Anthony Obi Ogbo
The Devil is on Ballot – Why Donald Trump is Bad for America
“The last time the Devil visited America was in 2020 in the form of COVID. He wrecked all activities and took away millions of lives. Almost four years later, the Devil is back as a candidate for the November Ballot. This time as Trump” —Anthony Ogbo
The most dangerous bee is that which perches on your scrotum. Punch it and smash your manhood; leave it and you are stung to death. To democracy, Donald Trump (R), the former President, is that killer bee on the genital pouch, wheezing for a destructive sting. America is in trouble, and it’s not COVID. Democracy is under siege because Trump is on the ballot running against Kamala Harris (D), the current vice president.
Both candidates bring distinct perspectives and experiences to the forefront, making this election one of the most anticipated in recent history. Harris is recognized for her unwavering advocacy for social justice and equality, whereas Trump would tout an obsequious base of supporters excited about his tough rhetoric on immigration and trade policies. Thus, the decision between these two candidates ultimately rests on the priorities and values of the voters.
Without a doubt, the challenges facing America and the world over November’s ballot transcend significant matters of public policy. It is no longer just about routine communal interests or ideological virtues. It has become a critical mission to safeguard the very foundation of our republic. The stakes are higher than ever before because a self-acclaimed dictator desperately sits on the ballot as the system faces unprecedented threats from misinformation, foreign interference, and attempts to undermine the integrity of our electoral process.
America must stop the current facade surrounding the true significance of the upcoming November ballot. The future of our country hangs in the balance, and it is crucial that we as citizens fully understand the gravity of this election—that a candidate named Trump is vying for power, poised to complete his mission of undermining America’s democracy and selling off its sovereignty to foreign interests. Worst of all, he has converted a once-Grand Old Party into a cult that promotes only himself. Not content to simply control the GOP, he ruthlessly dominates it. He deposed its former chair as insufficiently loyal to him and installed his daughter-in-law as vice chair.
While it was once acceptable for Republican officials to duck questions about his outrageous conduct, silence is no longer tolerated. He demands absolute loyalty and requires elected officials to demean themselves in public to earn his grace. When he was on trial, Republican members of Congress had to attend and wear color-coordinated clothing. After he was convicted, they were forced to insist he was innocent. Similarly, his Republican supporters and election candidates are strictly prohibited from acknowledging that President Joe Biden won the 2020 election.
The Supreme Court immunity ruling in July, ultimately gave Trump a ‘Blank’ Check’—granting absolute immunity to his use of the Justice Department for fraudulent purposes. Yet his encounter with the court system remains a reckless endeavor. For instance, he was found guilty of violating New York State law by hiding reimbursements to his former lawyer. He pleaded not guilty to 40 criminal counts for mishandling classified documents, including refusing to return the documents and obstructing government efforts to retrieve them. He also participated in a scheme to interfere with the transfer of power after losing the 2020 election, spreading lies about election fraud that led to the Jan. 6 Capitol attack. Trump and 18 others are accused of coordinating efforts to thwart certification of the election. This investigation stemmed from a recorded call to Georgia’s Secretary of State in which Trump urged him to find votes. Trump denies the allegations against him.
Trump is not good for office. He is a risky, numb scull whose mindset and intelligence are fundamentally at odds with American values. He operates with a singular focus on maintaining power and control, often at the expense of individual freedoms and rights. His decision-making is driven by self-interest and a desire to consolidate authority, rather than by the will of the people or the principles of equality and justice that underpin democracy.
Democracy values inclusivity, transparency, and accountability, requiring leaders to prioritize the needs and voices of all citizens. Trump’s MAGA (Make America Great Again) attitude inherently seeks to suppress dissent, manipulate information, and silence opposition to maintain unchecked authority. Ultimately, the mission may be formidable in terms of strategic manipulation and control tactics, but it lacks the moral compass and ethical framework necessary for upholding democratic principles.
