Previous Post
Next Post


Rodrigo “Digong” Duterte isn’t wasting any time. The plainspoken law and order candidate was elected president of the Philippines a few weeks ago and even though he hasn’t yet been sworn in, he’s already addressing some of the island nation’s biggest problems. This weekend, he turned his attention to the country’s drug trafficking problem. And in an effort to make the Philippines great again, the former prosecutor is enlisting the help of everyday Filipinos. Well, those who are armed, anyway. He’s given the go-ahead to citizens aware of drug-related activity to enforce the law. “Please feel free to call us, the police, or do it yourself if you have the gun, you have my support.” . . .

And if the bad doods don’t comply, the pugnacious Pinoy is down with taking things to the next level.

If a drug dealer resists arrest or refuses to be brought to a police station and threatens a citizen with a gun or a knife, “you can kill him,” Duterte said. “Shoot him and I’ll give you a medal.”

Empowering citizens to off drug dealers apparently stems from Duterte’s suspicion that the criminal justice system is riddled with corruption.

He also said he would order a review of dismissed criminal cases against active law enforcement officers because he suspects that some might have bribed their way back onto the force after getting busted for criminal involvement or drugs.

“If you’re still into drugs, I will kill you,” Duterte said. “Don’t take this as a joke. I’m not trying to make you laugh, son of a bitch. I will really kill you.”

Maybe it’s time to try something like this in Chiraq.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. The drug trade is running from north to south in the Philippines. If he doesn’t grab control now it will end up like Mexico. Remember that Singapore was able to rid themselves of this disease but it requires regular hangings. I wish him the best.

    • Except Singapore has 23/100 the land area spread over 1000 odd islands and 1/20 the population of the Philippines so the same approach isn’t likely to work.

    • Yeah… Tell more more about how the original committees of vigilance didn’t bring law and order to an entire section of the US.

    • “and threatens a citizen with a gun or a knife, “you can kill him,” ”
      That’s what you call vigilantism?

    • When the legitimate authorities are unable or unwilling to deal with the problem, there is not really an alternative.

    • Is it vigilantism if the .gov tells you to go and do it. Sounds more like a militia that’s .gov sanctioned.

      • This guy doesn’t have an authority to speak for the government on this matter. Separation of powers, due process and all that boring stuff that makes republic a republic.

      • Vigilantism works. Just like the possess that used to be used regularily during the old West 1800’s area. The problem is that these groups usually start out meaning well, but they tend to go to far.

  2. The problem is that it is illegal. That’s the cause of the problems.

    One can purchase drugs anywhere on earth (I would wager even Antarctica). The penalty is merely reflected in the tax. There’s drugs all over places where they kill you for any drug trafficking.

    • Right… Because having a slew of stung out homeless drug addicts roaming the streets will cause absolutely no problems… [/sarc]

      • So, if you could buy heroin or cocaine at the pharmacy, or the Sears catalog (which one could do incidentally) you would instantly become a strung out fiend, eh? I can assume that you’re a raging alky, since that’s available legally anywhere, no?

        We have the same basic addiction rates now, as we did back when it was all legal (and pharma pure, and inexpensive), The cost is what puts people on the streets, there’s millions hooked on prescription opiods right now. They get up, go to work, and nobody knows. Because they’re cheap, and legal, and pharma pure.

        Want to help people? Spend the money on treatment for those who want it.

        • Given the difference in addiction rates between those drugs? Yes.

          Cocaine is a great example. It is directly linked to massive addiction and psychotic episodes.

        • And yet, millions of people use cocaine and heroin recreationally (the overwhelming majority) and don’t get addicted. They may spend a bunch of money, but they don’t turn into addicts.

          I’m not advocating drug use, but the policy we have now doesn’t stop anyone who wants drugs from getting them. Anywhere, anytime. One can readily get drugs in prison. I realize there’s tens of thousands of bureaucrats reliant on the ‘war on drugs’ for their fat paychecks and easy jobs. Other than the employment program, prohibition is a quixotic task.

        • It just means we need to step up enforcement. Summary execution by impalement for drug dealers and addicts seems like a good start.

