Skip to content

SEN. RICHARD GORDON FOR PRESIDENT!

May 8, 2010

For those who are determined to vote for Noynoy Aquino, Manny Villar, Joseph Estrada, and Gilber Teodoro, ask yourselves this question: ARE YOU READY TO COMPLETE THE DESTRUCTION OF THE PHILIPPINES?

SEN. RICHARD GORDON IS THE MORAL CHOICE!

SEN. RICHARD GORDON IS THE MORAL CHOICE!

This is an updated post to accommodate the following statement of Sen. Richard Gordon:

I would like to congratulate Sen. Aquino for his spectacular victory. I call upon this nation to unite and support him.

I would like to thank everyone who supported me especially my volunteers and those who gave up their limited resources as a manifestation of trust in my brand of leadership and track record.

I ran a very truthful, straightforward and candid campaign and thought we could run on the basis of our platform, track record and volunteerism.

I would like to congratulate all the winners and pray that they serve our country well.

We accept the will of the people.

Today, we have a victory for democracy with the successful exercise of our first nationwide automated election despite naysayers and doubters.

The fight for this country goes beyond this day. Let us forge on in building a Bagumbayan for our people.

Well said, Sen. Gordon. Good premises, Philippines…

*———————————–*

Sen. Richard Gordon may not be my ideal choice- meaning, I may not agree completely with his politics- for president of the Philippines, but I believe he has the courage, honesty, determination, and most importantly, experience, to serve this country. When I say service, I mean “service” of the individual rights of every citizen and “service” of good and justice. HE IS THE MORAL CHOICE!

What are my criteria for saying that Gordon, former mayor of Olongapo City and former chairman and administrator of the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority, is so far the best choice for the highest elective seat in the land? My criteria are as follows:

