A very beautiful, long and comprehensive article by Ozodi Thomas Osuji, PhD. Please endeavour to read everything.

If you look at the two candidates, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, regardless of your political orientation you are forced to conclude that Hillary is smarter and is the more polished of the two. She appears well schooled in the ways of the political world; she says all the right things. Donald appears like an uneducated bum from the boondocks, a hill-Billy from the Appalachian backwoods of Kentucky; Trump seems so dumb that you wonder what he is doing wanting to be the president of the world's greatest economic and political power.

However, what this facile assessment of Trump fails in recognizing is the nature of leadership. Leaders articulate what is in the minds of those they lead. Leaders are folks who tune into their peoples psyche and know what they want done and promise to do it and, hopefully, do it.

Hillary Clinton is not an American leader in the sense that she did not tune into what true Americans desired. She desires a globalist political economy regardless of its consequences for the average American; she wanted an open door immigration policy that flooded America with nonwhite persons and, more importantly, with Muslims.

WHO ARE US AMERICANS?

In 1492 Christopher Columbus became the first European (apart from the Scandinavian Leif Erikson who allegedly visited Greenland and Canada a thousand years ago) to set foot in the Americas. In 1500 the Portuguese landed at Brazil.

The Americas were given to the Spanish and Portuguese by the Pope. Other European powers, especially the Dutch, the French and the English tried to get a piece of the action. In 1587 the English under Walter Raleigh tried settling 100 men at Roanoke, Virginia but failed.

In 1607 the English finally made a permanent settlement at Jamestown, Virginia. Thus, began the English experiment in North America.

Twelve years later, African slaves were brought to Jamestown in 1619 hence Africans have always been part of the USA.

When people talked about English America they meant English men and Africans. Of course, there were Native Americans in the USA but those where not always seen as part of America; indeed, they were not given American citizenship until 1924 (the Indian Citizenship Act, also called the Snyder Act)!

The USA was founded by Christian English men and is understood as the continuation of England and English culture.

Recently, there has been a flood of Muslims into the USA and that changes the cultural dynamics of America. When a critical mass of Muslims in America is reached America will change and, Muslims hope, no longer be a Christian country!

Muslims have a theocratic view of governance; in Muslim political culture, the leader who claims to rule on behalf of Mohammed, who claims to be rooted in the Koran, Sharia and Hadith, is supported by Muslims. This means that Muslim ruled countries look like something out of seventh century Arabia, something like today's Afghanistan and Iran.

The prospect of regressing America to a more primitive stage of human evolution is scary to white Americans but, apparently, Hillary Clinton was not cognizant of it and kept trying to please Muslims by talking about how inclusive her policies will be. Anyone who objected to her desire to bring in even more Muslims to America is told about the first amendment to the US constitution that guaranteed freedom of religion and separation of state and religion.

It is a red herring to say that the first Amendment of the US constitution guaranteed Islam's right to be in America.

America's founding fathers were all Christians. What they aimed at accomplishing was to not allow religious wars between the various Christian sects (Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans and Presbyterians etc.) to affect the state; they wanted the various Christian sects to go do their things outside the realm of government. They did not include other religions in the first Amendment.

They certainly did not include protecting Islam in their conception of freedom of religion, for, to them Islam was not a religion. Islam, they knew, was a political ideology with which Arabs wanted to dominate the world.

The founding fathers were well read men and knew the history of Islam. They knew that Mohammed (570-632 AD) used the sword to convert Arabia to Islam and that upon his death his followers used the sword to convert the entire Middle East, North Arica and Spain to Islam.

Europe fought several wars to keep Muslims out of it. Charles Martel, the king of the Franks, in 733 AD fought to get rid of Muslims from France. It took seven hundred years before the Spaniards (ruled by Arab Muslims from 711 AD) under Isabela and Ferdinand finally got rid of Muslims from Spain in 1492.

When the Turks (originally from Western China...they had been converted to Islam by Arabs when they expanded eastwards to China) took over the leadership of Islam they invaded Europe from the East and reached the gates of Vienna, Austria and were beaten back on several occasions. Finally, in 1453 Muslim Turks took Constantinople, the capital of Christian Byzantium Empire, and used the sword to convert its hitherto Christian people to Islam.

