Henry Aladiume, Reports
Some African affairs analysts have highlighted the various crisis in Nigeria, Uganda and Ethiopia and suggested that those countries are facing a leadership deficit. A quick review of the situation in those three countries, will show that they are confronted or on the throes of ethnic ,political upheaval and have been unable find a convenient formulae for viable combination or existence.
In the case of Nigeria, President Buhari is presiding over a nation that has had several religious, sectarian ,ethnic and cultural conflicts that were sparked by issues relating to the founding of the country. The cultural ,ethnic ,religious and linguistic conflicts amongst the various Nigeria groups and the quest for power by those constituent units, is at the core of the so called leadership deficit which is really a “crisis of nationhood”.
In the same vein, Yoweri Museveni has been in power in Uganda since 1986 and has had to face sectarian and ethnic crisis over the years. Sadly ,governing ,democratic and institutional frameworks that guarantee stability, viability and transparency are still wobbly in that country. The country Uganda has also not found a viable strategy for instilling democratic ethos and civic principles on the entire citizenry.
Map of Nigeria
As a result civic engagement, decorum, civility, ethics and rules that guide political actions and conduct are still evolving and have not reached maturity stage. Consequently, one man rule by Yoweri Museveni persists and the persecution of the opposition remains a recurring part of the national political dynamic.
In the case of Ethiopia the country has evolved from the year 2001 when Eritea was allowed to exit and become a country on its own. Since then Ethiopia 🇪🇹 has been moving on the right trajectory in terms of its political and economic dynamics. The country has been a partner in the war against terrorism waged by the US.
Uganda President, Yoweri Museveni
Also the current Prime Minister Abiy Mohammed won the Nobel prize for peace in 2019 and that was a significant achievement. However, in more recent times there have been internal dissent , crisis and external tension with neighboring Eritrea. It is clear that those three countries Nigeria, Uganda and Ethiopia are grappling with existential crisis that have been precipitated by the dynamics associated with their founding. The upheavals they face are not necessarily that of a deficit of leadership, but a conundrum precipitated by the crisis of nationhood.
JOE BIDEN AND KAMALA HARRIS’S POLICIES WILL ERODE ,DEGRADE AND DISMANTLE THE FOUNDATIONAL ECONOMIC,SOCIAL ,CULTURAL PRINCIPLES AND PHILOSOPHIES THAT MADE THE UNITED STATES THE RICHEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD.IMMIGRATION WITHOUT ASSIMILATION IS A MARCH TOWARDS DECAY
The quest for diversity through open
borders, massive illegal immigration by democrats will eventually make America
a secular, quasi, socialist, third world banana republic
By the editor of theinsightpost,
Henry Aladiume
Many conservative see the agenda of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris as one that is designed to unmake America.Many observers say that is likely evident from the growing radicalism,socialism , secularism and the very liberal nature of Karmala Harris.
Their vision for America is to turn it away from the foundational principles that made it a great country.
They will hamper the free market by introducing elements of excessive government controls.
They will raise taxes and could unmake all the good trade deals that President Trump has made.The Democrats campaign against fossil fuels through using the green new deal will cost America so many jobs.It will end America’s energy independence that Trump achieved.
In addition,there is evidence to show that Joe Biden is compromised by the communist party of China and he will reverse all of the gains USA has made against China in trade deals under President Trump.
Many analysts suggest America was and still is a Christian country but the Democrats have had a history of trying to remove Christianity from the public space.
Democrats like Joe Biden were some of the early proponents of gay marriage,abortion,legalizing drugs and other radical secuar ideas.So why would Christians support him?
President Joe Biden and Vice-President Kamala Harris
Many experts say that America’s success over the years largely came from its’ dominant white Christian European culture.The Democrats are simplying trying to erase that culture by their so called quest for diversity.
The facts show Joe Biden has promised to legalize 11 million foreign born illegal immigrants who are currently living in America.
Also, Joe Biden,Kamala Harris and Democrats have promised to legalize the dreamers- a group of nearly 1 million foreign born illegal immigrants who have been living in America since they were children.
The Democrats have had a lukewarm attitude towards controlling and regulating the over 1 million illegal Immigrants coming into the country.
The Democrats and Biden plan to increase the number of refugees that come to America.
In essence they plan to make America’s demographic composition less white European .
Democrats immigration policies have had an effect for years of turning America from a cultural melting pot to a salad bowl.
The facts is that Democrats, many of whom now include a growing number of foreign born citizens are no longer assimilating to the culture of America.They have encouraged a culture of diversity that is increasing racial tension in America.This policies will eventually create a situation in which some of the new immigrant will realize that the Democrats are shattering and destroying their American dream.
In addittion,a review of North America economic development index will show that strategy will fail and make America less viable and sustainable.
This is because in the whole of North ,South and Central America, Canada and US are the most advanced countries and there is no doubt that the white western European Christian culture of the latter is the reason they are so wealthy,free,succesful and vibrant .
Many observers suggest that Democrats policies which are based on eroding the white Christian European Christian foundation and culture of America will make it a third world country like :Guetamala,Honduras and El-Salvador.
CAN PRESIDENT TRUMP DEFEAT VICE- PRESIDENT BIDEN IN THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION?
The probability of president trump winning the 2020 election is about thirty percent. That means his chance of winning the election is lower than that of vice president Biden. Polls do not necessarily determine who wins the election. What determines the winner is who turns out to vote on election day and which of the candidates most of those voters vote for.
President Trump and Vice President Biden
By Henry Aladiume
There is no doubt that
President Trump has been a very consequential President. He made a lot of
strategic and valuable policy decisions on the economy, domestic policy,
foreign affairs and military which gave the United States a more vibrant and
buoyant outlook in his first term in office. However, in the run up to the 2020
presidential election every major media outlet on the left and right of the
political spectrum suggest that Trump may lose the 2020 presidential election.
There are many reasons
why that may be the case, some of which include the fact that many Americans
think his handling of the corona virus pandemic left much to be desired. The
fact is that 200,000 people have died in circumstances that many Americans
think could have been avoided. That singular issue could be the reason Trump
may lose the election.
In addition, we know
that the Corona virus pandemic came from China, but it has caused economic
crisis around the world. That economic crisis has created business failures,
misery and high unemployment. In most elections a president who is in office at
the time of economic recession never gets re-elected. That is the conundrum
that President Trump is in. In the run up to the 1992 elections President H.Bush entered
the election with sky high approval ratings. But he lost to a young Governor know as William Jefferson Clinton over issues related to domestic policies especially the
economy.
In addition, money is a
major factor in American elections and winning the election requires access to
a of lot funds. Obama’s 2008 victory was partly attributable to the fact he out-raised John McCain in the money game. In 2008 President Obama raised and spent over $550 million dollars
to McCain's approximately $110. That was in addition to money brought it by
outside groups. As result Obama eclipsed McCain in advertising and
communication spend and consequently Obama bombed him out of the money race and
he lost.
In the 2018 midterm
elections Republicans lost over forty seats in that contest; lost the house and
Nancy Pelosi consequently became speaker again for a second time. Part of the reason was that Republicans
were outspent by Democrats in many cases in the ratio of five to one. In 2018 ,billionaires like Bloomberg, Soros and Steyer pumped nearly $300 million into
the democrats campaign and that led them to outspend the Republicans
;drowning, overcoming and overwhelming them.
In the 2020 election
the Trump campaign is running behind on the money race because, Biden is now beating them.As a result the Trump campaign is pulling advertisement in states that they
should ordinarily be competing in, because of scarcity of funds .That funds
scarcity could reduce their ability to reach voters and a loss of the election
in some key states.
In addition,
Republicans have lost the popular vote in six of the last seven presidential elections.
That comes from the fact that the changing demographics or the browning of
America favors democrats. As a result Republicans are finding it more difficult
to win elections. Trump lost the popular vote by three million. With the
aforementioned trend, President Trump's chances of winning is slim.
In addition, in America
95% of black Americans vote for Democrats;70% of Spanish/Jews/Asians vote for
Democrats and about 45% of white people vote for Democrats. So how do
Republicans and Trump win? It is very tough. Also, with the electoral vote
model Democrats have a lock on two of the states that have some of the largest
electoral votes (New York -29) and (California- 55).
Consequently, starting out Democrats have a better chance of winning in any presidential election year.
The other large state Texas with 38 electoral votes is controlled by Republicans.The
fact is that massive immigration from Latin America to Texas is changing the demographics of the state and there is a chance Democrats could win it this cycle.
If that happens President Trump will kiss his re-election election goodbye.
Furthermore, unlike in
2016 President Trump now has a record. Most of it is tied to how he managed the
corona virus pandemic and many people are unhappy with how it turned out.
Without the pandemic Trump would have coasted to victory but the pandemic
changed the calculus. Before the pandemic the economy was roaring on all
cylinders and Trump was riding high, but the pandemic has put his credibility
on the spotlight.