  1. Gordon’s got the experience. He was the chairman of SBMA from 1992 to 1998 wherein he pushed for the Special Economic Zone, which was designed to encourage economic growth in the area. Under his chairmanship Gordon was able to woo local and foreign investors, some of which were Fortune 500 companies, to do business in Subic Bay, which resulted in $2.1 billion in investments and around 200,000 jobs created. As Tourism Secretary Gordon believed that “Tourism means jobs. Gordon is a “walk the talk” guy.
  2. He is known to the people. Gordon is known to people ever since he was mayor of Olongapo City, one of the most developed, the cleanest, the most industrialized, and the freest cities in the Philippines. It is important for the people to know the nature and character of their president. It is important for us to know where he stands on various issues. Noynoy Aquino has not yet made his explicit stand on a number of social, political, and economic issues. We only know a few things about Noynoy Aquino. What we only know is that he decided to run for president after the death of his mother and after seeing that 60 percent of the respondents surveyed wanted him to be the next commander in chief of the land. And we only know that he did nothing during his more than 10 years in public office.
  3. He’s not “really” for big government. During his stay in the Senate Gordon authored two laws of great importance: The Tourism Act of 2009 and the Automated Election Law. Now let me tell you that the “real” barometer of political success or performance is not the number of laws passed, but the quality and character of the law. The quality or character test is only this: Does it call for more government regulation, control, spending, and power? If the answer is “YES”, then the author of such law is a statist— a threat to our rights. So far these laws authored by Sen. Gordon passed this “statist test.” In the case of Manny Villar he benefited, enriched himself while in public office. I read the Tourism Act and I’m not that satisfied because it empowers the government to have so much to say and so much to do about how things are to be done in the so-called promotion of tourism in the country. It should have been simpler, instead it calls for the government and its offices to implement laws, policies, plans, programs, rules and regulations of the Department of Tourism. But this is understandable since it was a result of the collaboration or compromise of various statist politicians in Congress.
  4. Gordon ‘somehow’ understands the Mindanao issue. Here’s what he said: “First of all, it’s not Mindanao but it’s the Muslim situation.  So Mindanao is okay, it’s just a certain portion of Mindanao that you have a problem with.  And I didn’t say just understand it, but I said respect, understand and accept.  You know, you have to respect our Muslim brothers, principally because even before the Spaniards came, they were already here.” It is true that the real problem is the “Muslim situation,” and somehow he’s right in saying that it can be solved by not isolating the Muslims, but by showing that they are part of the archipelago. But this should be seen in light of the next criterion, which is…
  5. Gordon’s tough stance on terrorism. He understands that the armed forces are engaged in a tough war on insurgency and terrorism. With this he co-authored a resolution commending the Armed Forces of the Philippines for its valiant effort to stamp out terrorism in the country. He said that the country’s military’s “actions to eradicate our countrys long-standing disease of insurgency has been consistent, and their success, commendable.” In one of his privilege speeches, Sen. Gordon said: “There is hope yet. The AFPs efforts to eradicate the insurgency problem show the world that we can protect the nations territory and people. The courage and competence of the members of the First Recon Class 12, a platoon trained specifically to hunt Janjalani and his band, led by 2nd Lt. Romulo Dimayuga, under the command of 3rd Marine Brigade Commander Brig. Gen. Juancho Sabban and trained by Recon Marine Head Major Robert Velasco should be recognized. This successful pacification effort will surely resonate across Mindanao , greatly contributing to establishing peace in Mindanao , and where there is peace, development can truly follow. Real peace in Mindanao will facilitate the influx of investment, which will truly maximize the rich resources of this area, for the benefit of the people of Mindanao , Muslims and Christians alike.”
  6. Gordon envisions “stronger” armed forces. This is one of the most importance advocacies of Sen. Gordon. Yes, this country needs to have a stronger protection against insurgency, terrorism, or any form of internal and external threats. He shows the strongest support to the AFP. Gordon said: “We need a stronger Navy, a stronger Military, a stronger Air Force to safeguard our peace. As we endeavor to provide security for our nation, the capability of our military cannot be downplayed because our militarys ability to protect our resources impacts greatly on the nations economic and environmental concerns. Our country continues to face threats and to address these threats; the key challenge for the AFP today is to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the combined current assets of the Air Force, Navy and Army in the context of contemporary risks.”
  7. Gordon believes “population is not an excuse for poverty.” He’s not afraid of the Catholic church, saying the priests are also “human beings like us.” I admire him for this strong position against and opposition to the the controversial Reproductive Health bill authored by some socialist politicians in the House of Representatives. He said that it’s important for the government to ensure the good health of its citizens by providing them information on how to take care of themselves. Yes, what is important is to provide the people the information they need on how to take care of themselves and nothing else. This is what I really admire about Gordon: “I will not make it a policy because man is born with free choice [but] he should be reminded of [his] rights.” YES, this man deserves to be our NEXT PRESIDENT. Also, he believes that a big population is not a problem and that the government should not use the country’s population growth as an excuse for its failure to deliver services to the people. We have the same position on this issue.
  8. He is for personal responsibility. “First, that we must be RESPONSIBLE for ourselves, for our fellow Filipinos, and for our country. We must change our attitudes, and transform ourselves to become horizon-chasers with duty, dignity, and determination,” Gordon said.
  9. He is for individual rights. Gordon believes that we can “reinvent government to faithfully perform its prime duty to serve and protect the people.” However, it’s not really clear what he meant by “reinventing government.” He also said that “we can fortify LAW AND ORDER through self-discipline, vigilance, and respect for the rule of law” and that “we can build a STRONG AND GROWING ECONOMY if we all work, save, and invest in order to prosper.”
  10. He believes in volunteerism. Gordon said: “We must have the Vision grounded on Values and empowered by Volunteerism to achieve Victory. These are the ideals upon which we lay the foundation of our movement for change. We are the instruments of a movement dedicated to transform the Philippines into a Bagumbayan, a new Philippines.”