        • Hey since we’re playing this game, let’s just go with summary execution of drug warriors. This way we won’t have to hear their high-horse preaching any more.

        • “We have the same basic addiction rates now, as we did back when it was all legal ”

          Horsehit. Go peddle your lies and your drug use somewhere else.

        • As usual, the drug warrior ignores facts and data and relies on hyperbole, emotion and shrieking like a woman.

      • just means we need to step up enforcement. Summary execution by impalement for drug dealers and addicts seems like a good start.
        You sound like a died in the blue liberal. Our policies didn’t work. We should double down on them. IMHO, you’re a fucking idiot.

        • He already stated repeatedly that he’s a sincere Trump supporter, so you’re being redundant.

    • I’m married to a filipina and I can tell you everybody in the PI has a nickname and some of them seem very odd to anglo’s. How about Ketchup, Cherry Pie, Bongbong, Boomboom, Bebot, Bhoy and yes, even Dingdong.

      • +1
        Also, sometimes their actual given names sound just as ridiculous to anglos (e.g. Cherry)

      • I’m soon to be married to a Filipina and… yep, pretty much.

        Depending on the area, a lot of the time the nickname is just the first syllable repeated (Jakjak, Matmat), but not always. But, yeah, I only have met a handful who didn’t have a nickname.

      • We had a friend whose nickname was Dingdong. We met his daughter called Dingdang. At first we laughed thinking that it was a joke. It wasn’t.

  3. I don’t know how that’ll work out for them, but you can’t say that it didn’t get my attention 🙂


    • It will be an interesting thing to watch to see the outcome over time. People keep saying that criminals are less likely to do something illegal when the risk is too great. Hope this guy proves those words true.

      • Darwinian principles as usual will prevail. Some will adapt by getting out of the business. The ‘weaker’ ones will perish. The ‘fittest’ will continue. These are stronger, smarter, meaner, more well organized and have nothing to lose or no fear of death.

  4. He’s promised to pay cash bounties for dead drug dealers. It will be a matter of weeks after he takes office before people are making a cottage-industry of shooting people, planting drugs/guns on them, and cashing in. In short, he will be trading one problem for an arguably worse one – Fighting corruption by morally corrupting everyone.

    • That’s up to the morals of individuals. You can’t predict what people will do, but when faced with drug problems that threaten to destabilize another nation, a nation where the justice system is seemingly corrupted, the response has to be extreme.

      If people didn’t use this to kill people they didn’t like and make it look okay by putting drugs on them, using it solely to deal with drug dealers, what would you say then?

    • So someone would seek out a drug dealer, buy drugs, find and kill an innocent person to plant the drugs, then collect a bounty? If you have legitimate bounty target right in front of you why would you pay him then go find and murder an innocent third party? Seems like a really bad business plan.

      • What about the drug dealers who have a great line on whatever product they want that just start murdering people, leaving a small plant, and cashing in on bounties? Whoops!

        Chances are the people more inclined to actually listen to this are scared rural folks and up and coming drug deals. The latter leads to interesting motives of government funding gang on gang violence that could either be on one end a terrible Al Pacino style show of Darwinism or on the other you might end up with the drug dealers being killed off by each other with the rest knocked off by police.

        • That’s stupid. Why would they do that when they can just sell the drugs? I doubt the bounties are worthwile to a dealer.

  5. Maybe he can run for mayor of Chicago next. Sorry it’s the next story down, just seems like the next logical move up for him.

    Wonder what his feelings are about ID thieves, I happen to know a name of one living there that thought using mine was a good idea, sending the USAA credit card issued in my name to his retired US Army, GS 11 Fort Lee housing office employee to use at a Sun Trust bank ATM, Hong Kong seems to have an interest in the lad also.

    • Last I checked, Chicago politics hasn’t declared open season on dealers.
      Nice try, though.

      • I wouldn’t be so sure about that. After the black lives matter protests with active policing way down and shootings and murders blowing away previous years…not that Rahm has come out and said please kill drug dealers and here is some money if you do…yet.

