Donald Trump’s December 7 Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration has attracted worldwide disdain. Nearly 500,000 Britons have signed a petition asking their government to prevent Trump from entering their country. In the US, Trump’s comments have been denounced by Democrats, Republicans, the media and religious groups.

Yet a recent poll has found that 37% of likely voters across the political spectrum agree with a “temporary ban” on Muslims entering the US.

Trump possesses an arrogance and volatility that makes most voters recoil. So how has he maintained a grip on a segment of the Republican base that – at least, for now – seems unshakable?

And how has his support persisted, despite the fact that some have called him a demagogue and a fascist, or that political observers have found parallels between him and polarizing figures like George Wallace, Joseph McCarthy, Father Coughlin – even Hitler?

As a scholar of American political rhetoric, I write about and teach courses on the use and abuse of rhetorical strategy in public discourse. Scrutinizing Trump’s rhetorical skills can partially explain his profound and persistent appeal.

The rhetoric of demagoguery

The Greek word “demagogue” (demos = people + agōgos = leader) literally means “a leader of the people.” Today, however, it’s used to describe a leader who capitalizes on popular prejudices, makes false claims and promises, and uses arguments based on emotion rather than reason.

Donald Trump appeals to voters' fears by depicting a nation in crisis, while positioning himself as the nation’s hero – the only one who can conquer our foes, secure our borders and “Make America Great Again.”

His lack of specificity about how he would accomplish these goals is less relevant than his self-assured, convincing rhetoric. He urges his audiences to “trust him,” promises he is “really smart” and flexes his prophetic muscles (like when he claims to have predicted the 9/11 attacks).

Trump’s self-congratulating rhetoric makes him appear to be the epitome of hubris, which, according to research, is often the least attractive quality of a potential leader. However, Trump is so consistent in his hubris that it appears authentic: his greatness is America’s greatness.

So we can safely call Trump a demagogue. But one fear of having demagogues actually attain real power is that they’ll disregard the law or the Constitution. Hitler, of course, is a worst-case example.

Amazingly, one of Trump’s very arguments is that he won’t be controlled.

On the campaign trail, he’s harnessed his macho businessman persona – crafted through social media and years spent on TV (where he was often the most powerful person in the room) – to make his case for the presidency. It’s a persona that rejects restraints: he speaks of not being constrained by his party, media, other candidates, political correctness, facts – anything, really. In a sense, he’s fashioning himself as an uncontrollable leader.

Using speech to demolish detractors

But most voters would never want an uncontrollable president. So why do so many remain adamant in their support?

First, Trump draws on the myth of American exceptionalism. He depictes the United States as the world’s best hope: there is only one chosen nation and, as president, all of his decisions work toward making America great. By tying himself to American exceptionalism – while classifying his detractors as “weak” or “dummies” – he’s able to position his critics as people who don’t believe in, or won’t contribute to, the “greatness” of the nation.

Trump also uses fallacious and divisive rhetorical techniques that prevent him from being questioned or backed into a corner.

He often uses ad populum arguments, which are appeals to the wisdom of the crowd (“polls show,” “we’re winning everywhere”).

When opponents question his ideas or stances, he’ll employ ad homenim attacks – or criticisms of the person, rather than the argument (dismissing his detractors as “dummies,” “weak” or “boring”). Perhaps most famously, he derided Carly Fiorina’s appearance when she started to go up in the polls after the first Republican debate (“Look at that face!” he cried. “Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?”).

Finally, his speeches are often peppered with ad baculum arguments, which are threats of force (“when people come after me they go down the tubes”).

Because demagogues make arguments based on false claims and appeal to emotion, rather than reason, they’ll often resort to these devices. For example, during his 1968 presidential run, George Wallace declared, “If any demonstrator ever lays down in front of my car, it’ll be the last car he’ll ever lay down in front of” (ad baculum). And Senator Joseph McCarthy resorted to an ad homenim attack when he derided former Secretary of State Dean Acheson as a “pompous diplomat in striped pants with a phony British accent.”

Trump will also employ a rhetorical technique called paralipsis to make claims that he can’t be held accountable for. In paralipsis, the speaker will introduce a topic or argument by saying he doesn’t want to talk about it; in truth, he or she wants to emphasize that very thing.

For example, in New Hampshire on December 1, he said, “But all of [the other candidates] are weak and they’re just weak – I think that they are weak generally if you want to know the truth. But I don’t want to say that because I don’t want to…I don’t want to have any controversies, no controversies, is that okay? So I refuse to say that they are weak generally, okay?”

Trump’s ultimately fallacy

Let’s return to Trump’s December 7 2015 statement about Muslims to analyze which rhetorical techniques are in play:

Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life. If I win the election for President, we are going to Make America Great Again.

In this statement, Trump immediately makes two things axiomatic (or unquestionable): American exceptionalism and Muslims' hatred for America. According to Trump, these axioms are supported by the wisdom of the crowd (ad populim); they are “obvious to anybody.”

He also defines Muslims in essential terms as people who believe only in jihad, are filled with hatred and have no respect for human life. Trump uses Reification – the treatment of objects as people and people as objects – to link his axioms together and support his case: “Our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in jihad.”

Here, he personifies “our country” by presenting the nation as a person. Meanwhile, he uses “that” rather than “who” to signal that Muslims are not people, but objects.

His underlying logic is that our nation is a victim of these “objects.” Objects need not be treated with the same amount of care as people. Therefore we are justified in preventing Muslims from entering the country.

Finally, it’s worth noting that Trump’s use of evidence is incomplete and biased toward his point of view. His announcement cites a survey of American Muslims “showing 25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified.”

The polling data came from the Center for Security Policy (CSP), which the Southern Poverty Law Center has called an “anti-Muslim think tank.” Furthermore, Trump fails to report that in the same survey, 61% of American Muslims agreed that “violence against those that insult the prophet Muhammad, the Qur’an, or Islamic faith” is not acceptable. Nor does he mention that 64% didn’t think that “violence against Americans here in the United States can be justified as part of the global jihad.”

Unfortunately, like a true demagogue, Trump doesn’t seem all too concerned with the facts.

Author:  Jennifer Mercieca:  Associate Professor of Communication and Director of the Aggie Agora, Texas A&M University

Credit link:  https://theconversation.com/the-rhetorical-brilliance-of-trump-the-demagogue-51984<img alt="The Conversation" height="1" src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/51984/count.gif" width="1" />

The article was originally published on The Conversation (www.conversation.com) and is republished with permission granted to www.oasesnews.com

Nigerian rap artiste, Naeto C, popularly nick-named ‘White Kaftan, has opened up on why he got married.

The father of two, giving his reasons, said he was trying to avoid having a baby outside wedlock.

“Part of the reasons I decided to get married when I did was because I did not want to become a ‘baby daddy.’

“I did not want to raise a kid out of wedlock because it is not easy. If I was not married, I would have been more concerned with settling down as opposed to getting a girl pregnant out of wedlock. I cannot speak for another man but I know sometimes people intentionally want children out of wedlock while other times, it is accidental,” the rap artist told PUNCH.

“However, the main reason I married my wife was because I wanted a happy future and I believe I can only get it from my wife.

“In life, there are only a few people you feel you can get things like this from. If I did not make that decision when I did, maybe today I would still be a bachelor. It is just the same thing with my Master’s degree; if I did not study for it when I did, I probably would never get it.

“Life is about making decisions and securing a future of happiness is the main reason I got married to Nicole,” the ‘Ten Over Ten’ songster quipped.

Refuting claims that marriage affected his career negatively, the light-skinned artist noted, “There is no way my marriage affected my music career. I got married in 2012 and that same year, I released my hit song, Tony Montana. I would like to point out that it was when I got married that I became a Glo ambassador for two years, I am a Hudala ambassador now.

“I think that when people say that marriage affected my career, what they are really trying to say is that ever since I got married, I have not done another song like Ten over Ten. The truth of the matter is that, I cannot do a song like Ten over Ten again the same way Tuface cannot do another song like African Queen; Wande Coal cannot do Bumper to Bumper again and MI cannot do Safe again. That is the way music works,” White Kaftan added.

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, yesterday told a Federal High Court sitting in Abuja how the immediate past Governor of Benue State, Gabriel Suswam alongside his Commissioner for Finance, Omadachi Okolobia, stole over N3.1bn from the state treasury.

At the resumed trial, the prosecutor, Detective Junaidu Sa’id, said his team took up the case following a petition dated July 14, 2015 against the Suswam and Oklobia.

Sa’id told the court that in the course of their investigations, it was discovered that the Suswam gave a directive for shares owned by the State Government be sold so as to raise the sum of N10bn.

The prosecutor said, following the directive, Elixir Investment Partners was appointed as stockbrokers to oversee sale of the shares, from which over N9 billion was realised.

He also stated that Elixir Investment Partners, was instructed to pay the N9bn raised from the sales of the shares into three different bank accounts, adding that another instruction was given for the payment of N1bn to be made into Benue Investment Properties Company’s account, while the balance of N8bn be paid into two separate accounts with the name of Benue State Ministry of Finance.

The prosecutor further stated that while Elixir was trying to pay the sum into the two separate accounts of the Benue State Ministry of Finance as directed, it was discovered that one of the accounts does not belong to the Ministry but to one Fanffash Resources.

Following the discovery, Elixir sought clarification from Okolobia, who mandated the company to pay N5bn into the account of Benue State Ministry of Finance while N3.1bn be paid into Fanffash Resources account.

Sa’id said the owner of Fanfash Resources, Abubakar Umar, was invited by the EFCC who confirmed that he received N3.1bn and converted same to its dollar equivalent, amounting to $15.8m, adding that he later delivered it in cash to former Governor Suswam at his Maitama Residence in Abuja.

The court however adjourned the case till January 18, and 19 2016 for cross examination of the witness and continuation of hearing.

FORMER Adamawa State finance commissioner John Babani Elias has become the first politician to be sentenced to prison since the inception of the Buhari administration after he was jailed for 10 years yesterday.In a clear indication that the present government intends to take the war against corruption seriously, Mr Elias has been handed out the stiffest sentence ever meted out to a politician since the return to democracy in 1999. His conviction followed a corruption case instituted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) against him.

Yesterday's judgement was delivered by Justice Bilkisu Aliyu at the Federal High Court, Yola, in the case against Mr Elias and Al- Akim Investment, a company he promoted, with Inuwa Bassi, listed as the second defendant in the case. However, the court acquitted Mr. Bassi for want of evidence and the convicted Mr Babani has since been taken to Yola prison.

Judge Aliyu  in her ruling on count three which nailed Mr Babani, and Al- Akim Investment, found the former commissioner guilty of defrauding the Adamawa state government of N31.5m (£105,938) via his company which he used to divert the said monies meant for a local government joint project. Although, the court found Mr Elias guilty of conspiracy to cause the payment of N21,000,000 via Habib Bank, it however, discharged and acquitted Mr Bassi, of the said count.

 In addition, Mr Babani is to return N51,000,000 to the Adamawa state government joint account while his company Al- Akim, shall pay the fine of N5,000,000 and is also to be wound up immediately. His counsel, Andrew Malgwi, said his client will appeal the judgement because he was not comfortable with some aspects of the ruling.

The Senate has denied introducing any bill aimed at jailing social media users.

It made the explanations in a a statement signed by Bamikole Omishore, SA New Media to the Senate President, Bukola Saraki, entitled
“Clarification on false claim that Senate passed a bill proposing to jail social media users for two years”.

According to him, “The bill being made reference to, is An Act to Prohibit Frivolous Petitions and Other Related Matters, which absolutely makes no mention of jailing social media users.

“Senator Na’Allah’s bill seeks to make illegal, the common act of individuals sponsoring frivolous petitions to tarnish/blackmail public servants or political office holders for selfish purposes. The bill also seeks to make it a requirement for petitioners to depose to an affidavit in court which will must be attached to any petition. Where such petition is discovered to be frivolous, or mischievous or the fact there in are false, the proposed bill makes it a case of perjury which is an offense under the law.

“The Deputy Senate leader in his submission expressed concern that with such frivolous petitions, the right of an individual to be presumed innocent until proven guilty by a competent court, would have eroded such presumption of innocence as these petitions lead to media trials that hampers the rule of law.

“In the developed societies and in particular, the US, if one files a petition with the Federal Bureau of Investigation or any other government agency, aimed at defaming someone, ruining their reputation or family and such petition is discovered to be false, such a person will be held liable and would pay dearly for it.

“One can only imagine that if countries allowed dishonest elements to file petitions against their opponents without having to hold them accountable, this will amount to impunity.”

Gabriel Omogbo, 33, of Hyattsville, preached the word of God on Sunday mornings, but spent his nights hunting prostitutes at hotels. He has now been charged with attempted first degree murder, armed robbery, first
degree assault and reckless endangerment. Police say Omogbo would troll Backpage.com, using the website to broker prostitution deals with women.

Attacks one and two happened at the Best Western Plus along W. Montgomery Avenue in Rockville. There he allegedly raped and robbed two call girls he had met online. Attack 3 took place at the Radisson Hotel along Research Court in Rockville. Investigators say he met a prostitute in a third floor hotel room shortly after midnight. .

Following a round of consensual sex, he emerged from the bathroom holding a kitchen knife and ordered the woman to strip naked and then reportedly said, “You are going to die today.” He went on to beat the woman’s face, cut her arms, legs and hands and stole her iPad, pre-paid T-Mobile cell phone and $300.

However before fleeing, he told the woman to wash up, and then handed her a cup of cold water to drink. The escort survived the onslaught and called 911. Forensic technicians collected DNA evidence from each of the hotel rooms where the incidents occurred and used it to track and arrest Omogbo.

According to his Facebook page, he is a preacher at the Celestial Church of Christ in Riverdale. In a Facebook post from June,2015, Omogbo wrote, “I can’t but give glory to God for using me for his glory… Lord u are all to be praised.”

Omogbo, who will next appear in Court on January 8, 2016, faces life imprisonment. He is currently behind bars at the Montgomery County Correctional Facility on a no-bond status…… bt Omogbo is requesting dt d anointing on his head shld b respected……

One Ololade Aigboje, a trader alleged to have stabbed her landlord with a broken bottle, was Thursday, charged before an Ikeja Magistrates’ Court in Lagos.

The 31-year-old, residing at 1, Bolanle Oladehinde Close, Agbado, a suburb of Lagos, is facing a charge of assault.

According to the prosecutor, Inspector Edet Okoi, the offence was committed on November 13 at MAO Filling Station, Kola Road, Alakuko, a suburb of Lagos.

Okoi explained that a fight had ensued between the accused and her landlord, one Mr. Aderibigbe Alao, during which the accused broke a bottle and stabbed the landlord on the left palm.

Okoi said, “The complainant bled profusely as a result of the injury he sustained. The offence contravened Section 171 of the Criminal Law of Lagos State, 2011.”

The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge.

The Magistrate, Miss A.R Onilogbo, granted the accused bail in the sum of N20, 000 with one surety in like sum and adjourned the case till December 9 for hearing.

NAN