Turkish Muslims, now calling themselves the Ottoman Empire, proceeded to close Europeans overland trading with Asia.

To find an alternative sea route to India and China the Spanish and Portuguese inadvertently discovered the Americas in 1492 and 1500 respectively.

The Christian West, for three centuries, fought a Holy War, the Crusades (1095-1291), with Muslims aimed at driving Muslims out of their Holy Land, Jerusalem. (Muslims took over Palestine in 638 AD but allowed Christians to continue visiting Jerusalem. By around 1071 Muslims stopped Christian access to their Holy Land and Pope Urban called for a Holy War to go retrieve the Holy Land from the Mohammedans, hence the Crusades whereby Christian soldiers went to the Middle East to fight.)

The founding fathers were aware of this western adversarial history with Muslims and were not sympathetic to Islam, not even a little bit; the first Amendment to the US constitution was not meant to protect Islam in America, as Hillary and her fellow liberals disingenuously argue.

The Christian American knows that Islam is the enemy of America and want to keep it out of America and saw Trump as a leader in his fight against Muslim takeover of America. Trump is a leader in that he was able to sense what Americans wanted done, get rid of Muslims from America.

AMERICANS ARE CHRISTIANS

Americans came from Christian Europe and consider themselves Christians. Of course, there is admixture of agnostics and atheists in the American population, for not everyone accepts the idea that God created this world.

There are other religions in the world such as Hinduism, Buddhism and so on. Americans allow those religions to come and practice their religions in America. But no one has the illusion that the dominant religion of America is not Christianity.

What happened, lately, is that Muslims were allowed to come to the USA and suddenly they began talking about Islamizing America or trying to place their religion on equal footing with Christianity. Indeed, the radical parts of them talk about imposing their Koran, Sharia and Hadith on Americans! Such radical Muslims claim that their Muslim law precedes the US constitution and, indeed, teach that Muslims should not obey the US constitution for it is manmade and, instead, should only obey Muslim laws, Sharia for they supposedly came from God!

How do we know that the Koran came from God? It is because Mohammed claimed to have heard the voice of the angel Gabriel dictating the contents of the book to him. How do we know that the voice he heard is from the angel Gabriel, assuming that angels exist; how do we know that he was not a paranoid schizophrenic hallucinating and projecting his voices to what he called God? We do not know any of these things to be true or false. One can only accept them on faith!

What we know from empirical observation is that wherever Islam is imposed, such as the Middle East, people in it invariably live in seventh century Arabian culture, a non-scientific culture.

Here then come Muslims trying to return America to a primitive stage of social evolution! This is, to Christian Americans, as alarming as alarming can be.

Liberals, under the guise of the first amendment to the constitution, talk about allowing Muslims to build their mosques wherever they want to and spreading their religion in America. Indeed, after their terrorists destroyed the twin towers of the world trade center in New York, Muslims wanted to build their mosque there!

Barack Obama saw nothing wrong with that desire! Obama did not recognize the implication of what Muslims wanted to do: show their defeat of Christianity and colonization of North America! Or, maybe, he is in cahoots with them and wants them to take over America? Many Christians suspect that Obama is a Manchurian candidate planted by Saudi Arabia in a Christian country!

Christian Americans know that when Islam reaches a critical mass in America it would try to take over the country. It would do so by exploding suicide bombers all over the country and by committing all sorts of terrorist acts. Through these terrorist acts it would arouse the fear of being killed in Americans and intimidate them to embracing Islam.

It should be noted that it was through such means that Muslims took over Christian Middle East and North Africa. There is no doubt that Islam wants to take over the Western world and thereafter establish the world wide Muslim Caliphate that Mohammed envisioned.

Liberals do not seem to understand the existential threat to Western civilization posed by Islam and have an open door policy to Muslims. Christian white Americans are aware of the danger of Islam and want that religion kept out of America. Trump reads this message loud and clear and promises them to keep Muslims out of America.

THE FEAR OF THE SPREAD OF NON-CHRISTIAN VALUES IN AMERICA

Christian culture is predicated on the Bible. The bible provides Christians with a way of life. Clearly, Christians believe in living their lives as their religion's founder said that they should live: love God and love your neighbor like yourself, and do unto other people as you want them to do to you.

There are several passages in the bible telling Christians that a man supposedly having sex with another man or a woman supposedly having sex with a woman is sinful.