However, like I stated above, I do not completely agree with his politics. But I must reiterate that GORDON IS THE SAFEST BET FOR THE PRESIDENCY. Here are the things I dislike about Gordon’s politics:

  1. His support to Text Tax to increase the salary of public teachers. All his contenders are for raising our taxes. They are all for excessive public spending.
  2. His stance on public education. I believe that public education must be privatized. Well, all his rivals are staunch believers in public education.
  3. His statement that the government must provide access to health care for all our people, especially the needy. I believe it is not the role of the government to be the guarantor of the people’s health needs. This is one of the worst contradictions of Gordon, however, I must say that all of his contenders believe in universal health care, particularly Noynoy and Gilbert Teodoro.
  4. He believes that it’s the responsibility of the government to create jobs for the people. However I must admit this statement is open to inferences. Perhaps what he means is that it can be done through encouraging private investors to do business in the country.
  5. He believes that the government must “assist our people in securing decent HOMES to live in and LAND to work and build on, so they can be dignified and productive citizens.” It is not the responsibility of the government to achieve this task. It can only be done through private efforts and volunteerism.
  6. And his not so clear statement that “we must protect and preserve the ENVIRONMENT for our posterity.” Man needs the environment for his survival. Therefore he is free to exploit it for his existence.

Now, let me tell you that there’s no truth to the popular claim that the fight for presidency is between Villar and Noynoy, and that an “outside vote” might lead to the victory of the first (Villar). The presidency is a clash between four or so strong presidentiables. If it were a fight between 3 presidentiables then there’s truth to that dishonest, well-designed claim. The purpose of campaigning for Gordon is to get the potential votes for all the three “survey winners”- Noynoy, Villar, and Estrada. This way Gordon can attract more voters’ support at the 11th hour…

NO, the Philippines is not ready for an inexperienced and virtually unknown politician like Noynoy Aquino or a politician who enriched himself while in power at the expense of public money like Manny Villar. If you want to know the danger of electing an inexperienced, unknown politician look at what’s now happening in the United States of America. The Americans are now paying so dearly for voting for inexperienced and unknown Barack Obama. For those who are not that familiar with American political affairs, Mr. Obama is now destroying America by converting it to democratic socialism. Unemployment, the continued fall of the US dollar, trade deficit, cronyism, subsidies of pro-Obama companies, nationalization of big businesses, printing of money out of thin air that causes inflation, persisting economic crisis—these are the result of the dangerous socialist policies of Pres. Barack H. Obama.

For those who are determined to vote for Noynoy Aquino, Manny Villar, Joseph Estrada, and Gilbert Teodoro, ask yourselves this question: ARE YOU READY TO COMPLETE THE DESTRUCTION OF THE PHILIPPINES?

With all honesty and objectivity, I firmly believe that what this country needs is not an inexperienced, unknown politician like Noynoy Aquino or a mercantilist leech like Manny Villar. What we need is a leader with proven integrity, honesty, probity, and sense of responsibility and volunteerism.

IN THE NAME OF THE BEST WITHIN YOU, VOTE FOR SEN. RICHARD GORDON FOR PRESIDENT!!!

36 Comments leave one →
  1. cho Nananene permalink
    May 8, 2010 3:38

    Hallelujah, Hallelujah, Hallelujah…I hope it is not too late! 2 more days before election. That is too short a time for campaigning. Anyway, Dick Gordon was my first choice and still is.

    • May 8, 2010 3:38

      Thanks! It’s NOT YET TOO LATE!!! WE CAN STILL MAKE IT!

  2. May 8, 2010 3:38

    Have you tagged this to the major Philippine networks here that are known to be biased for Noynoy? Maybe what you wrote here will change their minds.

  3. May 8, 2010 3:38

    I’m for a strong military but how can you make it strong?
    I’m for small government but 90% of the people are poor.
    My first choice is Erap, Second choice is definitely Gordon,third choice is Perlas, fourth choice is Eddie V., fifth choice Jamby, sixth choice Gibo and last choice is Villar…Noynoy is not in my list because he is crazy!
    I will rethink again. On Monday I will have my final choice!

  4. May 8, 2010 3:38

    “He believes in volunteerism.” And you think that’s a good thing?! Why betray so much?