To win the 2020
election President Trump has to over perform among non-white college educated voters;
black men, white women and college educated whites. If that does not happen he may lose. The fact is that the current situation has put President Trump’s
election chances in jeopardy.The truth is that his chance of winning is now
more remote. However, some people suggest that the polls today may be wrong as
they were in 2016.
The fact is that the
projections from the different state polls may have been wrong in 2016. But the
national polls were not wrong as they consistently showed Hillary winning. As
the polls projected in 2016 Hillary won about 65 million votes to Trump’s 62 million votes.
Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million in 2016. Trump however, won the electoral vote
in 2016 by a margin of 306 to about 227 largely by a 200,000 vote margin in
Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Ohio. The fact is Trump could win in 2020, but the probability is lower than in 2016 and in the match up against Biden in 2020.
The polls are a
snapshot in time, but do not and cannot predict who eventually turns out to vote.
The dynamics of this year’s election is different .This is because the calculus has
changed from 2016. Again, President Trump could win if his supporters turn out to vote in
numbers that overwhelm the opposition.
https://www.theinsightpost.com
News.Features.Analysis
BUHARI’S
PLAN TO ISLAMIZE NIGERIA AND MASSACRE EASTERN IGBO CHRISTIANS WILL FAIL. HIS
PLAN WILL ONLY ACCELERATE THE DISINTEGRATION OF NIGERIA INTO FOUR OR MORE NEW
NATIONS
By Henry
Aladiume
It is heartwarming that the
awareness regarding the unfolding tragedy in Nigeria is getting attention from
the Igbos, who might be most, affected. But the tragedy of all this is that
some Igbos were enthusiastic about Buhari’s ascension to power in 2015 on the
false premise that he is an anti-corruption crusader. But all intelligent
people should have known from his tenure as military head of state from 1983 to
1984 that Buhari is a religious bigot, ethnic chauvinist and a proponent of
nepotism.
 |
| Cross Section of Nigerian Women From Different Tribes |
The fact is that his current
attempt to foster a full blown Fulani hegemony in Nigeria is bound to
ultimately fail. This is because in the 1960’s the north was mainly united by
the fact that they could all speak Hausa and were largely of the Islamic faith
except in the middle belt region; Kaduna and parts of the northeast. But today
that unity is gone and most Nigerian ethnic groups know the Hausa-Fulani’s are traitors.
In addition, 2023 will be a crucial year as there will be another presidential
election .Should the northerners refused to cede power in 2023 then you know
they would lose their allies in Yoruba land who helped put Buhari in power.
Should they cede power to a southerner, Buhari’s Islamization agenda would be discarded.
Nigerian men from different tribes
The fact is that Buhari is not
invincible as evidenced by the fact that in the Babangida/middle belt officers
led coup of 1985, Buhari was apprehended and kept under house arrest. The
Fulani’s themselves overestimate their power because the bulk of Non
Commissioned Officers and officers Corp of the Nigerian army since the post
civil war years are from the middle belt
and not Fulanis.The ignorance and
incompetence of President Buhari is reason their trying to Islamize Nigeria.
They have overestimated the relevance of the Fulani’s in the Nigeria power equation.
The likelihood that Fulani’s would install a full blown hegemony in Nigeria is
a pipe dream. Such an outcome is not possible but it will only accelerate the
disintegration of Nigeria. Nigeria is a complex and diverse country and that is
why unlike some other African countries we have never had a president for life.
President Buhari and Vice-President Osibajo
The so called plan to massacre the
Igbos by Fulanis is a mirage because unlike in the 1960’s most Nigerian ethnic
groups have since realized the folly of trying to keep Nigeria as one country.
In addition ,the impotence of the Nigeria army could be seen from their
inability to defeat Boko Haram or even mount a successful campaign against the
Niger Delta volunteer force in late 90’s and early 2000’s.The fact is that most
Nigeria Christians value life more that this Hausa-Fulani marauders.
But all southern and northern
Nigerian Christians must remain vigilant and fight to defend themselves and
rise to defeat the Fulani jihadist. Buhari’s actions are acts borne out of folly
,myopia and arrogance but he is only ensuring that Nigeria will eventual
splinter into entities along ethnic ,linguistic and religious lines. His plan
to massacre an entire ethnic group will definitely hasten his demise and trial
at the international criminal court for genocide. In the end for those crimes
he will die in jail.
https://www.theinsightpost.com
Without Restructuring, Nigeria Like Most Heterogeneous Nations May Remain
A Failed State
By Henry Aladiume
The
failures of most of post independent Africa are well documented. The fact is
that part of our challenge lies in the colonial manipulation of African boundaries.
The colonial rulers set up Africa for failure by creating new countries with so
many dis-similar people, interests, cultures, beliefs and values. The problem
then as in the case of Nigeria has been the struggle for power among various
ethnic, religious, linguistic and cultural groups. That power tussle has led to
coups, counter coups and a civil war.
 |
| Map of Nigeria |
A review of the history
of nations shows heterogeneous societies
which are (multi-lingual,multi-cultural,multi -religious and multi-ethnic
entities) like the old Soviet Union ,Nigeria,
Former Sudan, former Czechoslovakia, and former Yugoslavia always tend to be
fractured by the weight of the conflict created by tensions arising from
competing objectives of those different nationalities. So they tend to either
collapse or become failed states. On the other hand homogeneous societies(Same
or similar culture, same tradition ,same language, same religion and same or
similar ethnic groups like USA ,Canada(before
1950), Western Europe before 1945,India,Japan and China have tended to be more viable,
stable and prosperous. This is because the citizens share so much in common and
have unifying identity that drives patriotism.
Interestingly, Nigeria has had 14 Heads of
State and ten have come from North and only four from the south. Those who came
from the south only emerged by accident and as a result of an Hausa-Fulani
calculus of gamesmanship .Nigeria is potentially a rich country but it's
resources have been plundered and are still being squandered by a ruling class
that are selfish and engaging in sabotage. Nigeria has the potential to achieve
the same level of success as Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea and India but
because of its heterogeneous make- up such level of success is bottled up and
consigned to the realm of day dreams and wishful thinking.
The Lagos ,Nigeria Skyline
The Lagos ,Nigeria Skyline
Nigeria has a creative,
disruptive innovative, value based and result driven private sector but the
public sector (government) is so corrupt, clueless and inefficient that they
cause the death of most if not all good ideas and initiatives. The idealist
will suggest that we should pretend nothing is wrong with Nigeria and that
positive change is on the way. The realists know that Nigeria has structural
problems from its founding which persists till today. To fix those structural
problems could start with an open and frank discussion about restructuring of
the country. Without genuine attempts at restructuring Nigeria to a achieve a
system based on equity, transparency and fairness the country will remain
locked in a vicious cycle of poverty, despair and hopelessness.
https://www.theinsightpost.com
The Global Economic/Political Realities Of The Corona Virus Pandemic
By Henry Aladiume
President Trump At The White House Briefing
Clearly we at theinsightpost understand there is a global corona virus pandemic and everyone should take it seriously; listen, follow the direction and guidance of medical experts; CDC, National Institute of Health and other relevant global health agencies. In addition any deaths that have occurred as a result of the pandemic are sad, tragic and painful.
However, if you look at the trajectory and the number of infections ;the number of deaths and projected deaths theinsightpost believes that the Corona Virus is not bigger than swine flu (2009);Saars or Ebola(2011).However, theinsightpost notes that currently the level of panic being created is out of proportion compared to those other pandemics.
Evidently, the insight post opines that the hysteria and hoopla surrounding this Corona virus pandemic is over blown and is going to cause a global economic recession .As a matter of fact experts say there is no cure for this virus yet, but 70% of those infected so far have survived and are in fine health. Most of the deaths that have occurred sadly are among older people that already had an underlying condition like respiratory infection, bronchitis or lung infection.
Young people are reported to have a high level of immunity against the virus. The fact that there is no cure yet for this ailment is a cause for concern.However; people currently infected are being treated for the symptoms and signs. The development of therapeutic medicines and vaccines are still in progress. Most people are advised to maintain best hygiene practices; stay away from crowded places and wear masks when necessary in order to contain the spread of the virus. The question then is how do we balance our health and safety needs with our economic well being? There is no doubt that there are elements of political-economics surrounding the outbreak of this virus.
COVID 19 VIRUS
China is the second largest economy in the world and a month before the outbreak of this virus they had signed a trade deal with the United States, the world largest economy. The fallout of this pandemic has slowed the Chinese economy, the second largest economy in the world. Theinsightpost suggests that the the implication of that fact could be that China may not be able to fulfill many aspects of that trade agreement in the interim.
Well, theinsightpost understands that the Chinese have never really told the whole truth about the origins of the corona virus. In addition, theinsightpost reports show that the Chinese government has silenced some of it’s’ citizens who are experts and tried to speak out about the origins and issues surrounding the Corona virus pandemic.
