Here’s what African Americans have to lose if Trump is elected

Donald Trump went to a lily white Dimondale, Mich., (nearly 93 percent white) on Friday to lecture African Americans on why they should be voting for him:

To those hurting, I say: What do you have to lose by trying something new? I say it again, what do you have to lose? Look, what do you have to lose? You’re living in poverty, your schools are no good, you have no jobs. 58 percent of your youth is unemployed. What the hell do you have to lose? . . .

By contrast, the one thing every item in Hillary Clinton’s agenda has in common is that it takes jobs and opportunities from African American workers. Her support for open borders. Her fierce opposition to school choice. Her plan to massively raise taxes on small businesses. Her opposition to American energy. And her record of giving our jobs away to other countries.

Clinton, of course, is not for open borders nor for “giving our jobs away.”

He continued with his anti-immigrant spiel: “Hillary Clinton would rather provide a job to a refugee from overseas than to give that job to unemployed African American youth in cities like Detroit who have become refugees in their own country.”

Where to begin? The 58 percent figure has been debunked previously (the real number is too high but about one-third of what he claims). In July, the unemployment rate for all African Americans was 8.4 percent. So, contrary to Trump’s cockeyed view, more than 91 percent of African Americans looking for work do have jobs. Moreover, not all African Americans live in poverty or go to schools that “are no good.” This does not mean all liberal policies have worked or that policy innovations are not needed, but the real world bears only a slight resemblance to Trump’s dystopia. In making exaggerated and downright false accusations, Trump distracts from solid conservative arguments against liberal policies (e.g., opposition to school choice, Obamacare’s high marginal tax rate on the working poor) that do adversely impact African Americans.

The Clinton campaign put out a statement castigating Trump’s remarks: “Trump painting the entire community as living in poverty with no jobs continues to show he is completely out of touch with the African-American community.”

Trump doesn’t say, for example, if he’d be willing to spend more on worker training, education and other targeted programs that might address youth unemployment; he does, however, favor a tax plan that hugely benefits the rich. Until Friday, he hadn’t talked much about his plans to fight poverty and discrimination and we still don’t know what he would do, for example, to increase the success rate of African Americans in college or increase access to capital for African American entrepreneurs. In the past, he’s said he wants to eliminate the Education Department. Does that mean dispensing with Title I support for schools serving impoverished students? (African American children make up about 28 percent of Title I recipients.)

Let’s, however, return to the question he posed: What do African Americans have to lose by electing Trump? Let’s count the ways.

Trump has championed a strict law-and-order agenda that rejects the suggestion there are legitimate complaints in the African American community about policing. He is a lightning rod for racial animus and tension, falsely accusing cities with large African American populations to be crime havens. With Trump, we’d lack a president who had any conception that there is a problem with policing in minority communities or any desire to bring communities and police together.

This is someone who declines to speak at African American gatherings (e.g., the NAACP). He’s someone who just brought on to lead his campaign the former head of a website pandering to the alt-right — that means white supremacy. Only after prodding and a growing controversy did he figure out that he should denounce David Duke and the KKK. And, of course, this was a man heavily invested in birtherism, asserting the president was born in Africa, not in the United States. It’s ironic that in the very speech asking what minorities have to lose, he pits African Americans against immigrants. And let’s not forget his shout-out at a California rally: “Look at my African American.”

There is a reason Trump is getting in some polls 1 percent of the African American vote. (A number of African American and other minority employees of the Republican National Committee quit rather than work on his campaign, by the way.)

In addition, he may not realize it, but his Muslim ban, support for racial profiling and lies about Muslim Americans’ complicity in terrorism have a particular resonance with African Americans. A 2011 Pew study found: “Among the roughly one-in-five Muslim Americans whose parents also were born in the U.S., 59% are African Americans, including a sizable majority who have converted to Islam (69%). Overall, 13% of U.S. Muslims are African Americans whose parents were born in the United States.” So when Trump demonizes all Muslims, he’s demonizing many African Americans.

Aside from his repugnant rhetoric, Trump’s “solutions” for the country will make life harder for the poorest Americans, of which African Americans are a disproportionate share. In May, CNN reported:

The tariffs would cost the average household $2,200 a year, or 4% of their after-tax income, according to a new study from the non-profit National Foundation for American Policy conducted by David Tuerck, Paul Bachman and Frank Conte, all of Suffolk University. This is largely because imports under Trump’s policy would become more expensive, raising the price of competing American-made goods by 11%. That would effectively levy a consumption tax on purchases and cut into the incomes of shoppers.

“All of the benefits for producers would be extracted from consumers,” said Tuerck, who heads the economics department at Suffolk. “It’s using a blunt sword to do brain surgery. It would cost consumers an awful lot for rather small benefits for U.S. producers.”

Moreover, all voters, African Americans included, stand to lose with a president who fawns over dictators, demonstrates abject ignorance about our nuclear arsenal and undermines NATO. All Americans lose when the president declares he is going to order the military to commit war crimes or clamp down on a free press (banning reporters, threatening revision of labor laws). And all Americans lose when the president plans to add billions to the debt.

As a final note, at first glance it might seem odd for Trump to go to a nearly all-white community to declare how much he cares for African Americans. Well, it is doubtful that he or his advisers think they are going to do much better with African Americans than they are now. But, plainly, his divisiveness and association with racial bigots bother a lot of white voters. They view him as intolerant and hostile to nonwhite Americans. Many are embarrassed to support him for precisely this reason. This is Trump’s way of telling white voters, Look! I’m not so bad! I love African Americans!

In other words, in a campaign built around playing into the fears and resentments of whites, Trump is now trying to assure more sensitive voters that, hey, he’s not a racist after all. African Americans are props for him as he seeks to repair his rotten standing in the polls. It’s far from clear many Americans are going to fall for this.

♦ Jennifer Rubin writes the Right Turn blog for The Post, offering reported opinion from a conservative perspective.

Follow @JRubinBlogger

Nigeria at Rio: Patriotism in an empty stomach

President Muhammadu Buhari in a group photo with Vice President Yemi Osinbajo, Minister of Sports and Youth Development Solomon Dalung, President of Nigerian Olympic Committee Habu Gumel and some national athletes prior to the RIO 2016 Olympic Games. These athletes had to compete under stress of empty pockets; and often rely on athletes from other countries for basic expenses.

I have always emphasized the misapplication of the quote by a former United States president, John F. Kennedy, in his inaugural address, that Americans should ask not what their country could do for them, but ask what they could do for their country (January, 1961). This is because some failed leaders, especially in Africa, dwell on this phrase to manipulate citizens into love and service to their people without even providing them with basic necessities.

As a fact, President Kennedy was only energizing his populace by expressing the significance of patriotism and unyielding support for public service. He wasn’t preaching on how to love indolent leaders who terrorize their people, or how to fly our national flags without jobs, foods, roads, water, and worse, roof over our heads.