Despite biblical injunctions against homosexuality, in today's America liberals teach that any kind of sex between consenting adults is fine. They have embraced homosexuality with gusto; indeed, Barack Obama was lecturing Africans to discard their cultures opposition to homosexuality and embrace homosexuality otherwise he would not give to them the paltry economic aid that his administration gave to them.

In the liberal atmosphere of Obama and Hillary's America, there is little doubt that soon the country would also legalize pedophilia and bestiality; why not, there are people who prefer such sexual acts and in the liberals mind whatever people believe that they are oriented to do is natural and they ought to be allowed to do it.

Then is the issue of Abortion. Christians believe that no one has a right to kill other people; they include unborn children in this equation. Thus, many of them oppose abortion.

Hillary not only approves abortion but would permit it all the way before the child is born. From her perspective, a woman has the right to her body and that right includes killing the babies inside her.

Christian Americans see these trends in morality as against their religion; they see them as degeneration of their culture.

Instead of recognizing their fears they are told that they are backward and ought to embrace the new culture of everything goes. They are told to allow grown men to one day wake up and see themselves as women and go use the same bathrooms as their five year old daughters (and they suspect that their daughters may be raped by these transgender folks).

Clearly, homosexuality exists all over the world but evidence shows that when a culture approves it that that culture dies. Greece and Rome embraced homosexuality and pedophilia and became weakened and were defeated by more vigorous races. If many men live the homosexual life style, Christians believe that it is only a matter of time before they contract diseases and die off. America's culture and civilization will die if a significant number of the people live the homosexual life style.

Life affirming Christians therefore kick against the death affirming homosexual life style but are told to get over it and live with-it. Well, they do not want to get over it. Trump articulates their points of views and they voted for him.

Homosexuals must recognize that there are people who consider a man putting his penis into another's anus an absurdity; you cannot be absurd and ask people not to see your absurdity. The normalization of deviancy is offensive to Christians. This does not mean that Christians can wish away homosexuals.

Statistically, in every behavior, about three percent of the population deviates from the standard norm; there probably will always be those who deviate from sexual norms and are attracted by homosexuality, pedophilia and bestiality. Absurd behaviors probably will always exist in human society; rational societies generally seek ways to manage these absurdities rather than celebrate them, as Liberal Obama was doing. (As I pointed out elsewhere, it seems that one must find life meaningless and is existentially depressed and seek nihilistic coping measures to do what male homosexuals do.)

MULTICULTURALISM

We all know that the English founded the USA in 1607 when they settled at Jamestown, Virginia. From there on America has English culture.

Lately, folks from all over the world have come to America. These folks from non-English backgrounds were told by anthropologists that all cultures are equal; they imbibed the idea of cultural relativism. Now, they want to have their cultures taught at American schools hence the concept of multiculturalism.

Some of these recent Americans resent that English is the medium of instruction at American schools. Immigrants from Latin America where Spanish is spoken want Spanish to be taught at American schools on a coequal level with English (they do not do the same thing in their Latin countries, they do not teach English coequally in their schools).

Multiculturalism has led to a cacophony of cultures in America, with each competing to be accepted. The result is that that which held America together, the Anglo Saxon culture is attacked; the social fabric of America is tattered. These days, no one knows what the American culture is, any more.

These trends make the original Anglo Saxon Americans mad at what is happening to their country. They believe that if the trend continues their country would become like third world countries.

Africa and Latin America consist of backward countries where no real science and technology comes from so if the USA becomes like them science and technology dies; America would revert to primitive state of being.

White Americans want to take their country back from forces that they believe is dragging them backwards. Trump understands this fact.

THE CHANGING AMERICAN DEMOGRAPHICS

America used to be predominantly white and black. Now, it is about 72% white and 12% black. It is projected that in fifty years, if the current population trends continue, Latin Americans would become the dominant group in the USA.

Given that Latin Americans have made no significant contribution to science and technology or to mass culture, for that matter (the world's pop culture is dominated by black Americans), white Americans fear that their country would become like Latin countries, read, primitive countries.

As for Africans white folks ask: what exactly is good about Africa, what have they contributed to science and technology? If the answer is negative what makes Africans to feel that they should be admired by white Americans; why should white Americans embrace African cultures?