Actually, theinsightpost believes that had the Chinese government been more truthful and co-operated fully with the international community and global health Agencies this virus may have been contained more rapidly at the onset. Instead China chose a different approach, that has led to the rapid spread of the disease; induced panic, fear and stampede that is likely to cause a global economic recession.
However, theinsightpost believes the Chinese government is a dictatorship. Therefore, public opinion about economic issues would never bring down Xi Jiping the Chinese premier and dictator because he is not elected, but a life time ruler.Theinsightpost notes that an economic recession will hurt or will lead to political consequences in the western world, where leaders are elected and poor economic conditions always lead to political consequences.
For example, in 1980 Reagan was elected after defeating President Jimmy Carter on the heels of an economic stagflation and recession. In a similar vein in 1992, Bill Clinton defeated George Bush in the midst of a slowing economy and in 2008, radical liberal Democratic Senator Barack Obama defeated war hero John McCain in the middle of a global financial crisis.
The United States is the World’s largest economy and a recession in the US will have a global economic impact. Theinsightpost has noted that there are many liberals in the left wing media especially in the USA who believe that the economy is the key issue that President Trump is running on. Those liberals see a booming economy as the key to Trump’s victory in November, 2020.Therefore, those liberals believe that an economic recession will most likely lead to President’s Trump’s defeat in 2020.
Left leaning media pundits like Joe Scarborough and Mika Brezinwski of MSNBC Show “Morning Joe “have openly suggested that a recession will be necessary to get rid of President Trump .Other left wing media pundits like Nicole Wallace of MSNBC and Bill Mahar of HBO have openly called for a recession in the USA as a means of ousting Trump. The left wing media’s reaction to this corona virus outbreak has been far more intense, hyper reactive and overblown when compared to similar pandemics in the past.
In 2009 when leftist liberal Democrat ,President Obama was President there was an outbreak of the swine flu pandemic but the left wing media then was more measured and had a more calming ,balanced ,re-assuring and even tone regarding the crisis. In effect the left wing media in the USA have had an agenda for the past three years and that is the ouster of President Trump.
The Chinese government mismanaged the Corona virus outbreak by not being truthful at the beginning and the outcome of their actions may lead to a global economic recession. In addition, Trump has been the only US President in recent history to challenge the Chinese and he imposed tariffs and penalties on China over issues like: Currency manipulation, theft of intellectual property and cheating on trade issues.
Mr. Xi Jinping ,The Chinese Leader
Evidently, the Chinese government would be happy if their actions or inaction leads to the defeat of President Trump in 2020 China’s misguided handling of the corona virus crisis has created an opportunity for the left wing media and the globalists to help incite panic and an over reaction and consequently fan the flames of a possible global economic recession.
A sustained recession in 2020 will hurt western leaders including President Trump who are up for re-election, because a lot of people vote based on pocket book issues or economic realities.However,theinsightpost hopes that the actions taken and measures put in place by the Trump administration and other global economic powers will stem the tide of a recession. Theinsightpost is saddened ,mourns and sympathizes with the families of those who have died.However,a global economic recession could cause more pain ,anguish and hardship.
https://www.theinsightpost.com T.832.705.3963
Please endeavor to read the entire piece before commenting. We welcome respectful, logical and informed reactions devoid of hysteria; platitudes and bumper sticker cliches.
You can email us using the email address: henryychi24@gmail.com
Will Texas Become A Purple State ?
By Henry Aladiume
Send e-mail inquiries to henryychi24@gmail.com
Texas Senator Ted Cruz and Former Congressman ,Beto 'O'Rourke
During the last governorship election in 2018 in Texas,the Republican candidate Gregg Abbot won the state by 12 points- a significant margin .In 2016 Trump won Texas by about 8-9 points a lower margin when compared to previous Republican presidential candidates like Bush(2004) and McCain (2008).
In the 2018 mid-term election Ted Cruz the Republican Senator representing South Texas, barely defeated his Democrat challenger Beto ‘O’Rourke by a mere 300,000 votes.The facts show that the biggest cities in Texas(Dallas,Houston,San Antonio and Austin) have been trending or have been Democrat strongholds for a while .That is why most of the mayors in those cities are Democrats.However,in contrast ten years ago most of the suburbs of those cities tended to be white and Republican.
Texas Political Map
However, Republicans still dominate in the politics of the rural areas in Texas.However, Joe Biden one the current presidential candidates in the Democratic Party presidential race is showing he can win in the big cities, suburbs, rural areas and among college /non college educated whites, blacks and Latinos. This means if Vice President Biden becomes the Democrat nominee, he will likely be a formidable challenger for the 38 electoral votes in Texas.
In the last few years as the non-white immigrant population in the US has continued to swell the make-up of most suburbs in America has been changing from mostly white to largely minority.Most of these minorities who are now a majority of the population in suburbs of the biggest cities in Texas have been voting for Democrats.This is the reason Democrats had a strong showing in the state in 2018 mid term election.
Texas Governor,Mr.Gregg Abbott
Based on the current immigration trends and as the suburbs become more black and brown,Texas may likely start trending purple in five years time just like Colorado ,New Mexico and Virginia went from red to purple and then blue in most cases in the last ten years.
https://www.theinsightpost.com T.832.705.3963
Rush Limbaugh Is An Embodiment of The American Spirit of Innovation
By Henry Aladiume
Send e-mail inquiries to henryychi24@gmail.com
 |
| Rush Limbaugh,The Number Radio Talk Show Host In America |
In what could be referred to as a landmark historical moment, President Trump conferred America’s highest civilian honor-the Medal of Freedom on top conservative show talk host Rush Limbaugh. The medal was presented during the state of the union speech staged in congress on February, 5th, 2020. Rush Limbaugh is widely regarded by most conservatives as a hero and one of the leading lights that helped shape, propagate and sustain the conservative movement in America.
In contrast theinsightpost reports show liberal Americans see Rush Limbaugh as one of the cheer leaders that fuel division in the country. As a result the fact seems to suggest that over the years liberals have been mis-representing some slices of Rush’s and comments of other conservative personalities as a way to diminish their impact and influence.
That strategy by liberals seems to be disingenuous information management strategy, which never reveals the whole story. Despite the seeming liberal hypocrisy, it is evident that you can find racially charged quotes from liberals like Maddow, Chris Mathews, Obama, Hillary, Biden and Bill Clinton. However; most liberal elites will never call them out in order to protect their partisan political base. Evidently the debate about Rush centers on racism, but the hypocrisy of the democrats and liberals making those accusations is always on full display.
There is evidence that racism is a widely misused term. The fact is that most human beings have an affinity for people of their own race .The biggest challenge has been that humans continue to create artificial societies that consist of dis-similar or diverse ethnic nationalities. That approach contradicts the research studies and conventional wisdom that supports the idea of the viability of homogenous or mono cultural nations like America was at its’ founding. Racism is one of the symptoms of heterogeneous societies which America has become.
Theinsightpost believes that Rush Limbaugh represents the best of America and he epitomizes an American success story. He is an embodiment of the American spirit of entrepreneurship, innovation, creativity and value driven leadership. He has been given special recognition by past US Presidents especially the Bush family. Rush has also devoted his resources to charitable causes that have positively impacted millions of Americans.
Also, over the years Mr. Limbaugh has championed the key principles that spurred America’s rise to global dominance-capitalism, conservatism, free markets, democracy, free and fair trade, robust national defense and preservation of our Judeo Christian values.
The insightpost has noted that Rush Limbaugh is often credited by other talk radio hosts like Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham and others as being primarily responsible for reviving the dying AM radio format in America in the 1980’s. For nearly thirty or more years he has built a radio show infrastructure that put him in front of nearly 25 million people every week. He has remained the number one talk radio show in America for over two decades. With his radio show he opened the flood gate for a multitude of other conservative show hosts who have helped to challenge the mostly liberal main stream media.
 |
| Mr.Rush Limbaugh Receives The Medal of Freedom From First Lady Melania Trump |
In 1994 he was honored by House Republicans led by then Mr. Newt Gingrich who emerged Speaker of the House after Republicans took it over for the first time in 40 years .There is no doubt that the conservative media messages helped propel Donald Trump to power. As a conservative Rush defends core American values, principles and constitution. To suggest Rush is a racist is a liberal talking point designed to smear the man. Even as Mr. Limbaugh battles lung cancer his instincts to fight for what is right, will likely prevail over his current health condition.
The United States was founded and built on conservative, capitalist, democratic , Judeo Christian philosophy and liberals are seeking to destroy it .Liberal efforts are geared towards remaking the United States into a third world, lawless, socialist banana republic. Despite all the liberal machinations, it is noteworthy that the gallantry of Mr. Limbaugh and others have helped to stem the tide of the liberal onslaught on America’s core founding principles.