    • biernes_atrece permalink
      May 8, 2010 3:38

      @joshualipana: volunteerism is an individual’s free choice

      • May 9, 2010 3:38

        Voluntary Altruism is still Immoral!

        http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/education/volunteerism/135-What-Young-People-Really-Need-Not-Volunteerism-but-Happiness-and-Heroes.html

        http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/education/volunteerism/5472-Boys-Life-Death.html

        Those who advocate “volunteerism” are enemies of Objectivism!

      • May 9, 2010 3:38

        Voluntary altruism is a contradiction in terms. In fact altruism makes voluntariness impossible. Altruism imposes a duty, while voluntariness is based on one’s personal choice to do a particular act or carryout a particular task.

        By the way, DO NOT FORGET TO VOTE FOR SEN. GORDON, OK?

      • May 11, 2010 3:38

        @Vince: “Voluntary altruism is a contradiction in terms.” This just goes to how how little you know about the issue at hand. Dr. Peikoff has talked about this in his podcast. And the fact that Altruism can be voluntary is so obvious, a man can destroy his life by his own hands. I suggest you read more before you “f*ck up” a great philosophy.

      • May 11, 2010 3:38

        @Vince: “I suggest you read more before you “f*ck up” a great philosophy.” I apologize if this was too harsh for rational civil discourse, I thought your comment about calling me a hippy was still here, if it were that quote would be appropriate but since it is now gone, it may in fact be read too harsh for the context.

      • May 11, 2010 3:38

        @ Josh. I removed it because I know you’re going to cry lol!

      • May 11, 2010 3:38

        But honestly Joshua, DID YOU MEAN IT?

      • May 11, 2010 3:38

        I am a fan of the Vinceton Post and think you are a great writer, that is why I care so much to bring such disagreements to the day of light. What I mean is, you can be imprecise with the words you use once in a awhile, the way I put it “I suggest you read more before you “f*ck up” a great philosophy.” was hardly the proper form to express that concern. I saw some other filipino students of Objectivism quoting the Volunteerism part in FB. Maintaining a consistent philosophic message is very very important.

        Anyway, yeah, Voluntary Altruism can be seen everyday, I’ve seen it, it is not in fact a contradiction in terms, because people can bad things through their own will, voluntarily.

      • May 11, 2010 3:38

        Like I said, Joshua, there is no such thing as “voluntary altruism.” It is a contradiction in terms. In fact they are opposites. Altruism imposes a duty; it removes the concept of voluntariness. In you volunteer to do a particular task, you are unforced and that you do it out of your own volition. Also, charity, good will, and kindness are all obliterated by altruism. I don’t think there is a need to explain this since I expounded it to you already.
        Also, your statement- “I suggest you read more before you “f*ck up” a great philosophy”- is too assuming. It’s as if I committed a grave Objectivist offense!

      • May 11, 2010 3:38

        Peter Keating and Dr. Stadler are great examples of voluntary Altruism, they sacrificed their lives. Voluntary altruism is all around us, you saying it cant be voluntary assumes the fact that people don’t have free will. People commit immoralities all the time through their own voluntary choice. You saying voluntary altruism doesn’t exist is like saying you cant commit suicide voluntarily! My gosh!

      • May 11, 2010 3:38

        Do you understand what you’re talking about? There’s no such a thing as “voluntary altruism!” It’s a floating abstraction, a contradiction in terms.

      • May 11, 2010 3:38

        You are wrong. If you voluntarily gave your life to a tribe of cannibals that would be altruism.

      • May 11, 2010 3:38

        You are wrong. If you voluntarily gave your life to a tribe of cannibals that would be altruism. There, you have a concrete example of voluntary altruism, so it is not as you commit another intellectual sin in saying, a “floating abstraction”

      • May 11, 2010 3:38

        Let me just quote ARI:

        “ARI supports volunteering so long as it is done selfishly and … voluntarily!