What good has come out of Africa? Honestly: who wants to be like an African, a people that cannot even govern their continent well, a place where corruption is the order of the day?

Go to any African country and the first question that enters your mind is: are there human beings who govern this joint? Are there political leaders in Nigeria running the bedlam or is it a wild animal preserve with unsupervised animals doing as they damn please?

Americans do not want to be like what they see as third world people; therefore, they fear the increasing changing American demographics. Trump understood this elemental fear in the American psyche.

cont'd


http://chatafrik.com/articles/us-affairs/why-donald-trump-won-the-2016-us-presidential-election

THE EVICERATION OF AMERICA'S INDUSTRIES

America began as an agricultural society but when industrialization began in Britain around 1746 Americans quickly embraced industrialization. By the 1830s America began industrializing. This meant manufacturing stuff with machines and the factory system came into being. Cities quickly grew up around factories hence the urbanization of America.

This was the way America was until the rise of Asian countries. The owners of America's factories recognizing that Asian workers are as good as the American worker, if not better, and, additionally, that they are cheap, and wishing to make enormous profits moved their factories to Asia.

American factories that hitherto employed millions of high school leavers and paid them living wages were no longer there. Thus, in today's America the two third of the population that do not go to universities find themselves not having well-paying jobs, and often doing mostly minimum wage jobs. You need to do two such jobs, full time, to be able to make the wage you need to pay your bills, and we are not even talking about supporting families. How would you like to work sixteen hours a day and is still unable to make ends meet? White working class feels like they are now slaves! This makes them furious at their leaders. Can you understand the anger of poor whites or would you, like Hillary ignore it and risk nationalist, fascist revolution in America?

The relocation of America's factories to Asia resulted in the pauperization of America. Everybody sees these things happen but liberals do not seem to mind that Americans are increasingly poor.

Obama became the president in 2009 and under his watch the trend accelerated; the only type of jobs he created are mostly minimum wage jobs and or allow those with rare technical skills to make billions of dollars whereas the middle class fell to lower class status.

Hillary had no real plans to change the fortunes of the poor. Instead, she used the system to make millions of dollars and became enormously wealthy. She and her husband, Bill Clinton, set up a reported phony Foundation and had folks contribute to the Foundation before they came see her at the State Department, where she was the Secretary of State.

Hillary's apparent corruption and lie telling issues apart, she did not seem to care for the pauperization of Americans. Trump, although a billionaire behaves like a working-class boy! He has kindred spirit with the working stiff. The working poor feel that he understands their pains and would do something about their plight and that is why they voted for him (Hillary told us that she has not gone to a grocery store to shop by herself in over twenty five years; apparently, she has lost touch with the lot of ordinary Americans!).

America's working class want America to stop moving its factories to other countries, to stop exporting their work to third world countries, especially to Mexico, the new low wage country (now that wages are rising in China).

RENEGOTIATE ADVERSE TRADE AGREEMENTS

Working class Americans want their government to renegotiate trade deals with other countries that allow those countries to dump their goods in America and not allow Americans to sell their goods in them. Japan, for example, dumps it cars in America but American car manufacturers hardly can sell a few cars in Japan. This situation seems unfair regardless of its cause (Japanese culture that asks the Japanese to buy their own goods, not foreign goods).

America cannot continue running indefinite trade deficits with other countries; if the trend is not reversed the American economy will collapse.

Obama ran the deficit upwards of ten trillion dollars, mostly borrowed from Asian countries. America now owes almost twenty trillion dollars to other entities. This is a travesty and Americans want the situation reversed.

THE IRAN DEAL

Obama negotiated some kind of deal with Iran that says that Iran is to stop moving towards manufacturing nuclear weapons for ten years after which they are free to resume doing so. As a result of this supposed good deal America released Iran's moneys in the USA, upwards of $150 billion dollars.

Iran is a known supporter of terrorism. In effect, Iran is given money with which to fund those who are out to kill Americans. What kind of deal is this, Americans ask?

OBAMA'S DISASTROUS FORIEGN POLICY IN IRAQ AND SYRIA

Obama's foreign policy included appeasing Muslims (he is suspected of been a closet Muslim). In the process America has lost influence in the Middle East.

Where there is power vacuum other political actors move in. Russia moved in and is now a power to be reckoned with in Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East.