Actually, a great conservative talk show host Dr.Micheal Savage has described liberalism is widely seen as a mental disorder .However, the genius of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin and others are helping : Keep America Great.
https://www.theinsightpost.com T.832.705.3963
Will Biafra Remain A Pipe Dream ?
Young men in South-Eastern Nigeria Carrying The Biafran Flag
Henry Aladiume Reports
Most people know that Biafra is not a race, but a geographic area that is largely inhabited by Igbo people in Nigeria and some unwilling minorities like the Ijaws, who are seeking their own republic. www.theinsightpost.com believes that people who are the so called Biafrans are actually part of the Black African race. There is no credible evidence that the 2020 US census will have a section that seeks information from indigenes of an unrecognized republic called Biafra. Remember that the Trump administration could not even get the Supreme Court to rule in favor of adding the citizenship question to the 2020 census.
Theinsightpost believes that the recent idea circulating in a recent video suggesting that the 2020 census will serve as a basis for US recognition of Biafra is likely a pipe dream. Similar efforts in the past unlike this Biafra campaign saw the US and the international community lead efforts that actualized the creation of Eritrea from Ethiopia in 2001 and Southern Sudan from Sudan in 2010.Those efforts were multi-lateral not unilateral as the Biafran case seem to suggest. Most analysts suggest that United States government will not encourage a Biafran secession effort, because Nigeria was a British colony and UK is a US ally. United States as an ally of Great Britain would defer to the UK government in matters relating to Nigerian nationhood.
The British historically like most colonial rulers preferred or always put their lackeys in power in post colonial rule. In addition , based on Wale Ademoyega's book on the 1966 coup in Nigeria he suggested that the British in the run-up to independence in 1960 encouraged the northerners to join the army in droves and falsified the census figures so as to give the north a larger percentage of the land and people of Nigeria. That arrangement ensured that the North led by the Hausa-Fulani oligarchy maintained a stranglehold on power and occasionally put their puppets in power. Had the British sanctioned the break up of Nigeria earlier on, it would have happened a long time ago.
Under the current circumstance, Nigeria is in a fragile state, as there is growing restiveness arising from opposition to President Buhari's covert/overt hyper ethnic propagation and promotion of Hausa-Fulani interests over and above those of Nigeria's other ethnic nationalities. The Yoruba’s' recently created a paramilitary force know as Amotekun to serve as a bulwark against Hausa/Fulani herdsmen/militants, who are engaged in a killing spree in most parts of Southern Nigeria.Amotekun is a formidable force endorsed by Southwestern Yoruba governors .In contrast MASSOB is an aspirational militia yet to be endorsed by Igbo governors. The fact is is that the IPOB leader, Mr.Nnamdi Kanu is a questionable leader of the Biafran movement because he does not have real legitimacy.
Think of the fact that in the 1950's Nnamdi Azikiwe was popularly elected as premier of the Eastern region and was also elected as ceremonial Head of State when Balewa was Prime Minister So Zik had legitimacy derived from popular elections. Also, Ojukwu a soldier was appointed Military Governor of Eastern Nigeria in the 1960's and that is how he derived his legitimacy.Nnamdi Kanu does not have any such legitimacy. The quest for Biafra is a legitimate aspiration with so many pitfalls. One of the challenges is that the original map of Biafra incorporates parts of so the called minorities living in present day - Cross River,Rivers,Akwa Ibom and they have territorial claims to the sea ports; most of the oil resources and will never accept Igbo domination over them.
In fact the Ijaws are found along the entire Niger Delta that also includes Edo, Delta States and other states. The Ijaws are the fourth largest ethnic group in Nigeria and want their own country. Another problem is whether other regional nationalities like Yoruba’s in the Southwest and Biroms,Angas and Tivs in the Middle Belt will be ready to secede if a section like Biafra is allowed to break away from Nigeria?Also,will Great Britain or any major super power be willing to support the Biafran effort? The quest for Biafra brings a lot of questions and uncertainties about the outcome.
The fact is that, since the 1970's till now, Igbos have been managing their own affairs in their own states. However, all we have seen is corruption, embezzlement, maladministration, graft and attendant poverty. At theinsightpost.com the thinking is that the creation of more Igbo states based on history and dialects over the years, suggests that Igbo's favor fragmentation over consolidation. The evidence based on the record of the last forty years in which Igbo's have administered their own states, suggests that there is no evidence that the problems of corruption , maladministration and ethnic conflict will not persist in a future Biafra state but in fact may get even worse. The possibilities of ethnic conflict in a future Biafra is likely.
This is because during the civil war there was great tension between Nnewi indigenes and Onitsha people after Ojukwu executed Major Ifeajuna.Some experts who spoke to theinsightpost suggest that Biafra will remain a pipe dream except the British and some other world power promotes/supports the cause and if other ethnic nationalities in Nigeria like the Yorubas,TIVs',Biroms', Ijaws',Ibibios',Efiks' and others decide to simulateously break out of Nigeria.One thing is clear,Nigeria needs to be re-structured or it may splinter or fracture in a war or fragment into a patchwork of fragile independent states.
Is CNN’s Anti-Trump Posture A Sign Of Its Liberal Bias?
John Stankey,Warner Media CEO
Henry Aladiume Reports
CNN gained respect and popular acclaim in the 1980's for its extensive live reporting of news around the world from a fair, accurate, balanced, factual and truthful perspective. However, since the late 1990’s CNN has been unable to find an answer to the aggressive leftist news philosophy of cable news rivals like MSNBC and the rightward tilt of Fox news (the most watched network in cable news in America).CNN's answer to the competition has been to claim that editorially they are in the middle, neutral but truthful.
Detaining refugee children at military bases may sound un-American, but it's been done before
John Stankey,Warner Media CEO
Henry Aladiume Reports
CNN gained respect and popular acclaim in the 1980's for its extensive live reporting of news around the world from a fair, accurate, balanced, factual and truthful perspective. However, since the late 1990’s CNN has been unable to find an answer to the aggressive leftist news philosophy of cable news rivals like MSNBC and the rightward tilt of Fox news (the most watched network in cable news in America).CNN's answer to the competition has been to claim that editorially they are in the middle, neutral but truthful.
CNN gained respect and popular acclaim in the 1980's for its extensive live reporting of news around the world from a fair, accurate, balanced, factual and truthful perspective. However, since the late 1990’s CNN has been unable to find an answer to the aggressive leftist news philosophy of cable news rivals like MSNBC and the rightward tilt of Fox news (the most watched network in cable news in America).CNN's answer to the competition has been to claim that editorially they are in the middle, neutral but truthful.
However, it appears that CNN has evolved or devolved into a news organization with an ingrained liberal urban bias. It would be fair to say that news organizations should present a fair and balanced reporting of politicians and the president.However, CNN’s frequent or constant criticism of President Trump creates the impression that they do not seek to be objective. In order words some experts suggest that CNN's subjective reporting of the Trump administration affirms its role as part of the left leaning liberal media ecosystem.
CNN's Anderson Cooper, Chris Cuomo and Don Lemon appear to be left leaning pundits masquerading as journalists. Cooper’s criticism of Stephanie Gresham (White House Press Secretary) about lack of press briefings in over 300 days is part of a pattern of trying to tear down the Trump administration. That antagonism towards the Trump presidency has been construed by some viewers as a manifestation of CNN's pattern of bias in reporting the administration.CNN's editorial direction in the last two decades appears to give clues to why it's ratings has been plummeting.
This is evidenced by the fact that there is only one CNN program that reaches a million viewers most nights(Cuomo Prime Time).In contrast Fox news programs like Hannity, Tucker and Laura reach (3.2, 2.8 and 2.5 million viewers every night respectively).CNN's editorial direction has created credibility problems for the network. Some of these issues include the 2017 inaccurate reporting regarding former White House Press Secretary; Mr.Anthony Sacramuchi.CNN had to apologize to Mr. Sacramuchi for its sloppy reporting. In January, 2020 CNN settled a $250 million libel lawsuit with Nicholas Sandman, the Catholic High School teenager wrongly accused of harassing an American Indian veteran at the national Mall in 2018.
In addition, Trump’s branding of the network as fake news creates a perception problem for CNN.Clearly,CNN's credibility ,low ratings and negative perception especially in America has been masked by the seeming success of it's international operations and the acquisition by AT&T.There is no doubt that CNN has been a resilient organization that has survived several upheavals .Some of the challenges CNN has faced include the dynamics of the changing media landscape and the fallouts of the 1990's AOL/TIME WARNER Merger. The future of CNN will depend on AT&T Chairman and CEO Mr. Randall Stevenson and CEO of WARNER Media, Mr. John Stanke and the strategic direction they pursue; the value they create and how they position the cable news network to compete in the emerging and changing media landscape.