        “What ARI repudiates is the mandatory “volunteering” (a contradiction in terms) or “community service” that some schools require of their students as a condition of graduation. Such requirements are meant to instill in young minds a sense of altruistic duty, i.e., unchosen obligation, toward others.”

        What you termed as “voluntary altruism” is JUST THE SAME as “mandatory volunteering.”

        I hope this is clear…

      • May 11, 2010 3:38

        I am not saying all voluntary action is immoral, what I am challenging is your statement about “Voluntary Altruism” being a contradiction in terms. Killing yourself for a person you hate for example is a case of Voluntary Altruism.

      • May 15, 2010 3:38

        Asked Dr. Diana to comment about this, this is what she said:

        “Indeed, he’s very confused on all the basic terms under discussion: altruism, duty, voluntary! To say that some action is a “duty” does not mean that it’s not voluntarily done. It means that a person is obliged to do that action, whatever his goals, values, desires, etc. Provided that a person could do otherwise than he does — or provided that he’s not forced, his action is voluntary. That’s true even if he’s sacrificing himself on the cross like Jesus.”

        I hope it’s clear how right I am now.

      • May 15, 2010 3:38

        May I know what specific action did you ask, because you were insisting on your voluntary altruism? I don’t think you’re clear at all.

      • May 15, 2010 3:38

        I asked Diana, if Altruism could be voluntary, she said yes, and then I copy pasted the arguments from here and sent it to her. And hence her response above that I pasted. I omitted your name and referred to you as “the other guy”.

        Dr. Diana and I are in agreement that Altruism can be done voluntarily. I believe her comments above that I quoted is sufficient as to why it can be voluntary.

    • May 9, 2010 3:38

      I’m doing my best to convince at least 25 people in my place to vote for Gordon. So far I have convinced some people…

    • May 15, 2010 3:38

      I do not disagree with what Ms. Diana said. My only contention is that this discussion started with your claim that voluntariness is the same as “voluntary altruism.” That’s why Biernes Altrece replied that it’s an “individual’s free choice.” That’s the source of our disagreement. I do NOT believe that voluntariness is equal to altruism or your own term “voluntary altruism.” That’s why I said that there is no such thing, because such is already implicit in the term altruism.

      Also, that’s why I quoted ARI’s statement that it “supports volunteering so long as it is done selfishly and … voluntarily!”

      Furthermore, it said that: “What ARI repudiates is the mandatory “volunteering” (a contradiction in terms) or “community service” that some schools require of their students as a condition of graduation. Such requirements are meant to instill in young minds a sense of altruistic duty, i.e., unchosen obligation, toward others.”

      Check your very first statement. You said: “Voluntary Altruism is still Immoral!”

      BUT NEVER DID I STATE THAT “VOLUNTARY ALTRUISM” IS MORAL! What I said is that voluntariness is good so long as you act upon it according to your values and self-interest…

      • May 15, 2010 3:38

        By the way, did you ask Ms. Diana if voluntariness or volunteering or volunteerism is the same as- equal to- your term “VOLUNTARY ALTRUISM?” Remember, that’s your very first statement here… and that’s the source of our disagreement, and I never stated that “voluntary altruism” is MORAL! No, DID NOT.

      • May 15, 2010 3:38

        These are the things you’ve said:

        “Voluntary altruism is a contradiction in terms. In fact altruism makes voluntariness impossible. ”

        “There’s no such a thing as “voluntary altruism!” It’s a floating abstraction, a contradiction in terms.”

        If you do not disagree with Dr. Diana, then are you willing to say now that those two comments above of yours are wrong?

        I have never said that all voluntary action is altruistic, the volunteerism debate is beside the point now. “Volunteerism” is a cultural evil, I have tried to explain this you, but since you find my explanations insufficient, all I can do is suggest you approach experts on Objectivism about this, or read the CapMag page on that topic.

        You said: “There’s no such a thing as “voluntary altruism!” It’s a floating abstraction, a contradiction in terms.”