In Nigeria, supposedly Africa’s giant, instances of dedicated athletes representing their country in global tournaments without basic allowances are a tradition and no longer make the headlines. Athletes have been made to pay their travel expenses in some cases as their own contribution to a country that is giving them an opportunity to travel abroad to showcase themselves. What a travesty.

But the current 2016 Olympics Games is no exception. Nigerian sports authorities had issued a memo asking their Olympics athletes to source their travel expenses. To save face, the ministry quickly reversed their decision after the memo made it to the social media and stirred public condemnation.

A terrible event soon emerged from Atlanta, Georgia where Nigeria’s Olympic soccer team was grounded because the sports ministry had not paid for their trip. To save face again, the sports ministry reportedly arranged another flight for the contingents. Another embarrassment event in Brazil exposed how the soccer team captain, Mikel John Obi paid about $4,000 to save the team from missing their flight to Salvador. Players and officials were held up in Sao Paulo over hotel bills incurred by additional officials.

Yet the team persevered after an excruciating journey to Brazil, less than six hours before its opening game. They endured these adversities; didn’t show any fatigue from their travel ordeal before their opening game, beating Japan 5-4 Thursday night. Nigeria also emerged their group leader, beating Sweden 1-0, and lost 0 – 2 to Colombia to qualify for the quarter finals.

Just as things got better for this team, another distraction struck once again. The players threatened to boycott their subsequent games over unpaid allowances. They complained that they have not received their outstanding allowances from their pre-Olympic training camp in Atlanta, as well as bonuses due for their group stage matches. The team’s coach Samson Siasia backed his squad after they reportedly boycotted a training session ahead of their quarter-final with Denmark today.

Siasia confirmed that the squad had only received allowances for 11 days, despite participating in months of training in both Nigeria and Atlanta prior to the tournament, and indicated that he would back the players if they decided to boycott their forthcoming match.

Besides the soccer team, other athletes representing Nigeria also go through similar ordeal. Ordinarily, athletes with oversea careers are less affected because they are well-off. But athletes living in Nigeria had to compete under stress of empty pockets; and often rely on athletes from other countries for basic expenses. What a shame!

Flying the national flag: Amidst a thread of atrocities, some Nigerians and indeed the agents of the regime are busy camouflaging the abuse of their Olympic contingents with songs of patriotism and diversity of a nation.

Amidst these atrocities, some Nigerians and indeed the agents of the regime are busy camouflaging the abuse of their Olympic contingents with songs of patriotism and diversity of a nation. President Buhari, unconcerned about his battered athletes, applauded their patriotism and asked them to use the soccer team’s success over the Japanese as a source of inspiration for success. The President also vowed, prior to the game, that the Federal Government was fully committed to the contingents and would ensure that funds budgeted for the games would be released without delays. So where are the funds?

Let us call a spade a spade. Wearing national jerseys and flying the flags does not justify the love for ones country for these are the event routines. Currently, there are more than a thousand recruiters at the Olympics, scouting and signing up athletes from countries like Nigeria where sports persons have no future.

Are we yet to wonder why and how any good athlete in Nigeria ends up in Europe or America? These days they migrate to Asia and Middle East to seek better careers and more so, respect for their talents. As author and philosopher, Mark Twain, noted, “Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.” Regrettably, ordeal of these athletes are a proof that the Nigerian government do not deserve any loyalty from a population they horribly exploit. Poet, William Cowper was absolutely right, “No man can be a patriot on an empty stomach.”

♦ Author, Anthony Obi Ogbo, Ph.D. is the publisher of Houston-based International Guardian.

Aisha Buhari’s Embarrassing Grammatical Infelicities at USIP – Video

I am aware that this article won’t endear me to several of my thin-skinned Buhari/APC partisan readers who, interestingly, wildly acclaimed my past articles that pilloried former First Lady Patience Jonathan’s sidesplitting grammatical transgressions. But I am never one to shy away from embarking on what I’m convinced is a just and fair undertaking because of a fear of backlash from mawkish, hypersensitive crybabies.

In any case, in my Saturday column—and in my Facebook status updates—I have defended Wife of the President Aisha Buhari against Gov. Ayo Fayose’s brash and reckless calumny against her. In an ironic twist, it was her bid to give the lie to Fayose’s charge that she couldn’t visit the US without being arrested that caused her to come here and give a speech at the United States Institute of Peace (USIP) that is the subject of this column. Mrs. Aisha Buhari’s speech at the United States Institute of Peace didn’t rise to the level of former First Lady Patience Jonathan’s legendary contortion of English grammar, but it was inexcusably egregious nonetheless, not least because it was supposed to be the product of preparation and forethought.

In general, the speech was riotously incoherent, lacked lexical and semantic discipline, and was peppered with avoidably ugly and elementary grammatical infractions. Mrs. Buhari vacillated between reading from a prepared script and speaking off the cuff. But the prepared speech and Mrs. Buhari’s extemporizations were indistinguishable: both were tortured, infantile, error-ridden, and cringe-worthy. Winston Churchill’s famous putdown of his opponent—”He spoke without a note and almost without a point.”—seems to apply to the Wife of the President. (Watch the video below.)

- Aisha Buhari’s United States Outing - Appalling Speech delivered at George Mason University
- Watch Video

Below are highlights of the infelicities that stood out like a sore thumb during Mrs. Buhari’s 10-minute speech at the United States Institute of Peace in Washington, DC:

1. Subject-verb agreement. Like Patience Jonathan—and former President Goodluck Jonathan—Aisha Buhari doesn’t seem to have any respect for subject-verb concord rules in English grammar. These howlers illustrate this: “I want to…thank the international community for giving us a solutions…,” “those that needs to be…,” “the school have been running…,” “adult ones that needs the opportunity.”

Most people know that a singular subject (such as “the school”) agrees with a singular verb (such as “has”) and a plural subject (such as “those,” “adult ones”) agrees with a plural verb (such as “need” instead of “needs.”) That means the Wife of the President should have said, “those that need to be,” “the school has been running,” “adult ones that need the opportunity.”

Of course, “a solutions” is a self-evident bloomer: you don’t pluralize a noun that is preceded by the indefinite article “a” because “a” signals nominal singularity. In other words, “a solutions” is both ungrammatical and illogical since it implies nominal plurality and singularity simultaneously. It is either “solutions” or “a solution.”

2. Redundant pronoun. Pronouns typically take the place of a noun and save us the torment of ungainly repetition. That’s why, in Standard English, pronouns don’t typically appear in the same sentence as the nouns they refer to. In her USIP speech, Mrs. Buhari said the following: “As you are all aware, Boko Haram issue, it is a global issue attached to terrorism, which need [sic] to be addressed globally.” “Boko Haram issue” is the antecedent for the pronoun “it” in the sentence quoted above, which makes the pronoun superfluous since it appears in the same sentence as its antecedent.