Detaining refugee children at military bases may sound un-American, but it's been done before
Detaining refugee children at military bases may sound un-American, but it's been done before
Children line up to enter a tent at the Homestead Temporary Shelter for Unaccompanied Children in Homestead, Fla., Feb. 19, 2019.
AP Photo/Wilfredo Lee
Jana Lipman, Tulane University
Fort Sill, an army base in Oklahoma, will soon become a refugee camp. The Department of Health and Human Services expects the repurposed military facility to house up to 1,400 unaccompanied migrant children from Central America by early July.
Border agents apprehended 54,000 unaccompanied child migrants at the Mexico border last year alone. Typically, the government houses such children in temporary shelters and then places them with relatives already living in the United States. This means children can live with family and communities, rather than protective custody, as they wait for their asylum hearings.
This isn’t the first time the U.S. has housed kids at a military base, though. Fort Sill was used by President Barack Obama’s administration to shelter 1,800 Central American migrant children for four months in 2014.
Although the country hasn’t often had to cope with so many unaccompanied child migrants, my research on refugee camps in America reveals that the U.S. government has repeatedly turned to military bases to shelter unexpected – and often undesired – migrant populations. At different times throughout the 20th century, the federal government kept groups of people from Hungary, Vietnam, Cuba and Haiti on U.S. military bases.
The result can be either efficient immigration processing or a prolonged, confined and traumatic experience. It all hinges on the federal government’s refugee policy, its commitment to resettlement and on broader American views of the migrant population housed at the base.
1975: Vietnamese arrive to Fort Chaffee
Fort Chaffee, in Arkansas, is an informative example of the outside influences that can help or hurt the success of refugee camps in the U.S.
Established in 1941 as a military training camp, Fort Chaffee gained importance after the final U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam. It was one of several military bases selected to receive 120,000 South Vietnamese fleeing their country as the North Vietnamese marched into Saigon.
In April 1975, approximately 50,000 Vietnamese arrived in Fort Chaffee.
Then, as now, the sudden arrival of so many foreigners divided Americans. Some felt generosity and compassion toward the Vietnamese migrants; others expressed anti-refugee sentiments and fear of invasion.
“The people of Arkansas might as well realize what they are sacrificing, bringing these people over to this fertile country,” wrote one local man to Arkansas’ Southwest Times Record on May 4, 1975. “The day will come when there will be booby traps in the Ozarks.”
The letter writer, a Vietnam War veteran, saw the Vietnamese at Fort Chaffee as his enemy – not as U.S. allies who faced reprisals as a result of the United States’ war.
“[W]hen I went over there … I was going to keep them from getting closer to the United States,” he wrote. Instead, he added, “they almost beat me back here.”
The South Vietnamese migrants housed at Fort Chaffee were resettled quickly.
Online Archive of California
Ford welcomes the Vietnamese at Fort Chaffee
President Gerald Ford and American military leaders felt responsible for their Vietnamese allies displaced by the U.S. war.
The federal government admitted Vietnamese outside regular immigration channels and worked to resettle them in the United States. Ford even visited Fort Chaffee to greet the new arrivals in August 1975.
“It’s really inspirational to see so many young people, old people and others getting an opportunity to be a part of America,” he said. “We’re proud of them and welcome them all here.”
Fort Chaffee offered English classes, basic cultural orientation lessons and spaces for religious worship to the Vietnamese held there. And the U.S. military worked with volunteer agencies to ensure they were quickly sponsored and resettled.
By December 1975, less than a year after their arrival, all 50,000 Vietnamese were living outside the base.
Vietnamese boys play soccer at Fort Chaffee, Ark., in 1975.
Online Archive of California
1980: Cubans harassed at Fort Chaffee
The base would be full of migrants again soon enough.
In 1980 approximately 100,000 people fled Cuba when President Fidel Castro – facing internal domestic pressure – briefly allowed people to leave the communist island from the Mariel Port.
Cubans from the Mariel Boatlift were more likely to be working-class and Cubans of color than the generation who fled after the 1959 Cuban Revolution. Along with political dissidents and those seeking better economic opportunities, Castro also forced “undesirables” off the island, including those deemed to be criminal, mentally ill or gay.
By flooding American shores with these highly stigmatized Cubans, Castro created a political problem for President Jimmy Carter.
Carter believed the U.S. had an obligation to “provide open heart and open arms to refugees seeking freedom from Communist domination and economic deprivation.”
But many Americans saw the new arrivals as dangerous and unwanted.
Bill Clinton, then the governor of Arkansas, warned federal officials that sending Cubans to Fort Chaffee would be unpopular and possibly volatile.
He was right. In May 1980, locals from around Fort Chaffee met the approximately 20,000 Cubans who arrived there with hostility. Ku Klux Klan members even protested outside the base and “rant[ed] about white power,” according to a 1980 People Magazine article.
Cubans line up for processing before being sent to Fort Chaffee in 1980.
AP Photo/Paul Vathis
The Cubans sent to Fort Chaffee also resented their detention in what one government official called “a concentration camp atmosphere.” On June 1, 1980, hundreds of them protested and burned down base buildings. Many then walked off the base toward town.
The Cubans threw rocks and bottles, and fighting broke out. Dozens of Cubans and Arkansas state troopers were injured.
Since it was difficult to find sponsors for many of these Cubans, hundreds stayed at Fort Chaffee much longer than the Vietnamese – in some cases over a year.
Over time, life at the military base became more restrictive.
“It’s hard to describe the place as something other than a prison,” the Boston Globe reported in 1981. “There are guards, fences; Cubans can’t leave the perimeters.”
The roughly 400 Mariel Cubans who had not found sponsors by February 1982 were transferred to federal prisons. Some were later released; many others languished in prison in legal limbo.
Refugee camp or military prison?
The history of Fort Chaffee shows that it’s risky to house refugee populations on a military base.
Executed with compassion and the promise of resettlement, it can facilitate shelter, social services and a quick transition.
Done badly, when anti-refugee sentiment is high, a military base can become prison-like – a place where migrants are confined behind barbed wire, with unknown release dates.
The Trump administration’s stated policy toward refugees is to deny them asylum and deport them as soon as possible. That includes children.
It is unclear whether the young migrants sent to Fort Sill will have access to lawyers, education or social services.
In this political context, warehousing children at a military base seems ripe for lawsuits, unanticipated consequences and trauma for the children trapped there.
[ Deep knowledge, daily. Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter. ]
Jana Lipman, Associate Professor of History, Tulane University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
The Constitution dictates that impeachment must not be partisan
President Donald Trump arriving at the Rose Garden, May 22, 2019, in Washington.
AP/Evan Vucci
Peter Brandon Bayer, University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Barely two decades since the impeachment of Bill Clinton, the people of the United States again are confronting the possibility that their president, now Donald Trump, could be impeached, meaning charged by the House of Representatives with offenses that, if proved in a Senate trial, would remove him from office.
Not surprisingly, politics have pervaded the debate.
Many, perhaps most, assume that impeachment of a president should be, or inevitably will devolve into a political melee. The few historic examples that exist show political motivations – to varying degrees – in the impeachment proceedings against Presidents Johnson, Nixon and Clinton.
Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told The Washington Post in March that “impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path.”
House Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is against impeaching the president.
AP/J. Scott Applewhite
Most Democratic leaders don’t want impeachment, at least at this point, fearing a political backlash in 2020 if they pursue impeachment. Some believe that if impeached in the House and tried and acquitted by the Senate, Trump’s political popularity will skyrocket like Bill Clinton’s did after his impeachment in 1998.
Nonetheless, impeachment supporters in the House now number, according to The New York Times, “roughly two dozen.” House and Senate Democratic leaders are facing increased calls by a growing number of colleagues to begin formal impeachment proceedings against President Trump.
To date, only one Republican has joined the chorus, Michigan Rep. Justin Amash.
Other Republicans – supporters of President Trump – accuse Democrats of using impeachment to overturn the 2016 presidential election.
Politics now characterize the serious issue of whether Trump has obstructed justice and committed other offenses worthy of his removal from office.
As a scholar of law, I believe that under our Constitution, impeachment – or the decision not to impeach – must not be based on partisan considerations.
Rooted in the Constitution
Some advocates of impeachment have recognized the correct basis to decide whether Congress should investigate and impeach President Trump.
Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon of Pennsylvania announced in a May 21 press release, “We took an oath to uphold our constitution and the President’s efforts to cover up his acts, and those of his campaign and administration, threaten the foundation of our democracy.”
Similarly, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., a Democratic candidate for president, urged that based on their oaths to safeguard the Constitution, the House of Representatives has an affirmative duty to begin a full impeachment investigation.
Leaving aside whether the present record supports an impeachment inquiry against Trump, I believe Warren and Scanlon are right that the decisions whether to impeach and possibly remove any president from office should be rooted in the Constitution itself.
Corrupting the office
The Constitution gives the House of Representatives sole power to impeach, meaning to formally charge that the president (or other federal “Officer”) has committed offenses worthy of immediate removal from office.
The Senate conducts the impeachment trial. A conviction requires a super-majority of no less than two-thirds of all senators.
The Framers decided that power as drastic as removing a sitting president should belong to Congress, the branch of government most closely associated with the will of the people.
Rather than leaving impeachment to the Supreme Court or other small, unelected body, impeachment becomes the tool of the national will – not a political will, but rather the national will to respect the Constitution’s neutral legal requirements.
Of course, as the Framers well knew, by its very nature Congress would be, and indeed is, politically partisan. Voters elect members of Congress to enact laws based on those voters’ policy preferences. Inevitably, laws favored by the “majority” may frustrate or even hinder voters whose candidates lost.
Such is the normal “give and take” of democracy.
However, the Constitution clarifies that regarding impeachment, Congress cannot conduct business as usual. Like declaring war, impeachment is one of the rare matters where politics should be utterly inappropriate.
The Constitution’s Article II, Section 4 commands that a president may be removed from office only for “Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
Accordingly, Congress must base its decisions whether to impeach and to remove a president from office on a factual, politically neutral record demonstrating whether the president actually has committed, in the Constitution’s language, “Crimes.”
This plain text tells us that impeachment is not a device by which a disgruntled Congress may negate the voters’ political choice, even if Congress honestly believes a duly elected president’s policies are unsound, reckless or dangerous. Rather, Congress must approach the matter whether a president has committed constitutional “Crimes” as if it were jurors in a courtroom.
Commentators, then, rightly have denounced the seemingly political nature of Clinton’s impeachment and, roughly 130 years earlier, the impeachment of Andrew Johnson.
Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., introduced articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump on Jan. 4, 2019, the Democrats’ first day in power after the 2018 elections.
AP/J. Scott Applewhite
Offenses against the government
Importantly, history shows that the Constitution’s term “other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” is not limited to actual criminal conduct.
Noted scholars Ronald Rotunda and John Nowak explain that the Framers wisely intended the phrase “or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” to include undermining the Constitution and similar, “great offenses against the federal government (like abuse of power) even if they are not necessarily crimes.”
For instance, Alexander Hamilton asserted that, while likely to be criminal acts, impeachable wrongdoings “are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men … from the abuse or violation of some public trust.”
James Madison urged that impeachment is appropriate for “loss of capacity, or corruption … [that] might be fatal to the republic.”
And founding father Benjamin Franklin agreed that impeachment is “the best way … for the regular punishment of the Executive when his misconduct should deserve it, and for his honorable acquittal when he should be unjustly accused.”
Thus, out of respect for the democratic process, a president cannot be impeached to promote Congress’ political agenda. Nor should lawmakers avoid impeachment because of perceived political cost.
Rather, given its remarkable gravity, a president should be impeached for conduct that – if committed by any president regardless of political or party affiliations – so taints or corrupts the presidency, he or she must be removed to preserve the integrity of American government.
Thus, the standard for impeachment must be politically neutral. Otherwise, impeachment becomes an illegitimate device to overturn elections.
Peter Brandon Bayer, Associate Professor of Law, University of Nevada, Las Vegas
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
TV streaming titans are locked into a real-life Game of Thrones – here's a way around this fight to the death
Let battle commence.
Vitalii Petrushenko
Michael Wade, IMD Business School
American retail giant Walmart is becoming the latest challenger to clamber into the ring and take on the reigning TV/movie streaming heavyweights with original material.
At a press conference in New York, Walmart announced a slate of new commissions for its streaming contender, Vudu. Added to the 100,000-plus TV shows and movies already available on the service, viewers can expect the likes of Friends in Strange Places, a travel/comedy series overseen by Queen Latifah; interview documentary strand Turning Point with Randy Jackson; and a series-length reboot of 1983 Michael Keaton comedy Mr Mom.
The new offering is aimed primarily at Middle America, which Walmart feels has been undersold by streaming incumbents like Netflix and Amazon Prime Video. Vudu’s shows will be a vehicle for new interactive advertising going live over the summer which will allow consumers to buy what they see without leaving their sofa. Thanks to its monster customer database, a senior Vudu manager recently described Walmart as the “sleeping giant of the digital entertainment space”.
If so, it’s about to wake up to a very crowded marketplace. It’s only weeks since Apple announced streaming service Apple TV+, which is to combine licensed shows with original programming when it launches worldwide this autumn.
Disney, meanwhile, is following suit with Disney+ in November – initially in the US, then rolling out to other countries next year.
Other existing streamers include Hulu and HBO Now, while Discovery and NBCUniversal are both launching rivals next year as well (click on the table below to make the full details bigger). Between them, these companies are spending many billions of dollars on content. It doesn’t take a seer to predict that a good few will likely fail.
*US subscriptions only.
Sizing them up
Among these newer announcements, Apple and Disney look the stronger contenders. Apple has the ready-made platform of a billion devices to promote and deliver its service, while Disney has the richest content portfolio across multiple categories – from video games to live sports to superheroes.
Vudu may have the heft of Walmart behind it, but the content investment is likely to be a fraction of the other two: Apple has said it will spend US$2 billion (£1.5 billion) a year at first, while Disney is spending only $500m on originals, including the likes of three Avengers spin-offs, but the group’s total annual content spend is nearly 50 times bigger. Walmart has not said what Vudu is spending. On the other hand, Vudu’s offering will be mostly free while Disney+ and Apple TV+ will both charge monthly subscriptions.
At any rate, all three are likely to struggle – and the same goes for the other new arrivals. We are heading for a serious case of “subscription fatigue”. When consumers watch free-to-air television, broadcasters take care of the messy process of making deals with content owners, aggregating it and serving it up. As pay-TV operators like Sky or the cable networks started to emerge, consumers had to sometimes choose a package to get a particular channel or programme.
They have been warned.
diy13
But with streaming in future, this experience is going to become more and more frustrating – Where can I find Westworld? Where is Blue Planet these days? – not to mention expensive for anyone tempted by multiple offerings. By building competing services, all these media giants are playing their own Game of Thrones.
The fix
The way forward is clear, but controversial. Apple, Disney, AT&T, NBCUniversal and the other large players should collaborate to create a dominant content platform. Partnering among subscription services would take some of the burden off consumers and make the combined offering more appealing than existing options. Imagine subscribing to a single service to receive access to everything from classic TV and movies to the latest shows. The market can probably handle two or three mega platforms, but not more.
Ironically, Disney already has a ready-made option in its arsenal. Hulu was set up as a joint venture between Disney, NBCUniversal, Fox and WarnerMedia (now owned by AT&T). Yet Hulu’s claim to be a cross-industry platform is getting weaker, not stronger: Fox’s 30% share defaulted to Disney when it was taken over, and AT&T has announced it wants to sell its 10% holding. Hulu may have recently diversified with its recent partnership announcement with music streamer Spotify, but Disney’s new dominance of the service will probably make it a less attractive option for other media companies to buy into than previously.
If media companies collaborated with their streaming services, it would certainly come with antitrust concerns. But unless they evolve into an industry platform soon, the door will open for other players to take the lead – I’m thinking digital giants like Google or Facebook, internet service providers or telecommunications companies.
Many of these players already have a subscription relationship with consumers, so it would be relatively easy for them to bundle video streaming into existing services. Amazon’s shift into the media world is a textbook example of how this could play out.
One service to rule them all.
Metamorworks
It is reminiscent of the early 2000s, in which the record majors built walled gardens around their content only to watch in horror as Apple’s iTunes stole the market from under them with a convenient, cheap and comprehensive option. Spotify then stole it again a few years later. Media companies should also beware the prospect of consumers being driven in larger numbers to illegal or quasi-legal video consolidation services.
There are recent precedents that they could follow of competitive partnering in other industries: BMW and Daimler recently announced they would join forces to build common platforms for ride sharing and electric vehicle charging, among other things, having realised they are stronger together than apart.
The media giants would be well advised to start exploring similar possibilities.
Consumers are already baulking at both the cost of multiple subscription services and the inconvenience of having to keep track of which shows are on which services. The ultimate winner will be the first option that can provide scale and convenience at a reasonable cost. If today’s streaming companies aren’t careful, they will end up on the outside looking in.
Michael Wade, Professor of Innovation and Strategy, Cisco Chair in Digital Business Transformation, IMD Business School
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Who are Sri Lanka's Christians?
Sri Lankan army soldiers secure the area around St. Anthony’s Shrine after a blast in Colombo.
AP Photo/ Rohan Karunarathne
Mathew Schmalz, College of the Holy Cross
At least 200 people have been killed in several coordinated bomb attacks on churches and hotels in Sri Lanka on Easter.
Several Christian communities spread across the island nation were targeted in the attack: Suicide bombers detonated one set of bombs at churches in the cities of Colombo and Negombo on the western coast, home to many Sinhalese-speaking Catholics. Another was detonated in a Protestant church 200 miles away – in Batticaloa, a city in the Tamil majority eastern side of the island.
As a Catholic religious studies researcher and professor, I lived in Sri Lanka in the fall of 2013 and did research on Catholicism in both the southwest and northern parts of the country. Approximately, 7% of Sri Lanka’s 21 million are Christian. The majority of them are Roman Catholic.
Sri Lanka’s Christians have a long history that reflects the dynamics of colonialism as well as present-day ethnic and religious tensions.
Entry of Catholicism
It was Portuguese colonialism that opened the door for Roman Catholicism into the island nation.
In 1505, the Portuguese came to Ceylon, as Sri Lanka was then called, in a trade agreement with King Vira Parakramabahu VII and later intervened in succession struggles in local kingdoms. Among those converted included Don Juan Dharmapala, the king of Kotte, a small kingdom near present-day Colombo on Sri Lanka’s southwestern coast. Later, when the Dutch and the Dutch East India Company displaced the Portuguese, Roman Catholicism was revived through the efforts of St. Joseph Vaz.
Vaz was a priest from Goa, Portugal’s colony in India, and arrived in Sri Lanka in 1687. Popular folklore credits Vaz with a number of miracles, such as bringing rain during a drought and taming a rogue elephant. Pope Francis made Joseph Vaz a saint in 2015.
By 1948, when Sri Lanka gained independence from Great Britain, Catholics had established a distinct identity. For example, Catholics would display the papal flag along with Sri Lanka’s national flag during independence day celebrations. But tensions rose in 1960 when the Sri Lankan government compromised the Catholic Church’s independence by taking over church schools.
In 1962, there was an attempted coup by Catholic and Protestant Sri Lankan army officers to overthrow the government of then prime minister Sirimavo Bandaranaike, allegedly in response to increased Buddhist presence in the military.
Ethnic and religious divides
The 25-year-long Sri Lankan Civil War, starting in 1983, divided the Catholic community.
The war was fought against the government by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, or LTTE, who sought a separate state for Sri Lanka’s Tamil community in the northern and eastern parts of the island. The rebels included Catholics in military positions. But, the Sri Lankan army also had Christian members holding leadership ranks.
Catholic bishops from Tamil and Sinhalese areas could not develop a coherent response to the conflict. They would not even agree on recommending a ceasefire during the Christmas season.
Recent years have seen the rise of militant forms of Buddhism in Sri Lanka and Christians have been among its targets. For example, the ultra-nationalist Buddhist organization, the Bodu Bala Sena (also known as Buddhist Power Force) demanded that Pope Francis apologize for the “atrocities” committed by colonial powers.
While being Catholic and being Sri Lankan are not considered to be contradictions, Catholicism in Sri Lanka still struggles with its colonial past.
Part of global Catholicism
At the same time, Catholicism has a strong cultural presence in the country.
For example, in the North, there is a large pilgrimage site, Madhu, dedicated to the Virgin Mary, which Pope Francis visited in 2015.
Pope Francis in Colombo in 2015.
AP Photo/Saurabh Das
There is also an internationally known healing and prayer center, Kudagama, northwest of the Buddhist holy city of Kandy.
Sri Lankan Catholics have also become prominent in global Catholicism. The cardinal archbishop of the capital Colombo, Malcolm Ranjith, was mentioned as papabile, or candidate for pope, prior to the conclave that eventually elected Pope Francis.
Protestants of Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka’s Protestant community is quite small, constituting only 1% of Sri Lanka’s population. Like Catholicism, it was through colonialism that Protestant Christianity gained a foothold on the island. With Dutch traders and governmental officers came Calvinism and Protestant missionaries who worked in Sri Lanka’s coastal areas.
While Calvinist Protestantism declined under British colonial rule, there was a revival in the Tamil-speaking northern areas of the island. The American Ceylon Mission began in 1813 and established a number of medical dispensaries and schools. Jaffna College, opened in 1872, remains an important Protestant educational institution that still has ties to America.
St. Sebastian’s Church, the site of a blast, in Negombo.
AP Photo/Chamila Karunarathne
The churches in Negombo, where I did research work and where one of the attacks took place, are beautiful Renaissance and Baroque-style structures that are centers of activity throughout the day. Not only are there daily masses, but Catholics often come to light candles and pray to the saints. During worship ceremonies, women wear veils as was the Catholic tradition in the West until the mid-20th century.
Shrines to the Virgin Mary are a common sight on Negombo’s roads along with arches decorated with coconuts, which are the usual markers of a parish festival and procession. In honor of this Catholic culture, Negombo is popularly called “Little Rome.”
But now this “Little Rome” – with its beautiful churches, beaches, and lagoon – will also be known as the site of a horrific act of anti-Christian violence.
Mathew Schmalz, Associate Professor of Religion, College of the Holy Cross
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Why Trump's recognition of the Golan Heights as Israeli territory matters
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, center, Republican U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, left, and U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman, right, in the Israeli-held Golan Heights on March 11, 2019.
Ronen Zvulun/Pool via AP
Dina Badie, Centre College
Responding to pressure from the Israeli government, President Donald Trump has signaled via Twitter that his administration is poised to recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights.
This change of posture over a highly disputed and strategically valuable territory between Israel and Syria is being met with delight, disapproval and indifference by various sides in the broader Arab-Israeli conflict, echoing reactions to an earlier U.S. move – to treat Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.
As a scholar who teaches and writes about the Middle East and is currently writing a book about the Arab-Israeli conflict, I can put the Trump administration’s controversial decision in historical and legal context.
The Arab-Israeli conflict
Israel seized five territories from three countries during the 1967 War: the Gaza Strip and Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, East Jerusalem and the West Bank from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria. The UN Security Council responded by passing the so-called “land for peace” resolution, or Resolution 242, which envisioned Israel exchanging the occupied territories for peace and recognition from surrounding Arab states. All members of the UN Security Council approved the resolution, including the United States.
Prior to the 1967 War, about 150,000 Syrians lived in the Golan Heights, but many were displaced by the conflict. Today, the territory is home to about 25,000 Druze Arabs who overwhelmingly see themselves as Syrian citizens and roughly 20,000 Jewish settlers who identify as Israelis. The status of the territory’s residents, all of whom have been eligible for citizenship since 1981, is not subject change at this point.
At the end of the war, the two sides of the conflict disagreed on who should act first. The Arab states refused to negotiate until Israel withdrew from the occupied territories, while Israel refused to withdraw until the Arab states negotiated a peace deal. As a result, Israel continued to occupy the five territories and constructed settlements on them shortly after the war concluded.
In 1973, Egypt and Syria launched a war against Israel, advancing into the Sinai Peninsula and Golan Heights in an effort to recapture the occupied territories. With American help, Israel succeeded at retaining control over the territory.
At the end of the conflict, the U.S. mediated talks between Israel, Egypt and Syria in an effort to resolve the continued territorial disputes. Later, the Camp David Accords formally returned the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt in exchange for peace, in accordance with Resolution 242. But the remaining four territories, including the Golan Heights, remained under Israeli control.
In 1981, the Israeli government declared it was annexing East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, permanently extending its own boundaries to cover the two captured territories. In response, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 497, which condemned the annexation of Syrian territory, declaring it a violation of international law.
Israel and Syria have engaged in several rounds of negotiations over the Golan Heights, including secret talks as recently as 2010 that would have resulted in full Israeli withdrawal. The start of the Syrian civil war in 2011 cut those negotiations short.
Nonetheless, Syria continues to demand a full return of the Golan Heights. No other country has recognized Israeli claims to the territory until now.
A strategic asset
The whole territory is about 40 miles from north to south, and an average of 12 miles from east to west. Despite being roughly the same size as Jacksonville, Florida, the Golan Heights is a strategically valuable high-altitude plateau that overlooks Syria and the Jordan Valley. It is considered militarily significant for both Syria and Israel, and Israel also considers the territory a “buffer-zone” that contributes to its self-defense.
In addition to its military value, the Golan Heights is also a strategic asset due to its water resources and fertile land. The area houses the Jordan River’s drainage basin, Lake Tiberias, the Yarmuk River and underground aquifers. Israel extracts a third of its water from the Golan Heights. In a relatively parched region of the world, control over the Golan’s water supplies is invaluable.
The Golan Heights may also have oil. Exploratory drilling suggests that the territory’s reservoirs could potentially yield billions of barrels.
Map of Israel and its neighbors, including occupied territories.
Wikimedia
Political calculations
Trump is popular in Israel, particularly after recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and relocating the American embassy there from Tel Aviv. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is currently using the American president’s photos in his re-election campaign posters to take advantage of this.