      • Always hope for the future. Then again they are pretty good about taking out each other. Shame they hit innocent people due to lack of marksmanship. Seems to be a lot of hit in the rump when you read the news stories.

  6. As someone with more of a Libertarian view on narcotics I can’t say I support what this guy is talking about but hey, it’s their country, they can do as they like.

    This is an interesting dovetail to the article yesterday asking if not getting involved was cowardice.

    • I think this will probably turn out bad for them, but extreme problems sometimes require extreme solutions. Big problem in the PI is called shabu, we call it meth. It isn’t like they’ve just got a bunch of potheads. By official estimates 10% of the population is using. Compare that to the US at about .5% to 1%. I’m a live and let live kinda guy, but meth is some bad sh!t and fuels a lot of crime, especially in a country with very high unemployment and rampant poverty.

      • I can see a lot of people getting away with cold-blooded murder with a policy like this.

        Some guy owes another guy money, so he grabs a couple bags of dope, kills his creditor and plants drugs on the body to get a payday. Now he’s making money and out of debt. Same for a jilted spouse finding their former lover with a new guy or gal or any other kind of day to day dumb crap that gets people killed.

        As I said, it’s their country they can do what they like, but our drug war hasn’t been a success. In fact it’s been an abject failure.

        We spend billions every year on interdiction, incarceration and the court system and what have we gotten for our troubles? A shredded Bill of Rights (Amendments 4,5,6 and 8 are pretty well dead and the 2nd is under daily attack), a militarized police force that can’t get the right address and shoots innocent people and pets, the second highest incarceration rate in the world, a black market that encourages violent behavior and all the while drugs get cheaper and more pure every year.

        In short, we’ve gained absolutely nothing and lost more than I care to think about. For what? To keep people from ingesting certain chemicals because “we” don’t think they should?

    • I actually think legalization is the answer to the drug war, but I believe bounties and private policing are a legitimate way for society to stop crime. There is a U.S. constitutional basis for it with letters of marque, for example. Private individual law enforcement has some huge advantages over government law enforcement. A private person has almost no way to bother another person just based on suspicion. If a private person shoots the wrong person, uses excessive force, or executes a family pet, they actually would go to jail.

  7. Digong’s idea is okay, but there has to be a financial incentive to shoot a drug dealer.

    Hey, I know. “Kill a drug dealer, keep his drugs.” That would work.

  8. This would be a great policy for chicago. All the gang bangers will eventually be dead or in jail anyways.

    • “…threatens a citizen with a gun or a knife, “you can kill him,”

      Re-read the definition of ‘vigilantism’ and get back to us, okay? Because last I check, self-defense is a basic human right.

  9. The level of support from the so-called PoTG for this proposal is highly disturbing.

    • Everything is relative. If you lived in a slum full of drugs and crime, had lost family members to the drug dealers, etc – it might be tempting to take one or more of the bad guys out. For me in my situation, or you in yours (I assume), no, it’s not a viable option. Violence is never the best option, but sometimes it’s the only one.

      • That the PoTG feels the need to participate in a government manufactured war is the disturbing part.

        That slum dwellers often murdered by police goes unmentioned. What’s the word on vigilante violence against cops?

    • Possession of drugs may not be a “crime,” but one illegal activity does invite the dregs associated with others. I wouldn’t draw down on some dude offering me coke on the sidewalk. The coke dealer’s friend who pulls a knife with the intention of borrowing my wallet is another matter.

  10. Best of luck to them. Hope it works for 2 reasons:

    1: People deserve to live free of scum like drug dealers, and the trouble they bring
    2: If it works, it’ll be a great example to throw in the faces of bleeding hearts who mewl “Vigilantism is outrageous, let the police deal with it!”

    • “People deserve to live free of scum like drug war fanatics, and the trouble they bring”

      There, FTFY.

      • Reading your responses is like watching a little chihuahua barking at the mailman. It has no hope of actually doing anything but the yipping is amusing to watch.

        • Yet you responded. So apparently it did do something. 🙂

          And speaking of doing absolutely nothing, how is that drug war going?

Comments are closed.