“Boko Haram is a global issue…” would convey the same meaning—and without the ungrammatical baggage. I admit, though, that redundant pronouns of the kind I identified in Mrs. Buhari’s speech occur in nonstandard native English dialects. But we are talking of an official speech in a formal context in a foreign, English-speaking country.

The sentence also violates the basic principle of pronoun-antecedent agreement. The principle says, “A pronoun usually refers to something earlier in the text (its antecedent) and must agree in number — singular/plural — with the thing to which it refers.” The phrase “which need” refers to “Boko Haram issue,” which is a singular subject that needs a singular verb, i.e., “needs.”

3. A curious resultant “done.” During her speech, Mrs. Buhari praised the University of Maiduguri for remaining open even in the worst moments of Boko Haram insurgency. “The university really done us proud,” she said. This is a misuse of the past participle “done” that linguists call the “resultant done.” It is curious because it is typical of the informal, nonstandard (and sometimes illiterate) speech of the American south.

In Standard English, the sentence would be reworded as, “The university has done us proud.” If we want to be faithful to Mrs. Buhari’s lexical and structural choice, we would rephrase it as, “The university really did us proud.”

Roundtable...Aisha at the United States Institute of Peace. — Roundtable…Aisha at the United States Institute of Peace.

4. Buhari’s government as a “recent regime.” Mrs. Buhari puzzlingly referred to her husband’s administration as “the recent regime.” Here is the context: After thanking the “international community” for its military and financial support that led to the defeat of Boko Haram, in a rather awkward transition, the Wife of the President said, “In which the recent regime has done so far considering what we inherited—the level of insecurity in the country—we can now say that we successfully fought the Boko Haram insurgency.”

Apart from the weak, messy transition, that’s some really dizzyingly incoherent verbal blizzard! But the bigger issue is that she called the current administration “a recent regime.” There are two problems with that. First, the word “recent,” especially when it is applied to administrations, implies an immediate past, that is, that which precedes the present. It is both ungrammatical and illogical to speak of an incumbent administration as “recent.”

Second, there is always a tone of disapproval when a government is referred to as a “regime.” That is why the word is often reserved for military and other totalitarian governments. Even the Associated Press Stylebook defines “regime” as “the period in which a person or system was in power, often with a negative connotation. For example, Saddam Hussein’s regime, the Nazi regime.” I hope Mrs. Buhari doesn’t consider her husband as the honcho of a regime.

5. “Academicians.” Mrs. Buhari called university lecturers in the audience “academicians.” Well, it’s OK to refer to university teachers as “academicians” in Nigeria and in other non-native English-speaking countries, but it doesn’t hurt to learn the proper form when you address native speakers in their own territory. Educated native English speakers call university teachers “academics,” not “academicians.”

Here is an abridged version of what I wrote on this in my December 6, 2015 column titled, “Academician” Or “Academic”? Q and A on Nigerian English Errors and Usage”: [A]n ‘academic’ is someone who teaches or conducts research in a higher educational institution, typically in a university. In British and Nigerian English, academics are also called ‘lecturers.’ In American English, they are called ‘professors.’

“An ‘academician,’ on the other hand, is a person who works with or is honored with membership into an academy, that is, an institution devoted to the study and advancement of a specialized area of learning such as the arts, sciences, literature, medicine, music, engineering, etc. Examples of academies are the Nigerian Academy of Letters, the Royal Academy of Arts, the Royal Academy of Music, the Royal Academy of Engineering, the Royal Swedish Academy of Letters, History and Antiquities, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, etc.

“Not all academics are academicians and not all academicians are academics. In other words, you can teach in a university, polytechnic, college of education, etc. and never be made a member of an academy, and you can become a member of an academy without ever being a teacher or a researcher at a higher educational institution. Note that while most academicians are also academics, most academics are never academicians.

“A little note on pragmatics is in order here. Although many dictionaries have entries that say ‘academician’ and ‘academic’ can be synonymous, this isn’t really the case in actual usage, at least among educated native English speakers. It is considered illiterate usage in British and American English to call higher education teachers and researchers ‘academicians’; they are properly called ‘academics.’ Many dictionaries merely capture the entire range of a word’s usage without discriminating socially prestigious usage from uneducated or archaic usage.”

Concluding Thoughts

Mrs. Buhari obviously needs a lot more help than she is aware of and is getting. She is grossly ill-served by her speech writer, who also probably manages her social media accounts. The recent grammatical bloopers from her Facebook page (which were quickly cleaned up after she became the object of ridicule on social media) could be an indication that her speech writer is also her social media manager.

Given how much she is thrusting herself into the public eye, her poor grasp of English grammar will soon become grist to the humor mills—like it was for Patience Jonathan. She can avoid this by doing the following: (1) recede to her quiet, unobtrusive self, (2) bone up on basic English grammar, (3) surround herself with people who give a thought to grammatical correctness and completeness, or (4) speak in Fulfulde or Hausa and get an English translator.

Postscript:

Mrs. Aisha Buhari spoke at George Mason University, Washington, DC, not at the USIP. It’s “sore thumb,” not “sore thump.”

♦ Dr. Farooq Kperogi is a professor, journalist, newspaper columnist, author, and blogger based in Greater Atlanta, USA. Contact: farooqkperogi@gmail.com

Opinion – Hillary Should Hire Chris Rock as a Spokesman

The 2016 Republican and Democratic conventions now belong to the history books. The two major party nominees, Donald Trump and Hillary

Clinton have made their respective cases to the American people. Overall, it can be easy to dismiss Trump’s candidacy as a quixotic adventure. But it is equally impolitic to predict the eventual outcome in a bizarre electoral season like this. By contrast, Clinton is generally a good presidential material. She is knowledgeable, experienced, measured, serious, and comports herself like someone aspiring to lead the free world.

But Mrs. Clinton may lose the election after all. This predicament is not because of her gender or lack of efforts. It is not because of the common rap of untrustworthiness or lack of vision. The problem is that the history has placed Madam Secretary in a paradoxical profile whereby her greatest attributes have turned out to be her worst undoing. The point is that the former First Lady has become too presidential to resonate with the ordinary people, particularly the millennials and white men without college education.

In tireless efforts to provide a detailed solution to America’s myriad of problems, Clinton’s core message is often lost among voters because of two fundamental dilemmas:

First, unlike Trump, Clinton’s communication style, though traditional, portrays her as someone who has lost touch with the times. She has failed to adjust to the reality that these millennials and very noncollege-educated white men resent in-depth analysis of issues. Their typical attention span is warped to grasp thoughts in plain talk or messages written in 140 characters or less. Thus, even as Clinton’s campaign website is loaded with good ideas, any hope that these two key voting groups will dedicate time to download the message into their cell phones is akin to forcing a horse to drink water.