        This is the main thing, whether or not Altruism can be done voluntarily. You claim that it cant be. I and Diana say yes, this is what I want to clear up.

      • May 15, 2010 3:38

        No one is saying you said “Voluntary Altruism” is moral. Because you didn’t. What you said is “There’s no such a thing as “voluntary altruism!”. That’s where the problem lies, I and Diana know that Altruism can be done voluntarily, while you said that it cant. That is my issue.

      • May 15, 2010 3:38

        I still stick to my statement that there’s no such a thing as “voluntary altruism”, but it doesn’t mean that it cannot be done voluntarily. Why not simply say- ALTRUISM. That’s why I said in our FB discussion:

        “If you VOLUNTEER to serve others and make it your duty, then that’s immoral, as it is tantamount to altruism. But if you volunteer to give part of your income or wealth and such an act is no sacrifice on your part, then that’s not immoral.” (I put emphasis on the word volunteer). I fully know that altruism does not put you under hypnosis that you won’t be able to know whether you’re acting on something or not. Besides, I don’t know why your first salvo was “Voluntary Altruism is still Immoral” when NOBODY said it was moral.

      • May 15, 2010 3:38

        HERE’S MY FULL STATEMENT BY THE WAY:

        “Voluntary simply means “done, given, or acting of one’s own free will.” So it means that “voluntary” per se does not make your action moral or immoral. It depends upon one’s acting of his/her own free will. And Ayn Rand defined “free will” as “your mind’s freedom to think or not, the only will you have, your only freedom, the choice that controls all the choices you make and determines your life and your character.”
        If you volunteer to serve others and make it your duty, then that’s immoral, as it is tantamount to altruism. But if you volunteer to give part of your income or wealth and such an act is no sacrifice on your part, then that’s not immoral. It’s an act of charity or kindness. If you volunteer to support your own candidate because you believe in his political platform and economy policy, you’re acting on your self-interest because you would like to live in a society that represents your political aspirations.”

        So where’s that part where I said altruism can’t be done voluntarily? ALSO, Ms. Diana doesn’t know the whole facts of our discussion…

      • May 15, 2010 3:38

        “So where’s that part where I said altruism can’t be done voluntarily?”

        Here:

        “Like I said, Joshua, there is no such thing as “voluntary altruism.” It is a contradiction in terms. In fact they are opposites. Altruism imposes a duty; it removes the concept of voluntariness.”

        “In fact altruism makes voluntariness impossible. Altruism imposes a duty, while voluntariness is based on one’s personal choice to do a particular act or carryout a particular task.”

        This last quote above in particular makes it clear that you didn’t think it can be voluntary. Again one can choose to carry out a particular task that is against one’s own interest, that is voluntary Altruism.

        Your saying now: “I still stick to my statement that there’s no such a thing as “voluntary altruism”, but it doesn’t mean that it cannot be done voluntarily. ”

        Would you care to clear up the quote above? I’m afraid it confuses me.

      • May 15, 2010 3:38

        I will stick to it.

  5. Just Tish permalink
    May 10, 2010 3:38

    Nope, not changing my mind. =) Still voting for Noynoy Aquino. Like you, I also have extensively and intensively researched (and I could bet that I researched more than most people). I have convinced a lot of undecided people to vote for Noynoy as well. I think we all have to do our share in sharing what or who we believe in.

    And…this is still subjective. =)

  6. Dubyama permalink
    May 10, 2010 3:38

    https://i0.wp.com/www.banterist.com/archivefiles/images/rubber%20monkey.jpg

    ADMIN: The commenter is a libertarian monkey. Removed for being inappropriate. Libtards/ancaps are not allowed to view my site! Libtard members of the hippyish Filipinos for Ron Paul group are not allowed here!

  7. John Christian Canda permalink
    May 13, 2010 3:38

    I hope we’ll have a Filipino Pat Buchanan.

Trackbacks

  1. Tweets that mention SEN. RICHARD GORDON FOR PRESIDENT! « THE VINCENTON POST -- Topsy.com

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: