Reading various reports, it's not clear if Duterte got an actual formal invite to Washington, and recall, he called an American President the "son of a whore", so diplomatically an invite now would seem out of whack for a Philippine leader who seems unhinged. It may be he received one of Trumps "if you're ever in Washington, don't be a stranger" line, which is what the British PM got, if reports are accurate. I don't expect Trump to think before he speaks with some of his calls. He does seem to insist the State Department not advise him. But I'm guessing Duterte put a certain spin on this business about approving Duterte's methods. Vigilante death squads after all. But, I also don't have any reason to believe Trump thinks things through either, so hard for me to put anything past him at this point....
In the Philippines, much like some areas of Mexico, I believe the drug rackets have been gunning down citizens for some time..... decades.... to teach the citizenry to lay low and say nothing.
In the drug cartel world, these extra-constitutional and human rights-killing methods, are *** for tat. The real answer requires systemic constitutional law enforcement, not vigilantism or some big government crackdown that destroys fundamental human liberty.
I think the New York Times, and a lot of other so-called "news" sources have been pushing their version of hacked reality on the public in ways that are fundamentally dishonest and calling it "news" without thorough investigation or any effort to credibly present all the available facts.
In a world with established criminal enterprises that can "launder" their take through international banks owned by the same folks who own the major news "retailers", this should be no surprise.
I have been on the ground in both the Philippines and in Mexico, and my experience and observation is enough to absolutely state the above facts. Armchair political activists reading "journalism" like most of our premier media sources for rational, factual, and balanced "news" can perhaps feel wise and comfortable there's enough reason to believe as they do, but it's not the truth.
I've been in California a lot recently, and have some friends who are what I term "pot scholars" who can with some reason discuss marijuana as herbal or medicinal and can explain its effects minutely by varieties of plant sources and end usages and varied techniques. Fish has nothing on them as advocates, let's say. The issue with legalization, as the worm turns, is control. If we give corporates the edge with their batteries of lawyers marking their way, enough to drive the domestic or smaller producers out of the markets, say, marijuana will end up being like Big Pharma.
Hillary and Obama did and would do nothing to decriminalize drugs or marijuana. Even though they themselves use and most of their supporters use these things with a certain sense of entitlement. They took drug money from the biggies. They had "friends" in the justice department enough they could pass the word and get their friends off easy. Probably no area of law enforcement is as riddled with lawlessness in the judicial system and "law enforcement" personnel. But they keep the laws on the books because it is a source of personal leverage and power,and they are in the money river that sustains it.
The war on drugs has always had that character, of making our law enforcement agencies the "enforcers" for the bigger racketeers. Our DEA has been corrupt. The Bush family and the Clintons have gotten a lot of money, as well as our big Banks, from the drug racket and anyone who tries to tell the story is called a "conspiracy theorist" or somesuch.
Well, folks, don't listen to me. Go back to your rabbit hole and enjoy your Alice in Wonderland news.
Donald Trump knows nothing about drugs or the drug racket. He is not an ideologue politically. I'm pretty sure his variety of showmanship during the campaign was to game the media in the vein of not caring what anyone said as long as they spelled his name right and gave him all that free publicity. And out on the street he found enough people who didn't believe the media and hated the established politics it really just made him look like a real alternative.
But Donald Trump is the kind of operator who will listen to more than once side of any subject until he gets some kind of sense about what their reasons are, and then he will do what he needs to do to accomplish his fundamental objective. His fundamental objective is to build relationships that are favorable to American business. I even hear some folks now complaining about his "friendship" with Al Gore because he's met with him and had some discussions of stuff.
I've been saying for months that CFR elites should just accept Trump and ride the Trump train for all it's worth to achieve their progressive agenda. But I think the fundamental reason they could not is because he's not part of the Alice in Wonderland drug business. Sorry, folks, The CFR elites need their drug cash cow. Trump might just be the one who would decriminalize the drug scene. I mean, really, as in no big legal industry dotting the i's and crossing the t's for anyone. No big cartel play.
The Hillary crusaders in our major media are still on their heels trying to find scary stuff about Trump. It's called cognitive dissonance when the facts in front of you just can't fit in the schema you've been living by.
Red, I find hope in you for the questions you're asking in the two comments above, and I agree with the whole idea of casting a wider net for understanding what is going on.