Yet, while his oratory skills can never be equated to that of President Barack Obama, Trump is definitely an effective communicator. The real estate mogul has been able to influence voters by carving simple and short speeches that tap into the visceral anger of the last decade occasioned by job flights, terrorism, and various post-9/11 exigencies.

Right or wrong, Trump has masterly stoked a view of America as a nation not only in decline but also in crisis. Today, his slogan of “Make America Great Again” is as captivating as presenting himself as the “Law and Order Candidate.” Like or hate him, unlike Mrs. Clinton, even without any specifics, Trump has been plainspoken on what he says his campaign is about.

Perhaps, we get Hillary’s theme of “Stronger Together”; the implication is enduring. But don’t expect the millennials to also get it. They prefer clear and simple slogans that seem to address their immediate concerns. Besides, togetherness or mere unity has never been a sole panacea to effective leadership, particularly in the American democracy highly esteemed for its competitive party politics.

The second dilemma is that Hillary Clinton lacks in charisma but facing an engrossing showman. Even non voters are glued into the Trump mania—not for any vision for America but for the entertainment value. The nature of his next eccentric gesture is a huge draw. This explains why the Republican nominee, a candidate who wears bêtise like a badge of honor, could draw 4 million more viewers than Clinton during their acceptance speeches. Yet, he continues to trail the democratic opponent in most post-convention polls.

But this apparent failure to elicit enthusiasm does not bode well for the Clinton’s candidacy moving forward. With about three months to go before the election, she can no longer afford the habit of assembling pockets of folks in antique parlors while Trump fills the arenas. The first major party woman nominee direly needs to start attracting larger audiences to deepen her message. While the Republican flag bearer is definitely not electable in his present condition, it is a huge gamble to write him off entirely. The American electorate is very forgiving. Any therapeutic mix of apology from Mr. Trump for his long history of incendiary rhetoric and a sensible pivot to the issues can become a game-changer in an electoral cycle where a vast majority of voters craves change. Moreover, boring campaigns hardly win the White House.

The Democratic nominee can inject the desired gusto by embracing the pop culture to the fullest. But one can still tame the pig without getting into a brawl. A ready game plan, therefore, is to hire a stand-up spokesperson who can match Donald Trump not only in rock-star status but also in simplicity as well as wackiness. A perfect fit is Chris Rock, a trash-talking comedian and actor, who is famous for crafting exciting one-liners. His main assignment is to join every campaign event to translate Mrs. Clinton’s wonky presidential tenors into plain tunes. This cue sure sounds somehow, but that is how low the American politics has fallen.

♦ Dr. SKC Ogbonnia writes from Houston, TX. Contact: SKCOgbonnia@firsttexasenergy.com

Ena Ofugara Column: How Much Respect Do You Show Igbos?

Col. Odumegwu Ojukwu at Nigerian-Biafran peace talks in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia where the Emperor Haile Selassie is chairman of the committee Aug 5 1968. After this war in 1970, Awolowo/Gowon told the Nigerian banks to give twenty naira to any Igbo man that had money in the bank before the war. That is, if you had 5 naira before the war, you will be given the 5 naira. But if you had one million naira, you get just twenty naira in full fulfilment of the banks duty to give you your money. Ask yourselves, why would the banks give Igbos only twenty naira? Did the banks collapse? So why pay less than you were given? — Col. Odumegwu Ojukwu at Nigerian-Biafran peace talks in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia where the Emperor Haile Selassie is chairman of the committee Aug 5 1968.
After this war in 1970, Awolowo/Gowon told the Nigerian banks to give twenty naira to any Igbo man that had money in the bank before the war. That is, if you had 5 naira before the war, you will be given the 5 naira. But if you had one million naira, you get just twenty naira in full fulfilment of the banks duty to give you your money. Ask yourselves, why would the banks give Igbos only twenty naira? Did the banks collapse? So why pay less than you were given?

I am not Igbo. I am proud of my Urhobo. However, as a student of history, I wish to show just what these great people came/come against and

yet thrive. Okay, the incessant killings in the North will be glossed over so as to make this article not overly long. The civil war will also not be discussed.

However, post civil war, as I explained in my post MINORITY REPORT: THE SYSTEM IS RIGGED AGAINST YOU, the rich in Nigeria have major roots in the Indigenisation decree of 1972 and 1977. I reminded people how the banks gave people of other tribes, predominantly Hausas and Yorubas loans to buy up companies owned by foreigners. Now imagine the Federal government forced Chevron to sell 51 percent of its shares and that Access Bank will give you loans to buy the shares. How rich will you be in a year? 5 Years? That is how many Yorubas and Hausas got to own UAC, all those Dunlop, Leventis, Cadbury etc.

Now while this was ongoing, Awolowo/Gowon told the Nigerian banks to give twenty naira to any Igbo man that had money in the bank before the war. That is, if you had 5 naira before the war, you will be given the 5 naira. But if you had one million naira, you get just twenty naira in full fulfilment of the banks duty to give you your money.

Ask yourselves, why would the banks give Igbos only twenty naira? Did the banks collapse? So why pay less than you were given?

So while the banks were giving loans to Hausa and Yorubas to buy Oyibo companies they did not build, Igbos were being cheated out of their rightful moneys. Now note also that these people lost Houses and business across the land. It is safe to say that as at 1970/71, the richest Igbo had 20 naira that may be the equivalent of maybe one million naira.

Let us look at how Dangote made his money. He Dagote (a great man and pride to Nigeria) had an uncle called Dantata who owned huge chunks of the groundnut pyramids of the 50’s and 60’s. He gave Dangote a loan and Dangote paid it back in a record time – perfect. Then add that Dangote has had his “brothers” in government, from Shagari, Buhari, IBB, Abacha, Abdulsalami to Yar’Adua. When they now agreed to democracy, he was rich enough to have funded Obasanjo and so government policies, be it monopoly afforded him for rice, sugar flour and of course a large share of subsidy etc ensures he is the wealthiest Nigerian. Note that many had same opportunity but did not use it. We kowtow to Dangote’s investment capabilities.

Ask yourselves, why would the banks give Igbos only twenty naira? Did the banks collapse? So why pay less than you were given?

However, for the Igbo man, where will he see an uncle that will loan him money? The richest man in their family has how much as at then? So while Fani Kayode can inherit property of his father and grandfather and great grand father, a Chidi Kalu cannot inherit anything from his grandfather who had business in Kano or even Port Harcourt. Neighbours have made his dad’s storey building theirs, and even someone as educated as Ken Saro-Wiwa lived in an Igbo war emigrant house as his. (A sore point of the Niger Delta and Igbo Unity). WAEC building was Ojukwu’s dad’s building and like that building, thousands and the lands with it….lands worth billions today were taken from Igbos and each and every Igbo had tops 20 naira, destroyed homeland, stolen and destroyed wealth away from the East. Also his brother is never president that will give him oil block or fuel lifting. Out of 33, only one Igbo man and because he was in Obasanjo’s good graces.