The last time the Devil visited America was in 2020 in the form of COVID. He wrecked all activities and took away millions of lives. Almost four years later, the Devil is back as a candidate for the November ballot. Trump is not good for office. Just like the devil, he dislikes everything around him. His divisive rhetoric and lack of empathy for others make him unfit to lead a diverse and inclusive nation. His constant attacks on the media, political opponents, and even members of his own party demonstrate a deep-seated disdain for anyone who challenges or disagrees with him. This kind of behavior is not only unprofessional but also dangerous in a position of power where diplomacy and cooperation are essential. Worse, his inability to see the value in differing opinions and perspectives is a major flaw that undermines his ability to effectively govern and represent the American people.
America does not need a divisive leader who thrives on chaos and controversy. It is time for a change, for a leader who will prioritize the well-being of all Americans and work towards creating a more inclusive and equitable society. America deserves better than Trump. Not this time, not ever.
♦Publisher of the Guardian News, Professor Anthony Obi Ogbo, PhD, is on the Editorial Board of the West African Pilot News. He is the author of the Influence of Leadership (2015) and the Maxims of Political Leadership (2019). Contact: anthony@guardiannews.us
- The General’s Tale: A Chronicle of Service, Regret, and Silence - March 12, 2025
- Raising Ramparts: Christie Ohuabunwa’s “Warrior Parenting” - March 12, 2025
- A Scathing Indictment of Nigeria’s Judiciary: A Legal Insider’s Crusade Against Corruption - March 12, 2025
“For those who casually talk of war or fantasize about forcing the Igbo to flee again, it’s crucial to understand one thing: the dynamics of conflict have changed.” —Dr. Emeaba Emeaba
Naïveté is a condition of trusting too easily, of believing the world to be simple and fair, of taking things at face value. This was the state of the Igbo people in Nigeria before the tragedy of Biafra. The Igbo were industrious traders and sojourners who engaged with the world earnestly, often assuming others shared their sincerity. But their aggressive individualism and entrepreneurial spirit irritated many, planting seeds of resentment in a fragile national fabric.
The tipping point came with a failed coup in 1966. The coup’s leaders were largely of Igbo extraction, and some prominent Hausa-Fulani politicians were killed. When the coup was suppressed by the then-Igbo army commander, Major General Aguiyi Ironsi, who assumed national leadership, suspicion turned to hostility. It didn’t matter that the Igbo were not collectively complicit; perceptions of ethnic dominance fueled violent reprisals. Across Nigeria, Igbo civilians—men, women, and children—were slaughtered, maimed, and driven from their homes. Their crime? Sharing the same ethnicity as some of the coup plotters.
Faced with relentless persecution, the Igbo fled to Eastern Nigeria, seeking refuge under the protection of their military governor, Lt. Col. Odumegwu Ojukwu. The clamor for safety and dignity led to a call for secession, birthing the short-lived Republic of Biafra. However, the Nigerian government responded with war, branding the secession as rebellion. What followed was a campaign of destruction: mass killings, starvation as a weapon of war, and the obliteration of civilian populations under the pretense of maintaining national unity.
By the war’s end in 1970, millions of lives had been lost. The Igbo were stripped of their properties, political positions, and dignity. Biafra’s failure was not due to a lack of resolve but to an underestimation of the lengths to which the Nigerian state and its foreign backers would go. The Igbo assumed they were fighting soldiers; they did not anticipate a war on civilians, where tanks and air raids rained terror upon villages.
Since then, the Igbo have returned to Nigeria, grinding their teeth but channeling their energies into rebuilding their lives through commerce and ingenuity. Yet, the scars of Biafra linger. The Igbo homeland remains heavily policed and militarized, with even minor disturbances treated as national security threats. Meanwhile, some factions in Nigeria invoke the war in their rhetoric, threatening violence and deriding the Igbo as occupying an area that is a “tiny dot” in Nigeria These are not merely words—they are provocations that ignore the lessons of history.
For those who casually talk of war or fantasize about forcing the Igbo to flee again, it’s crucial to understand one thing: the dynamics of conflict have changed. The Igbo have learned from Biafra. They are no longer confined to a “dot” but are everywhere, contributing to Nigeria’s economy and building homes far from their ancestral lands. They will not retreat to be cornered and crushed again.
And war itself has evolved. It is no longer fought with soldiers who can be dispatched to distant territories while leaders issue commands from comfortable enclaves. Drones and modern weaponry have democratized destruction. In today’s world, no region can claim immunity from the fires they set elsewhere—ask Russia, in their flirtations with Ukraine.
So, let this be a warning: watch your words and actions. The fires of Biafra burned too hot, and the ashes are still smoldering. Those who continue to stoke these embers risk starting an inferno that no one—not even the instigators—will be able to extinguish.
Let us learn from the past and choose dialogue, empathy, and unity over divisiveness. Nigeria cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of its history.
_______
♦Publisher of the Drum Magazine, Dr. Emeaba Emeaba is an author and entrepreneur based in Nigeria and the United States
- The General’s Tale: A Chronicle of Service, Regret, and Silence - March 12, 2025
- Raising Ramparts: Christie Ohuabunwa’s “Warrior Parenting” - March 12, 2025
- A Scathing Indictment of Nigeria’s Judiciary: A Legal Insider’s Crusade Against Corruption - March 12, 2025
Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo has sparked controversy within her Democratic Party circle by publicly endorsing the contentious $4.4 billion Houston ISD bond less than two weeks before the upcoming election. In a recent social media post, Hidalgo revealed that a recent tour of an HISD school facility had shed light on the urgent need for additional funding, despite the Texas Education Agency’s (TEA) recent takeover of the district.
The bond, which is divided into two separate propositions, has faced significant backlash in recent months. Surprisingly, both Harris County Republicans and Democrats have united in opposition to the bond, citing concerns about potential mismanagement by the current leadership.
However, Hidalgo’s stance is rooted in her firsthand observations during the school tour. She raised the alarm at the inadequate conditions she witnessed, such as a mere fence separating the exterior from six classrooms, a musty smell emanating from the library due to a damaged HVAC system, and using mobile units from 1990 that were only designed to last 10 years. Additionally, she noted that the narrow walkways and lack of proper canopies made it difficult for students and staff during inclement weather, and classrooms’ heating and cooling systems were insufficient. Indeed, Hidalgo’s decision to support the bond is based on her commitment to addressing the pressing needs of HISD students and staff, as highlighted by her eye-opening visit to the school facility.
To provide a comprehensive understanding of the Bond Proposal, let’s break it down: The proposal consists of two parts – Proposition A and Proposition B. Proposition A aims to enhance the district’s buildings and facilities. If approved, HISD will have the opportunity to borrow $3.96 billion for crucial repairs and upgrades. On the other hand, Proposition B focuses on enhancing technology in HISD schools, with a proposed borrowing of $440 million to modernize technology across all schools.
The Bond Proposal currently under consideration is undeniably significant, representing the first time in 12 years that HISD has sought funding for improvements. If approved, it would also become the largest bond in the history of the state of Texas. Major supporters of the bond, such as the Houston Food Bank, the Boys & Girls Clubs of Greater Houston, Mental Health America of Greater Houston, and Children at Risk, have valid concerns. They are particularly focused on the challenges faced by students in deteriorating school facilities.
However, there might be a glaring oversight in their assessment – the ability of HISD’s current leadership to effectively manage this initiative. Since assuming the role of Superintendent of the Houston Independent School District in June of 2023, Mike Miles has consistently been making headlines, albeit for all the wrong reasons. Despite his responsibilities in organizing, leading, directing, policy-making, and execution, Miles has failed to pass every test required to excel in his position. He has consistently struggled to lead this school district. Teachers are feeling distressed and uncertain about their roles, parents are worried about their children’s future, and students are losing interest in their education. The situation at HISD is dire, and it is clear that a change in leadership may be necessary to restore trust and stability within the district.
It is not surprising that former Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner and other local leaders who oppose the bond have expressed concerns regarding this proposal. They criticized Miles and his administration for not seeking sufficient input in developing the bond proposal. Bishop James Dixon, who heads the local National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) chapter, also criticized the lack of transparency in the bond proposal process. The Harris County Democratic Party Executive Committee voted unanimously to oppose it. Their party Chair Mike Doyle suggested that the funds should be in the hands of an elected representative, not Miles.
These criticisms underscore the critical need for transparency and community involvement in decision-making processes, particularly when it comes to allocating public funds. Superintendent Miles failed to actively engage all stakeholders, including community members and organizations, to ensure that the needs and priorities of the people were adequately addressed. The opposition ultimately stems from a lack of trust. Many believe that Miles cannot be trusted to responsibly manage billions in taxpayer money.
In less than two weeks, voters will see HISD’s bond divided into two items on their ballots, one totaling approximately $4 billion and the other around $400 million. Voters must carefully consider the implications of passing such a large bond, especially when there are concerns about the leadership within HISD. Judge Hidalgo and other supporters of this bond must move beyond their emotions. It is widely recognized that HISD is facing challenges and requires assistance. Ultimately, the success of this bond will depend on not just the amount of funding allocated, but also on the ability of HISD’s leadership to effectively implement and oversee its use.
♦Publisher of the Guardian News, Professor Anthony Obi Ogbo, PhD, is on the Editorial Board of the West African Pilot News. He is the author of the Influence of Leadership (2015) and the Maxims of Political Leadership (2019). Contact: anthony@guardiannews.us
- The General’s Tale: A Chronicle of Service, Regret, and Silence - March 12, 2025
- Raising Ramparts: Christie Ohuabunwa’s “Warrior Parenting” - March 12, 2025
- A Scathing Indictment of Nigeria’s Judiciary: A Legal Insider’s Crusade Against Corruption - March 12, 2025
The ongoing feud between Houston Mayor John Whitmire and the city’s chief financial officer, Controller Chris Hollins, is escalating into a distracting political spectacle.
During a heated press conference last week, Whitmire accused Hollins of engaging in pay-to-play by seeking sponsorships for a local annual investor conference. Whitmire’s main concern is that Hollins openly sought sponsorships reaching up to $100,000, with top sponsors being promised access to a private dinner with him, as stated in a document on the city’s website. Whitmire announced that he had launched an ethics investigation into the matter.
The ongoing feud between Houston Mayor John Whitmire and the city’s chief financial officer, Controller Chris Hollins, is escalating into a distracting political spectacle.
During a heated press conference last week, Whitmire accused Hollins of engaging in pay-to-play by seeking sponsorships for a local annual investor conference. Whitmire’s main concern is that Hollins openly sought sponsorships reaching up to $100,000, with top sponsors being promised access to a private dinner with him, as stated in a document on the city’s website. Whitmire announced that he had launched an ethics investigation into the matter.
In response, Hollins swiftly retaliated by submitting a memo to the City of Houston’s Office of Inspector General and the Houston City Council Ethics Committee, requesting that the investigation be expanded to include fundraising practices for the Mayor’s State of the City event. Hollins defended his actions by explaining that he utilized the same fundraising model for the Investor Conference that the Mayor had used for the State of the City event. The key difference is that the Mayor controls the proceeds from the State of the City, while proceeds from the Investor Conference are directed to a non-profit donor-advised fund, where an independent body has exclusive spending authority.