Hillary is associated with Obama's Middle East debacle, especially with what happened in Libya and Egypt; if allowed to rule she probably would continue the policy that has produced nothing but chaos in the Middle East.

Americans want to either stay out of the Middle East or not go try changing governments in the Middle East; they know that such behavior bring about instabilities in Muslim countries. Muslim countries traditionally have authoritarian forms of governance; trying to make them democratic in a life time is a pie in the sky.

If you are going to have foreign policy you had better make yourself seen as strong, not weak, as Obama made America seem. Trump understood these things hence white folks flocked to him.

Obama's precipitous withdrawal of American troops from Iraq and refusal to go to war in Syria when Hafiz Assad crossed the red line he had set for him by using chemical weapons largely created a power vacuum in Syria and Iraq. ISIS emerged to occupy the power vacuum left by Obama and Hillary's foreign policy.

To the extent that ISIS jihadists are killing people in Europe and America, Obama and Clinton are partly responsible for it.

Trump understands that strength deters aggressors so a powerful America will deter jihadists from killing Westerners. And if jihadists dared killing Americans America ought to show them force: go in and kill as many of them as is possible so that they learn that what they can do other people can do better; since they like cutting off folks heads their own heads can be cut off, massively!

America has the military means to wipe off from the face of the earth the entire Muslim population of the world. Muslims are not the masters of the universe that they fantasize themselves to be. Obama allowed Muslims to run amok killing Westerners as if they have some kind of supernatural power that no one else has. Trump wants to reverse this trend and his desire appeals to the militaristic soul of Anglo Americans.

DISCUSSION

America has had two hundred and forty years of rule of laws, of elected governments that pass one administration from one to the other; whereas Germany was ruled by dukes, kings and emperors until the end of the First World War, 1918, hence had less than fifteen years' experience with democracy when Hitler came to power in 1933.

Trump is going to rule by the law because he was socialized to American democratic culture. Moreover, given the separation of powers in the American polity, he will do only what Congress and the judiciary allows him to do (even if he appoints three Supreme Court Justices).

The other branches of government are simply not going to allow him to rule unconstitutionally and transform America to a third world one man's rule. America is based on the rule of law and that will continue under Trump's presidency. The fear that he would become another elected Adolf Hitler who would make America a fascist state is exaggerated.

CONCLUSION

I can go on and on talking about other issues that led to the rise of Donald Trump, and there are legions of them. However, I hope that the above mentioned ones have given the reader an inkling of why Americans chose Trump as their new leader.

A leader is a person who articulates what is in the minds of those he leads; a leader is a person who knows his peoples aspirations and promises to actualize them for them. A leader mobilizes human resources and capital to achieve the goals he knows that his people desire. Americans, for example, desire well-paying jobs; Trump plans to rebuild America's dilapidated infrastructure and those pay good wages.

Whether Trump is going to deliver on his promises or not remain to be seen. The critical point made in this essay is that he senses what his people desire and promises to do it for them.

The essay did not evaluate the good or lack of it of what Trump's white people desire; that is a topic for a different paper. For example, is it good that white Americans want to reduce the number of non-white immigrants in their country?

cont'd


http://chatafrik.com/articles/us-affairs/why-donald-trump-won-the-2016-us-presidential-election

A NOTE ON THE US ELECTORAL COLLEGE

The United States constitution was written in 1787 at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. At that time in human history there were no automobiles; people travelled on feet or horses. There were no electronic media. News took weeks before reaching from one state to another. It took weeks to travel from Georgia to Massachusetts. Therefore, it seemed rational for the founding fathers to require each state to elect its electors and have the electors then travel to the capital (initially, New York and later Washington DC) to vote for the president. It was simply impossible for all Americans to vote for the president on the same day and you count the votes on the same day. Having electors come to one spot and vote for the president seemed to make loads of sense.

Moreover, at the time we are talking about less than ten percent of the people could read or write; most Americans, white or black were illiterates. It made sense for the mass of illiterate Americans to select persons they knew in their communities as their leaders and have those travel to the far away capital to go elect the president.