YET LOOK HOW PROUD THEY STAND TODAY!!! Look what they have achieved for themselves….FIRST GENERATION WEALTH…top second generation. From being unable to send their first sons to school so he could help look after the shop, to producing first class brains in all departments of modern learning.

So today, as you accuse Igbos of wanting their Biafra or of Baby Factory, or liking money and ready to do anything for money, remember that just forty years ago, while the banks were dashing your uncles loans to buy all the companies of Nigeria, it stole from the Igbos. Know that appointments have not favoured them. Note that they remain persecuted and many speak such ill and hate towards a people forced by need to survive to be extra-aggressive towards their sustenance. Maybe if you took their history into consideration, you will not be so critical of them, but instead say “what a resilient people”

♦ Ena Ofugara writes from Washington, District of Columbia

Aisha Buhari’s Fraud Case – Governor Ayo Fayose was Absolutely Right

There were jubilations last week among Nigerians loyal to the Buhari regime. Initially, one would have ascribed their joy to possibly, a miraculous

By Dr. Anthony Obi Ogbo — By Anthony Obi Ogbo

turnaround of the country’s current economic predicament; or a solution to severe food crisis that is claiming lives in the North; but none of those happened. Allies of the regime were actually celebrating the First Lady, Aisha Buhari for successfully visiting the United States of America, amidst speculations of her arrest over a high profile fraud case she was listed as an accomplice.

For clarity, Mrs. Buhari’s involvement in the money laundering case involving a former United States congressman, William J. Jefferson has never been in doubt. Jefferson was sentenced to 13 years in prison 2009 for accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes in a case that also involved a former Nigerian vice president Atiku Abubakar and the wife, Jennifer Douglas Abubakar. Documents from the United States Justice Department clearly revealed that Aisha Buhari was used as conduit and engaged in fraudulent wire transfers from her Nigerian account in favor of Congressman Jefferson via the ANJ Group LLC. (See complete Government’s Sentencing Memorandum).

So why would a case that has irrefutably been in the public domain since 2009 reemerge with such distracting controversy? In a heated political exchange late June, the Ekiti State Governor, Ayo Fayose had questioned Mrs. Buhari’s integrity, citing her involvement in the Jefferson’s fraud, and challenging her to travel to the United States as a proof of innocence. Fayose was right in his challenge for several reasons; Mrs. Buhari and others listed as witnesses in the case had avoided the United States for fear of prosecution. For instance, Atiku Abubakar and his wife were subpoenaed by a federal court in Virginia, but a district judge declined to request the U.S. government to invoke an accord with Nigeria to facilitate the process. Mrs. Buhar’s possible indictment in the scam was thus left pending.

Aish_2 — Fayose (left), Mrs. Buhari…. Documents from the United States Justice Department clearly revealed that Aisha Buhari was used as conduit and engaged in fraudulent wire transfers from her Nigerian account in favor of Congressman Jefferson via the ANJ Group LLC.

This was why Mrs. Buhari had avoided the United States and in fact, declined all formal invitations for major events with flimsy excuses. She had cancelled her scheduled trip for the World First Ladies’ Conference in Colorado; she equally skipped a similar U.S. invitations August 2015, when she was scheduled to lead four other First Ladies; from Ghana, Mozambique, Gambia and Rwanda to Houston for a conference about African women in leadership.

Fayose’s challenge embarrassed the regime and raised a credibility question that contradicted Buhari’s wobbly campaign against fraud. To save face, the regime embarked on an image-cleaning scheme of the First lady, and invoked counter measures against the Governor. In this process, Mrs. Buhari through the regime had instigated a media campaign, claiming it was a different “Aisha Buhari” that was mentioned in the case; then she turned around and filed a defamation lawsuit against the Governor.

To further clear the grounds for a U.S. visit of the First Lady, the regime engaged pricey government lobbyists and legal advisors to explore Aisha’s foreign immunity options under Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). FSIA –defines the jurisdiction of United States courts in suits against foreign states – where a foreign state generally is immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of another sovereign state.

The truth however, is that all Nigerian witnesses and accomplices, including Mrs. Buhari did not corporate with investigations and court orders then, leaving the case wide open for further action. Mrs. Buhari finally visited the United States because the regime found out she was not going to be arrested. To add to the drama, she had falsely announced that the reason for her visit was to hold discussions with aid organizations on how to help the women and children facing starvation in the north eastern part of Nigeria. Critics differ and took to the social media, lampooning her for lavishing millions of Dollars to paint the wrong image of the high profile fraud case she was involved in.

Aisha Buhari’s visit to the U.S. not a proof of innocence – State Department Sources

Furthermore, it must be noted that Buhari backed off from an acceptance by the U.S. to assist Nigeria in locating and returning funds stolen by corrupt government officials. This was because core members of his administration, allies, past Nigeria leaders, and also his own wife could be indicted if the United States would proceed.

As a top official of the States Department noted, Aisha’s visit is neither “a guilty verdict nor a proof of innocence. The simple fact is that her case is open, and she has not yet been indicted for specific reasons, so she’s entitled to visit.” Therefore, the Governor was absolutely right – Aisha has a case to answer in the United States and indictment is a matter of time, the law, and the scope of diplomatic immunity.

♦ Anthony Ogbo, Ph.D. is the Publisher of Houston, TX – based International Guardian

Give Hillary Clinton this, she’s a woman with true grit

If I wore a hat on this huge Hillary-loathing head of mine, here’s what I’d do.

I’d tip my hat to Hillary Rodham Clinton and say these words:

“Mrs. Clinton, you have True Grit.”

Of course she’s intelligent, supremely patient, calculating, nobody’s fool. But she doesn’t quit, and it’s the grit that got her here, and because of it, she is the first woman to be nominated for president by a major party.

Hillary Clinton has made history. So acknowledge it and take a moment to think of all the women who’ve dreamed that someday this would happen, all the women born in a time when “it’s a man’s world” was a given in America.

And because of her determination, a woman can stand in Philadelphia and accept the nomination for the most powerful office in the world.

No, hell hasn’t frozen over. I know who Hillary Clinton is and what she’s done, and what she is capable of doing if she gets her hands on the Supreme Court and the presidency.

But today is her day, and I’ll leave that other stuff for another time.

Don’t worry. I haven’t gone mad. Politicians create worlds in which their side is good and the other is pure evil, but I happen to know that politics is not some magical land of Narnia from those C.S. Lewis stories. So I won’t be sitting in Hillary’s lap to be fed Turkish delights.