The two men have publicly disagreed over the city’s finances, but the latest drama marked a new level of animosity. Earlier this year, for instance, the duo clashed over Whitmire’s proposed $1.5 billion settlement with the firefighter’s union. Tensions escalated when Hollins halted the process and raised additional questions about the agreement. Hollins also argued that the Mayor did not provide him with enough time to assess the financial impact the contract would have on the city’s finances. In response, Whitmire, who played a significant role in negotiating the settlement, emphasized the need for swift approval to prevent any potential legal challenges that could result in the city being liable for a larger sum than agreed upon.
However, this recent clash with Hollins is just the tip of the iceberg. Since taking office as Houston’s mayor, Whitmire has frequently made headlines for his conflicts with other public officials, many of whom are fellow members of his Democratic Party.
Do you remember the Whitmire versus Hidalgo drama? Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo supported the late Sheila Jackson Lee, Whitmire’s rival in a contentious mayoral race. Since Whitmire won and took office, his attitude towards Hidalgo and others who supported Jackson Lee has been quite vindictive. Whitmire has made it nearly impossible to meet with Hidalgo in person, even during major weather events that have hit Houston.
The officials had held separate briefings due to this ongoing discord. On May 16, they held their first joint news conference after an unexpected windstorm ravaged Houston. The exchange was disgraceful and awkward, with both even squabbling over who should speak at the podium. Whitmire remarked, “I’m glad I made the approval list,” to which Hidalgo responded, “Mayor, this is a disaster. Now is not the time.”
That was not the end of it. A month later, Whitmire stirred controversy with a derogatory comment on Hidalgo’s Facebook page regarding her bridal shower. Hidalgo had posted photos from the event, including one with her fiancé David James. Commenting from his official Facebook page, Whitmire wrote, “Wonderful. He sure looks like a nerd.” Whitmire’s comment generated awkward headlines and distractions from important policy matters for another week.
It is concerning that Whitmire has consistently found himself embroiled in controversies, yet appears unfazed by the backlash. In June, he sparked yet another contentious moment by stating to a news outlet that residents of Gulfton in Houston are predominantly undocumented immigrants seeking basic services and may not be welcomed in the Galleria. This comment prompted numerous local organizations to unite in signing and sending a letter demanding an apology for remarks they deemed highly offensive.
One significant concern with electing individuals of advanced age or nearing retirement to key political positions is that they often realize they have no long-term career to safeguard. This can ultimately result in a lack of decorum within the decision-making process, as these individuals prioritize their own agendas over the needs of those they are meant to serve. In the long run, this shortsighted approach can have detrimental effects on the overall stability and prosperity of the constituency.
The approach taken by Mayor John Whitmire aligns well with the above analogy. At 75 years old, he has essentially reached the conclusion of his illustrious political career. Yet as his ongoing political dramas continue to captivate public attention, one cannot help but question his capacity to organize people. His behavior has become a major topic in the media, diverting attention from his official duties and raising concerns about his ability to work effectively with officials who would not agree with him. Ultimately, it is up to Whitmire to address these issues.
♦Publisher of the Guardian News, Professor Anthony Obi Ogbo, PhD, is on the Editorial Board of the West African Pilot News. He is the author of the Influence of Leadership (2015) and the Maxims of Political Leadership (2019). Contact: anthony@guardiannews.us
- The General’s Tale: A Chronicle of Service, Regret, and Silence - March 12, 2025
- Raising Ramparts: Christie Ohuabunwa’s “Warrior Parenting” - March 12, 2025
- A Scathing Indictment of Nigeria’s Judiciary: A Legal Insider’s Crusade Against Corruption - March 12, 2025
-
Books2 weeks agoA Scathing Indictment of Nigeria’s Judiciary: A Legal Insider’s Crusade Against Corruption
-
Books2 weeks agoThe General’s Tale: A Chronicle of Service, Regret, and Silence
-
Books2 weeks agoRaising Ramparts: Christie Ohuabunwa’s “Warrior Parenting”
-
Houston3 weeks agoHouston African leaders mourn departed former Mayor, Rep. Sylvester Turner