There is a certain elitist element in this view. But if you think about it you probably would see the rationale. Is it really good for a bunch of illiterates to elect the commander in chief of the armed forces of America? Would it not be nice if only those who understood military matters did so? Would you have illiterates select the engineer that built your roads and bridges or have him selected by those who understand civil engineering? Would you like a person who had not taken a course on human physiology and anatomy select your medical doctor for you or have the recommendation of other doctors of who your doctor should be? Technocracy has some logic to it! Democracy combines technocracy and mass opinions, aristocracy and the people's emotion based opinions.

Clearly, the founding fathers had a certain fear of having the uneducated whims of the masses influence who is elected the president, a sort of surrogate king (please remember that the illiterates actually wanted George Washington to become a King!).

As it operates today, what happens is that each state sends the number of its Congressional delegates to the Electoral College. For example, California with its almost forty million persons has 53 members in the US House of Representatives and 2 senators in the US senate, thus it has 55 members in the Electoral College. Alaska has two senators and one member of the House of Representatives so it has three members in the Electoral College. (Alaska is the largest state in the Union, is one fifth the size of the USA, so if physical size determines the number of the electoral college Alaska would have the largest contingent in that august body! Alas, Alaska's population is less than a million!)

After elections the party whose candidate won California would select the 55 electors (and in Alaska select the 3 electors) and they meet, say, on December 19, and elect the president. Their vote then would be transmitted to Washington DC in January when the president is actually elected.

There are 435 members of the US lower House and 100 senators; these result in a total of 535 members plus the three members assigned to the District of Columbia, making for 538 members of the Electoral College. Since there are two credible presidential candidates then divide 538 by two and 269 is a tie; to win one need 270 votes.

The US President is not elected directly by the people. This system has resulted in sometimes the winning candidate winning less popular votes. For example, in 2000 Albert Gore had over 500, 000 more votes than George Bush yet Bush had more members of the Electoral College and won the election. In the present election, when the votes are all counted (not yet counted at the time of this writing) Hillary Clinton probably would have, may be, 200, 000 more popular votes than Donald Trump who won the presidency because Trump won more members of the Electoral College.

This system seems unfair. But is it really? Consider the number of states in the USA, 50. Clinton won only a handful of states: the liberal West coast and northeast states...California, Oregon, Washington, Illinois, New York , Massachusetts and a few other North Eastern states; those are the most populous states (winning New York City and Los Angeles metropolitan area alone amounts to winning over 40 million votes! )

Trump probably will win over 35 states; those are in the middle of the country and they tend to be rural, sparsely populated and conservative! So, does it make sense for the person who won fifteen states to be considered the winner over the person who won thirty five states? If that were to happen there would be complaints, too!

Democracy is an interesting business. You have to balance popular votes with other pertinent factors if you want peace.

The Founding fathers mixed the James Madison Plan, also called the Virginia Plan with the New Jersey Plan in adopting the present pattern of representation. The James Madison Plan was strictly democratic and called for representation based on population. The smaller states kicked against it. New Jersey submitted an amended plan that called for equal representation in the Lower House and two senators from each state regardless of their size.

If the New Jersey plan had not been accepted the smaller states would have felt dominated by the larger states like Virginia and New York and there would have been no deal, no USA!

The point is that all kinds of considerations go into play in coming up with a workable political system.

Should Americans elect their presidents directly (they now elect their senators directly, initially it was not so)? May be, maybe not. I am not here to solve complex political issues; the salient point is that those prickly issues need to be thought through before they are acted on.

Edmund Burke reminded us in his Reflections on the French Revolution (1789) that we must be very careful before we throw away institutions that have worked well for us in the past, for if we do so hastily we may create chaos and anarchy.

It took the French two hundred years (1789-1959 fifth French Republic constitution) to reach another workable political arrangement. The easy part was throwing away the monarchy, the difficult part is coming up with what works.

The rational English kept their monarchy but made it ceremonial and have an elected House of Commons that rule and an unelected House of Lords that delay rush to legislation by the lower house.

If Americans tinker with what worked for them it might result in chaos that nobody wants!

Ozodi Thomas Osuji, PhD

November 9, 2016

Dr. Osuji teaches at the University of Alaska. He can be reached at (907) 310-8176 or (907) 227-5544 or ozodiosuji@gmail.com; oosuji@alasaka.edu


http://chatafrik.com/articles/us-affairs/why-donald-trump-won-the-2016-us-presidential-election