Establishment Republicans are a different story. Many are eager to sit in her lap. She’s their war hawk now and she’s their protection against anti-establishment Republican Donald Trump.

Conservatives won’t curry her favor; neither will the committed Bernie Bros or those blue-collar workers who were marginalized by the Obama party and pitied by the president as bitter clingers holding fast to their guns and Christianity.

But open your eyes. All I’m suggesting is that if you adore her for her gender alone or loathe her for her history with the truth, step outside your own tribal politics and behold the woman.

She’s remarkable.

Given what she’s gone through over the years, what she’s endured, what she suffered, a tip of the hat isn’t only expected, it’s required, and today it is offered with admiration.

Hillary Clinton is no longer the young mom with the headband, laughing about the “buy one, get one free” presidency of her husband. She’s older now, much older, and the scars of her life with him show in that hard smile of hers.

She’s earned that smile, hasn’t she?

The Goldwater Girl from Park Ridge made choices and set goals.

Ambition compelled her, and she was strengthened by challenges and betrayal, by her own sins. And now she’s on the cusp of the presidency.

So why not acknowledge this amazing woman and look for what’s best in her?

At least see the courage there. See what inspires adoration in her fans and fear in her enemies.

It all starts with Hillary grit.

As a newlywed, she kept her own name, and then was forced to take Bill Clinton’s name to help him regain the governorship of Arkansas.

She made that deal with the slinky devil who once shared her bed, and it caused her humiliation, but that was the price for the chance to stand in Philadelphia years later.

Many women wouldn’t have made that deal with Bill Clinton. Many women would have called a divorce lawyer and kept their honor.

Some women would have thought about taking a bat or a ball peen hammer into the bedroom some night, to wait for the snoring to begin.

And not many would put together a Bimbo Eruption Squad to snuff out Bill’s many sexcapades and keep his path to power clear.

But Hillary did.

She didn’t walk away because she had a plan. And she was disciplined enough to stick to that plan. She wanted something big out of the political life. And she’s paid for it.

That grit showed again just when she was to accept her due in the 2008 presidential campaign and take the party’s nomination. She was once again humiliated.

There was that new kid, the pretty and callow backbencher from the Illinois legislature who became king of the world.

Barack Obama didn’t know much, he was woefully inexperienced, but he played the role written for him, that of political messiah, of a young knight drawing the sword from the stone. The media bought it.

And in the 2008 Democratic primaries, Team Obama played the race card and broke her down.

Imagine the anger in her and the shame that she didn’t foresee it and stop it. She’d played the gender card. He played the race card. Democratic Party politics are identity politics, and she lost.

But she wasn’t defeated, and then President Obama wisely decided to keep her close. He offered her the post of secretary of state.

It was as if he held out his hand for her to kiss. It must have been difficult to take that hand, but she took it and swore fealty, and why?

She knew what she wanted. That takes true grit. And she’s got it. And now she’s the Democratic nominee for president of the United States.

♦ Culled from the Chicago Tribune. Contact John Kass: jskass@chicagotribune.com (Twitter @John_Kass)

Mobsters in the Upper House: The Shame of Dino Melaye and Oluremi Tinu

THE adage that one can take the man out of the slum, but cannot take the slum out of the man may sound derogatory, but basically denotes the role behavior plays in the living standards. Good character and governance are inseparable as fundamental hallmarks of performance effectiveness. Behavior might essentially outline how public servants engage themselves, their people, and their responsibilities to better serve their constituents. Thus, to the public servant, integrity as the seal of the moral intellect remains a vital trait in sustaining organizational success. Unfortunately and most ironically, these values of moral maturity have been totally ignored in the very public service cultures where they are most needed.

Recently in the Nigerian Senate, the activities of public affairs have been drenched in a bitter feud between two supposedly honorable members of the All Progressive Congress, Senators Oluremi Tinubu, (Lagos Central) and Dino Melaye (Kogi West). In the past weeks, both lawmakers have fought tangibly in the most violent manner, and at some point engaged in verbal cruelty of each other. They further took their bouts to the streets among hired tugs and rented hungry protesters; and to make it worse, engaged various media houses in their conflicts.

It is shameful that the Senate is engulfed in such brawl in a country currently sliding into economic disaster. Just last week, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) signaled a warning about Nigeria’s path to economic recession. Inflation has hit an 11-year high of 16.5 percent in June with the prices of food and energy jumping off the roof. The international humanitarian organization Action Against Hunger has requested an immediate intervention of activities in parts of the country where intense terrorism conflicts have left refugees totally cut off from humanitarian assistance. In fact, the Nigerian Government has called for nutrition emergency, prompting the United Nations and aid agencies to propose rapid needs assessments to reach families suffering without shelter, food, water, or emergency health and nutrition assistance.

OPINION POLL>> Nigeria: In general, how would you rate President Buhari’s regime so far? VOTE HERE >>>>

Yet Tinubu and Melaye had spent the past weeks fighting one another with disgraceful allegations, and fabricating contemptible lies to undo each other. For instance, Tinubu, had written the acting Inspector-General of Police, Mr. Ibrahim Idris, and seeking protection from Melaye. She had equally petitioned Senate President, Dr Bukola Saraki and Chairman of All Progressives Congress, APC, Chief John Odigie-Oyegun, demanding sanctions against Melaye for threats and harassment.

Melaye took to the media, accusing Tinubu, of paying women activists to protest against him. There was actually a protest. Some women in Lagos, Tinubu’s home state, had taken to the streets to protest what they called a “verbal attack on Senator Remi Tinubu” by Melaye. Malaye however responded in a social media posting, writing in part, “Women were killed in Kano and Abuja and Mrs. Tinubu is the chairman, Senate Committee on Women Affairs. She did not organise protest over these killings. Mrs. Tinubu has not protested against the skyrocketed price of tomatoes in the market. In the same vein, kerosene is now over N200 per litre and she didn’t organized any protest to that effect. “Instead, she has taken advantage of the prevailing poverty in the land to hire hungry women in the land to partake in an unproductive protest against Dino Melaye,”

These horrible events underscore the caliber of leaders that represents some constituencies in Nigeria. Both Tinubu and Melaye are not new to controversies. About four months ago, an anti-corruption coalition group, The Civil Society Network Against Corruption (CSNAC) called on the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to probe Senator Melaye, citing a flamboyant lifestyle apparently sustained with public funds.

Senator Oluremi Tinubu on her own part is not as angelic as she might look. Besides being the wife of a former Lagos State governor prior to her current position, Tinubu has no concrete public service record; yet she has remained an embarrassment in the Upper House; displaying an extended cord of gutter attitudes. She has made her case as an undomesticated bully.

Melaye had initially presented himself as an anti-graft campaigner whereas his lifestyle and activities of the public reflects the opposite. He might also be familiar with issues of women abuse. For example, Melaye’s ex-wife of 10 years, Tokunbo was said to have filed for divorce with shocking claims that he beat her up and pointed a gun to her head.

Senator Oluremi Tinubu on her own part is not as angelic as she might look. Besides being the wife of a former Lagos State governor, she has no concrete public service record; yet she has remained an embarrassment in the Upper House; displaying an extended cord of gutter attitudes. She has made her case as an undomesticated bully. For instance, her character toward honorable colleagues she does not agree with illustrates her gangster demeanor – a combination of street arrogance and primitivism. In June 2015, Tinubu made the headlines when she snubbed an official greeting of the newly emerged Senate President, Mr. Saraki during the swearing in of some lawmakers. November 2015, Tinubu again made the headlines when she sat on the seat reserved for deputy senate president, Ike Ekweremadu in a legislative session. She created this ugly scene, and as usual kept media outlets busy with her stupidity.

The Senate is not flea market; it is not an amusement park either. It is a legislative chamber of the parliament accorded with very critical duties and responsibilities of the government. In a country currently on the verge of economic recession borne out of a derail in the political system supervision, the least anybody would expect from lawmakers would be about members brawling over issues that are absolutely unrelated to the affairs of the government. As stated earlier, trawling out a man out of a gutter is one thing, but taking the gutter out of the man remains a near mission impossible. There are many Tinubus and Melayes elected or appointed into the Nigeria’s public service system, and the masses, as usual, would continue to suffer the consequences.

■ Dr. Ogbo, the author of Governance Buhari’s Way is the Publisher of Houston-based International Guardian.

Public Safety – Examining the Use of Force

By Ronald C. Ruecker, Director of Public Safety, City of Sherwood, Oregon

As police leaders, we are faced with a constant array of challenges that require our time and attention. Daily, we are confronted with competing demands and everchanging community expectations that require our attention and response. Successfully overcoming these challenges is a daunting task that requires us to do all we can to ensure that our officers and departments are properly trained, equipped, and prepared to protect the communities we serve.

Of all these tasks, there is little doubt that managing and dealing with the questions and problems surrounding the use of force by our officers is one of the most difficult issues that confronts law enforcement executives.

It is an unfortunate reality that law enforcement officers around the world are often required to resort to some form of force in order to enforce the law, protect the public, and guard their own safety as well as that of innocent bystanders. This is particularly true in the United States, where many areas are experiencing increases in violent crime and firearms are widely available for both legal and illegal purposes.

To gain an understanding of the dangerous environment in which our officers operate, one need look no further than the annual report of police officers killed and assaulted compiled by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). In the year 2006, 58,634 officers reported being assaulted in the performance of their official duties. Of these, 44 law enforcement officers were feloniously killed, and an additional 15,704 were wounded or injured. Tragically, these numbers are certain to rise in 2007.

Despite these daunting statistics, the public rightfully expects law enforcement officers to make a good decision each and every time they use force. This is a very difficult standard to meet, because decisions on use of force are made under exceedingly varied and often dangerous scenarios that require split-second decision making. Because of these facts, state and federal courts have recognized that police officers must be provided with the necessary knowledge and training to make such decisions. As a result, officers are trained to a standard of justification rather than a standard of necessity, because it would be impossible to write an all-inclusive statuteaddressing every possible circumstance requiring the use of force.

Our communities cry out, however, when a statutorily justified use of force is juxtaposed against the community’s expectation of necessity. They reasonably ask, was there another way that officers could have defused the situation? Was the use of force consistent with the level of threat confronting the officers?

In response to these questions, the law enforcement community has striven to minimize the use of deadly force by police officers over the years. As a profession, we have provided and trained our officers in the proper use of an ever-increasing array of lesslethal tools to resolve confrontations without resorting to deadly force. Whether these tools take the form of a firm grip; escort or pain or pressure compliance holds; or other, more aggressive measures such as electromuscular disruption technology, pepper spray, or other nondeadly force equipment or tactics are all significant components of the use-of-force continuum. There is no doubt that these critically important tools and techniques have, over the years, reduced the law enforcement community’s need to resort to deadly force.

To gain an understanding of the dangerous environment in which our officers operate, one need look no further than the annual report of police officers killed and assaulted compiled by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). In the year 2006, 58,634 officers reported being assaulted in the performance of their official duties. Of these, 44 law enforcement officers were feloniously killed, and an additional 15,704 were wounded or injured. Tragically, these numbers are certain to rise in 2007.

In fact, a 2001 study on use of force conducted by the IACP found that force of any kind was used only at a rate of 3.61 incidents per 10,000 calls for service. Significantly, firearms were the method of force least used.

However, as impressive as these numbers are, I am convinced that we can do better.

It is my belief that as we have increased the tools available to our officers, we have, in some cases, overlooked an equally important issue: training our officers on when not to use the tools we have provided them. In some cases, the ability of law enforcement officers to use their communication skills to end confrontations in nonviolent fashion appears to have decreased as we have increased the number of less-lethal options available to them. I believe that in many ways, communication has become a lost art, and some officers have begun to rely more on technology than on talking. Simply put, this should never be the case, and it is our responsibility as police leaders to ensure that our officers have the communication skills necessary to resolve conflicts, where possible, before force is necessary.

We serve as guardians of both the public and the public trust. The citizens we serve have the right to expect that the use of force is the option of last resort for law enforcement officers. For these reasons, one of the top priorities during my term as president will be to conduct a comprehensive examination of the use of force. Through this process we will ensure that we, as the leaders of our profession, are doing all that can be done to minimize the use of force while still protecting our communities and our officers from harm. ■

■ Culled from The Police Chief, vol. 74, no. 12, December 2007. Copyright held by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, 515 North Washington Street, Alexandria, VA 22314 USA.

Lowering the rhetoric – why activists must listen to Mayor Turner and soften their tongues

Figures still show a law enforcement structure and practice unfavorable to the African-American populace. For instance, it is evident that black people are still more heavily policed. This is to say that if a black person and a white person each commit a crime, the black person is more likely to be arrested. Similarly, when black people are arrested for a crime, they are convicted more often than white people arrested for the same offence; or even are more likely to be sentenced to incarceration compared to their white counterparts.

But such disturbing disparity in law enforcement remains more of a legislative challenge than an outmoded tit-for-tat business. On December 18, 2014, President Barack Obama signed an Executive Order establishing the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing. The focus was to seek knowledge from stakeholders and public involvement to identify best practices in the police process. The Task Force submitted an initial report to the President on March 2, 2015 and released the final report on May 18, 2015.

In May 2016, the Community Oriented Police Services (COPS) of the United States Department of Justice launched the Advancing 21st Century Policing Initiative, which provided operational supports to a regiment of police agencies. This project has since produced supervisory resources for various police agencies to advance best practices.

