s mod style, featuring a gigantic BVM statue, and located right in front of a mall.

My daughter attended the Luneta Pak rally with some of her friends and classmates, and according to her, the event was surprisingly orderly and peaceful, although she also said the police (who were positioned so as to keep the rallyists contained in the park) were a bit heavy-handed with people trying to break or go around their cordon. Her impression was that they were not very well prepared, nor were there enough of them to do what they intended to do.

Likewise, the Edsa rally, which happened a couple hours later in order to give the Luneta attendees time to travel to it (my daughter considered it, but opted to come home and take a nap instead), was also mostly peaceful, although there was some tension between the rallyists and some supporters of former president Rodrigo Duterte (Vice President Sara is his daughter), who tried to use the occasion to stir up calls for Marcos’ overthrow. One of the key players in this action was close Duterte ally and former governor of Ilocos Sur province Chavit Singson – a political actor so crooked that, in the words of the immortal Hunter S. Thompson, he probably needs the assistance of a personal butler to screw his pants on in the morning. Singson emerged from his residence in the tony Corinthian Gardens subdivision, which borders Edsa a few blocks north of the Edsa Shrine, to try to whip up calls for Marcos’ ouster, only to be shouted down and menaced by nearby rallyists, resulting in his bodyguards quickly hustling him back into the safety of the walled village.

The defeat – mostly verbal, although there were apparently a few punches thrown – of the pro-Duterte agitators was pleasing to see. Former president Rodrigo Duterte, whose stronghold is in the far southern city of Davao, was the worst of the four presidents I have seen so far in the Philippines, a sociopathic thug with the leadership and reasoning skills of a stunned badger. In a controversial move this past March, the government arranged for his extradition to the Netherlands, where he is now jailed awaiting trial on charges of crimes against humanity stemming from his campaign of state-organized murder against criminals, drug dealers, and those he only thought were criminals and drug dealers, first during his two decades as mayor in Davao, and later as president. His children, primarily Sara, the current Vice President, and son Sebastian, who sports jailhouse tattoos on his neck and is currently the interim mayor of Davao (the elder Duterte was elected mayor, despite being jailed in the Netherlands, by an overwhelming margin this past May), are cut from the same violent, trailer-trash cloth. They are popular – if nothing else, the Philippines demonstrates the truth of the old adage that the weakest link in a democracy is the voters themselves – but they are profoundly corrupt, besides being rather stupid, and the rejection they got from the recent rally was a welcome sign that the Marcos administration’s campaign to bury them and prevent Sara from being elected president in 2028 might be working.

The part of the rallies that the rest of the world saw, the violence that erupted in Manila, happened a bit
later in the day. A group of several hundred – perhaps as many as 1,000 – protestors attempted to march on MalacaƱang Palace, the seat of the government, along Mendiola Street, but were blocked by police. A riot ensued, which resulted in at least 95 police personnel being injured, and untold number of civilian injuries, at least 216 people arrested, many of them juveniles, and considerable damage to businesses in the area from firebombs and looting. The back-and-forth battle between rioters and the police went on for hours before calm was restored, and two things were immediately obvious. First, the police were woefully unprepared to handle this sort of situation; and second, the incident was not the result of legitimate protest, but just some people looking to start some shit.

I have to be honest, even though my professional assessment would be to condemn the rioters, my personal sentiments are a bit more forgiving. If I was 30 or 40 years younger, I wouldn’t have been at the organized and well-behaved rallies, I would have been throwing rocks with the bangers. My personal approach to protesting always was, “if you don’t at least flip over a car, you’re not trying hard enough.”

Even so, there needs to be a clear point or call to action for what you’re doing; there needs to be a bigger picture reason for bouncing a rock off a cop’s head, otherwise you’re just being a dick. In this case, there was no point; even though the riot was rather spectacular and caught the attention of the media outside the country, it was what I already said it was, just people (mostly young men) looking to start some shit. There has been a lot of online chatter that the violence was organized, in a way, by pro-Duterte groups – not by the Dutertes themselves, but rather some among their legions of zealous mouth-breathing fans – although this is not entirely certain. My daughter, who is more online than I am (I don’t have Facebook, she does) argued with me that this was fake news; on the other hand, some of my other sources – because I am a spooky journalist who knows everybody and everything – have sworn that it was another attempt, a fortunately rather lame one, by the Duterte forces to sow instability.

***

Sorry, I got distracted for a few minutes discussing the mortal threat of AI with my daughter, who is lamenting the fact that she has to write papers in such a way as to prevent AI detectors for mistaking original work for something AI-generated (she’s a first-year nursing student). My god, what students have to worry about these days. AI is evil and must be destroyed. And if I ever get within arm’s reach of Sam Altman (which is highly unlikely), you better believe I will choke that eyes-too-close-together motherfucker out. For real.

Anyway, back to the main topic. In spite of the attention the riots got, and the somewhat lesser attention the larger rallies attracted, there is no risk, at least right now, of the Philippines going the way of Indonesia or Nepal. To be sure, there are still risks that the government’s “anti-corruption” drive may make a fatal misstep, or that some act of corruption so heinous will be uncovered – for example, if the president himself is implicated, although I don’t think that will happen, because reasons – that public protest of the kind that brings down governments will erupt. But for now, that’s not happening, and news stories that suggest otherwise are speculating too much.