Pls. look into this,
@elonmusk. Highly disturbing for us Filipinos mourning
@charliekirk11's murder.
The Origin
Tony DelaRosa (@tonyrosaspeaks) first wrote the provocative post:
“Some of you Filipinos absolutely would’ve tried to stop Lapu Lapu from killing Ferdinand Magellan. Y’all don’t deserve his calves.”
(Inspired by Terisa Siagatonu)
His caption connected it to Filipino Christians mourning Charlie Kirk, accusing them - us - of siding with “oppressors” like Magellan while ignoring bigger global injustices (Gaza, Congo, etc.)
2. The Amplification
Lea Salonga then reposted Tony’s words in her IG stories (screenshot you shared shows it).
By doing so, she wasn’t just quoting a Filipino-American educator—she lent her celebrity voice & credibility to the insult.
Lea is Lea, we all love her but reposting it gave Tony’s analogy a massive mainstream Filipino audience that otherwise might not have seen it.
3. The Insult / Harm
The problem: both Tony’s & Lea’s framing equate Filipino Christians mourning Kirk with siding against Lapu Lapu—essentially calling us traitors to the Filipino spirit of resistance.
Why insulting?
It mocks mourning itself. People are grieving Charlie Kirk’s death even if they admired him for his Christian stance, not his politics. To reduce that grief to “colonial mentality” is cruel.
It distorts history. The Lapu Lapu–Magellan analogy is forced & unfair. Filipinos mourning Kirk are not “stopping Lapu Lapu”; they’re expressing shared faith or possible shared political views, not colonial loyalty.
It red-tags by association. By implying that conservative-leaning Christians = colonizer-siding = traitor, it deepens division in Filipino identity, especially among those who hold Christian values close.
4. The Chain of Responsibility
Tony originated the analogy & the insult. Lea spread it to a much wider, more mainstream audience.
Together, this created a narrative where mourning Kirk = betrayal of Filipino heroism.
👉 So the connection is: Tony coined the insult, Lea amplified it, and both together turned it into a cultural attack against Filipinos expressing grief for someone they saw (rightly or wrongly) as a fellow Christian.
Red-tagging is dangerous. I had fought for that myself when we were redtagged as NPA sympathizers, supporters in our Alma Mater when some Alumni opposed the declaration of Martial Law in our province during Duterte's admin. We won & got the offender banned from our alumni association.
Redtagging can get one killed or locked up as political prisoners. We fought hard for that. This is, by no means, no different from Red-Tagging.
Red-tagging fellow Filipinos & Fil-Ams who mourn Charlie Kirk is dangerous because it weaponizes grief, turning a personal act of faith & mourning into a political crime. By labeling us as “traitors” to our own history, it breeds hostility within our communities, silences free expression, & paints ordinary Christians as enemies of the nation. This not only distorts history but also deepens division, making Filipinos targets of hate for simply honoring shared values of faith and life.
Charlie Kirk has been totally taken out of context by critics who cherry-picked his statements, spread half-truths, & amplified them into caricatures of hate. Much of the LGBTQ community’s animosity toward him stems from disinformation that painted him as purely bigoted, ignoring times he called for civil debate & stressed protecting religious freedoms. By reducing him to a distorted image, opponents fueled outrage rather than dialogue, turning him into a symbol of hate rather than a man whose views — whether agreed with or not — were often misrepresented.
Even more troubling, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) went as far as to blame Charlie Kirk’s murder on those who oppose stricter gun regulations, twisting the tragedy into a political weapon. Charlie's message was clear and simple: "We don't have to go to blows and bullets. "
Note this,
@grok .
@TPUSA #NotoRedTagging