In April, 2016, Houston launched a deployment of body cameras to police officers making it the largest city to deploy such device for police activities. About 4,100 body cams was projected to be deployed to patrol officers over a 12 to 18 months period. Houston’s Mayor Sylvester Turner said the cameras would protect the public and the officers. He was right.

These strides however do not totally eliminate numerous challenges various communities face with the law enforcement. Just recently, for example, the shooting deaths of two black men within days by police officers have again provoked a wave of such cases that have created numerous protests nationwide in recent months. A Minnesota officer fatally shot a 32-year-old man, Philando Castile in Falcon Heights, a St. Paul suburb. A day earlier, 37-year-old Alton Sterling was equally shot and killed during a confrontation with two police officers outside a Baton Rouge, Louisiana, convenience store where he was selling discs of music and movies. A cellphone video of Sterling’s shooting posted online by a community activist set off heated protests.

Among thousands of reactions from prominent persons over the recent feud between the members of the law enforcement and the community in different parts of the country, a plea by Houston’s Mayor Sylvester Turner stood out distinctively as what might actually create a neutral ground to again resume a peaceable discourse. At a press conference on Friday, Mayor Turner in a more conciliatory tone, appealed “Let’s lower the rhetoric and be mindful of what we post on social media. A house divided against itself cannot stand.” There is every reason why America should listen to this Mayor.

In downright retaliation, some individuals angered by the commotion and killings had turned the triggers against police officers in what has now turned the entire country into a horrifying enclave of insanity and bereavement. A sniper attack in Dallas left five officers dead and six more injured in what is believed to be the deadliest day in the history of the Dallas Police Department.

Similar attacks have also been reported in other parts of the country. Police say officers have been targeted in Tennessee, Georgia, and Missouri. The Tennessee attack occurred hours before the Dallas carnage. The reasons behind the ambush attacks of the police in Georgia and Missouri are still being investigated, but most likely to be connected with the same killing of civilians in Minnesota and Louisiana.

The increasing feud between the community and members of the law enforcement, without doubt, has taken a different dimension in recent years, even as different organizations and government agencies collaborate on solutions. Discussion forums and campaigns to explore avenues for a more conducive police-community environment linger, but facilitators have often played down on the power of rhetoric in the escalating tension. Some community forums rather than advocate a rapport, have focused on the people’s rights to stand their grounds against the law enforcement. To make it worse, some activists have selfishly injected persuasive catchphrases in the social media to escalate the existing tension, while they would turn around to enjoy the publicity generated out of fear and hot emotions they instigate.

Mckesson could be seen on news videos restfully posing for the cameras while he was held by the cops, and saying, “I’m under arrest, y'all!” It was obvious he was enjoying his arrest and excited about the fact that he would use the video clips for his social media self-gratifying campaign. — McKesson… He was be seen on news videos restfully posing for the cameras while he was held by the cops, and saying, “I’m under arrest, y’all!” It was obvious he was enjoying his arrest and excited about the fact that he would use the video clips for his social media self-gratifying campaign.

While community members who feel connected to these campaign catchwords are busy chanting their voices off on the streets, some activists seek other motives. For instance, a prominent Black Lives Matter activist, DeRay Mckesson, after he generated enough fund and popularity I his street activism, turned around and announced that he would run for mayor of Baltimore, his hometown. His decision angered critics and colleagues who accused him of double standard. Others accused him of using a charitable movement to selfishly seek a political career.

It is therefore not a surprise that Mckesson was among 100 others taken into custody Sunday in Baton Rouge, after protesters took to the streets to denounce the recent killings. Mckesson could be seen on news videos restfully posing for the cameras while he was held by the cops, and saying, “I’m under arrest, y’all!” It was obvious he was enjoying his arrest and excited about the fact that he would use the video clips for his social media self-gratifying campaign.

It is evident that black people are still more heavily policed. This is to say that if a black person and a white person each commit a crime, the black person is more likely to be arrested.

The truth is that the power of harsh rhetoric has a major influence on the deteriorating relationship between the community and the police, and some people out there are really taking advantage of these blood-spattered moments to build their political careers. Language has been known to be the most ancient persuasion tool. Noted Plato, the famous Classical Greek philosopher, “Rhetoric is the art of ruling the minds of men.” The skillful manipulation of communal issues through bombastic slogans was big business in Elizabethan era where the power of words is invoked to deal with fundamental sociopolitical engagements. Today, the world has thoroughly changed to a diverse village where language is no longer used as a verbal ammunition, but are composed to build bridges across communities, the people, and their environment.

Respect and support for the law enforcement is not negotiable; respect means, simply, obeying the police while they are on duty, and support means providing them with necessary tools and training to effectively carry out their duties.

The role of the law enforcement in the community is evidently indispensable and could never be diminished through self-gratifying activism and street violence. It would be hypocritical for community activists and celebrities to post incisive phrases in the social media over the behaviors of a few bad officers, then turn around to sympathize with the police after their members are taken down by the same people they protect. How does the philosophy of “No justice! No peace” fit into a non-violent remonstration category? Where there is no peace, violence automatically rules.

The current war against the law enforcement would not work, but a dialogue on creating a structure to eliminate lapses in the enforcement system remains a sensible approach. Report from the National Emergency Number Association indicates that an estimated 240 million calls are made to 9-1-1 in the U.S. each year. One cannot afford to be twitting hate words against the police on one hand and calling the 911 for help on another hand.

Respect and support for the law enforcement is not negotiable; respect means, simply, obeying the police while they are on duty, and support means providing them with necessary tools and training to effectively carry out their duties. The community activists who raise funds to instruct the community about their rights to challenge the law could as well educate them on simple ways to obey the police at traffic stops and other interrogatory circumstances. It might be right to teach a teenagers how to record police activities with smart phones, but it would also make sense to educate them on how not to wrestle or resist armed officers of the law.

As author, Thomas Sowell wrote, “Freedom has cost too much blood and agony to be relinquished at the cheap price of rhetoric.” Thus, those unscrupulous political activists, and social media snipers who amorally instigate or take advantage of awful bloody moments may listen to Houston’s Mayor Turner and levelheadedly lower down the rhetoric. This would clear the ground for an all-encompassing dialogue toward constructive solutions.

Dr. Anthony Obi Ogbo is the Publisher of Houston’s International Guardian, and the author of “The Influence of Leadership” You may follow International Guardian on FB by clicking >>>>

Aisha Buhari’s United States Outing - Appalling Speech delivered at George Mason University

Aisha Buhari’s visit to the U.S. not a proof of innocence – State Department Sources

OPINION POLL>> Nigeria: In general, how would you rate President Buhari’s regime so far? VOTE HERE >>>>

Like Us On Facebook