In fact, some analysts and reporters have suggested that the timing of this announcement was politically calculated to bolster Netanyahu’s campaign in the upcoming Israeli elections on April 9.
I expect that the decision to recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights will run into the same difficulties that afflicted the Trump administration’s change in policy with regards to Jerusalem for two reasons.
First, it reverses decades of consistent U.S. policy that demanded any territorial recognition come as a result of direct negotiations, rather than unilateral declarations. Second, it runs counter to international law, which does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over territories occupied during the 1967 War.
To be sure, Trump’s move is a symbolic, rather than legal, gesture. But given the dimensions of America’s global influence, U.S. recognition could lend some legitimacy to Israel’s controversial annexation policy.
And I believe Trump’s approach to contentious issues in the Arab-Israeli conflict will further undermine the U.S. government’s claim to be an honest broker. In my view, it makes peace in the Middle East less likely.
Dina Badie, Associate Professor of Politics and International Studies, Centre College
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Is The Access -Diamond Combination A Merger or Acquisition ?
By Henry Aladiume
Herbert Wigwe-CEO of Access Bank
The success of Access Bank is a testament to the genius of the current CEO Mr.Herbert Wigwe and Founding CEO Aigboje Aig Aig-Imoukhuede two very innovative young Nigerians who having worked at Guarantee Trust Bank for nearly a decade set their sights on making a mark on the Nigerian banking landscape.Prior to 2001 Access Bank was not a significant player in the Nigerian banking scene.However,following the acquisition of the Bank by Mr Wigwe and Mr.Aig-Imoukhoede the transformation of the bank began and in 2012 Access Bank acquired Intercontinental Bank and with that it became one of the four largest commercial Banks in Nigeria.
The acquisition of Diamond Bank further confirms the strength and the brilliance of the founders of Access Bank.This kind of acquisition constitute a net positive for the Nigerian economy because the emergence of viable banks like Access help guarantee a strong financial system that serves as a catalyst for driving the economy.Regarding the name to be adopted after the merger, remember that Diamond Bank was founded in 1990 and Access Bank was originally founded in 1989 a year earlier.In terms of name recognition and brand awareness on a global scale it is evident that Access Bank's national and global penetration is higher and they have created more positive customer experience on a larger scale than Diamond Bank has.While Access Bank has witnessed an explosive growth by several acquisitions Diamond Bank has been lackluster.
Evidently this transaction was an acquisition and the entity completing the acquisition in this case- Access Bank will assume the name of the combined entity.This is because Access has more brand value,more customers,better technology ,better corporate culture,more market penetration,better customer experience profile and more global name recognition and penetration.There is no doubt that Mr.Wigwe,Mr Aig-imoukuede(The moving spirit behind the acquisition of Acess Bank in 2002);Mr.Tony Elumelu ,Chairman of UBA and Mr Tayo Adenorikun and Mr. Fola Adeola founders of GTB are some of the most influential ,brilliant,innovative,strategic thinkers and revolutionary minds that have emerged in African business in the last fifty years. http://stratoplot.com/5EmR http://zipansion.com/1uZzg
Will Latinos Vote For Trump ?
Henry Aladiume Reports
Henry Aladiume Reports
 |
| Mr.Donald Trump ,President of The United States |
The fact is that contrary to what a lot of people think Latinos are not a monolithic group .Also Latinos are not a racial group but represent people who share Spanish culture or people with Spanish heritage.In the United States there are Hispanic whites who are of Spanish speaking white European origin and are likely to be more conservative.Also remember that Spanish speaking people from Cuba who reside mainly in Florida tend to be more conservative (Republicans) than Spanish speaking Pueto Ricans who tend to be more liberal and are likely to be Democrats.However,a lot of Latinos are socially conservative and they believe in family values guided by religious philosophy that is inspired by belief in Catholic religious doctrines.
Therefore, socially Latinos are more aligned with Republican conservative Christian values.Also many Latinos believe in the concept of entrepreneurship ,free enterprise,business ownership and as a result are sympathetic to Republican conservative economy principles of free Enterprise,lower taxes and less regulation.The issue of building the wall is an emotional issue for Latinos because most of the people coming across the US Mexican border illegally are Latinos.Also ,a large number of the nearly 20 million illegal aliens in the USA are Latinos.
Therefore ,the issue of the border wall must touch a raw nerve in the minds of the 50 million Latinos in the USA.However ,Many Latinos understand that even though a large influx of illegal immigrants swells their population but unchecked low skill immigration also could depress the wages of unskilled Latino immigrants in the USA.However,a large number of Latinos are also attracted to Trump because of his policies of lower taxes;deregulation;free markets that has unleashed an economic boom that has led to lowest unemployment rate in America among all racial groups including Latinos;A GDP growth of an average annual rate of 2.5% .
The Trump economy has been good for Latinos.The fact is that Latinos from Central and South America and elsewhere in the world who call America home are not a monolithic group because there are white Latinos;Black Latinos;Latinos of mixed race and they could all have diverging political interest.Also Latinos are not single issue voters and so they could vote for Trump because their Social and economic conservatives.Also the fact is that many new immigrants tend to vote for Democrats but with time as they stay longer in American then their views tend to change and could become more conservative.Yes 25 % or maybe even 40% of Latinos could vote for Trump because their economic and social philosophy and principles are aligned with Trump and Republican and conservative values. http://stratoplot.com/5EmR
Was The Obama Administration Scandal Free?
 |
| Mr Barack Obama, The 44th President of the United States |
There were many scandals but he had a very loyal and partisan Attorney General in Eric Holder who was protecting him.Please look up the "Fast and Furious" scandal where Obama's US agents were passing guns secretly to people affiliated with the drug cartels in Mexico in other to arrest them but the investigation went bad and those guns eventually ended in the hands of actual drug cartels;Read about the IRS scandal where Obama's IRS officials were targeting conservative groups and denying them tax exempt status;Read about the Iran nuclear deal where the Obama administration handed over $4billion dollars in cash and $150 billion in sanctions relief to Iran the chief state sponsor of terror in the world;Check how Obama administration was trying to meddle in the Isreali elections in other to oust the the then and current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu;
Obama's inaction let Russia gain a foot hold in Syria and let Russia invade Crimea;Obama's precipitous withdrawal from Iraq led to the growth of ISIS in Iraq and Syria;Obama would not allow American companies drill in the gulf of Mexico but would give $2 billion dollars to Petrobras the Brazilian petroleum corporation which was partly owned by hedgefund billionaire -George Soros who was an Obama backer and whom Obama was working for.Prior to becoming president Obama was friends to a former domestic terrorist- Bill Ayers and Beniden Don.He was involved in shady real estate deals with convicted felon .Mr Tony Resko.
The 2009 stimulus package o $800 billion was a corrupt deal full of pay off to cronies and Union bosses.The Obama cash for clonkers deals was a pay off to prop up car dealership and donors to the Obama campaign.Obama doubled America's national debt from in 2009 fromn$10 trillion to $20 trillion in 2016.He incurred more debt than all previous President's combined.He had the slowest recovery from any recession;The only president never to achieve 3% GDP growth rate.Also look at the corruption that himself and Hillary Clinton engineered in the Uranium one scandal.
The current probe on the Trump administration was a trap set by the Obama administration because they thought Hillary would win and when she lost they sought to topple the new administration by entrapping them in an FBI investigation that eventually led to the Mueller probe.Please read Michelle Malkin's book"Obama Chronicles of corruption" that details corruption in the life of Obama.The truth is that Obama was one of the most corrupt,inept and incompetent American President's but the powerful main stream media;the liberal elites and the left leaning justice system were hell bent on protecting him that you have to look deep to find the story behind the Obama facade. http://stratoplot.com/5EmR
Is Jim Acosta A Journalist Or A Left Wing Activist ?
The problem with journalism is that most people practicing journalism today are not trained academically to practice that profession. As a result people like Jim Acosta do not understand or abide by the ethics of journalism like fairness, accuracy, objectivity, facts, objectivity and pursuit of the truth.
The truth is that the global media corporations like CNN,Fox news,NBC,SKY,CBS are owned by multi-national corporations whose interest converge with those of other global elites who pursue policies that tend to be liberal and are often an affront and attack on conservative values. Jim Acosta is not a real journalist because his reporting has never followed the ground rules and ethics of Journalism.
Jim Acosta is not practicing Journalism but is a left wing activist. Jim Acosta should just be honest and let everyone know that he is just a plain left wing activist. The actions of Jim Acosta are the reason many communication intellectuals have argued that everyone who is practicing Journalism should go through formal training and certification.
The perception now is that CNN USA is now propagating left wing propaganda and that is evidenced by the anchors in their prime time and day time line up.CNN’S left-wing bias is rooted fanaticism not on any sound business principles. Otherwise how can explain the fact that CNN has continued to struggle with ratings for years. FOX News a right leaning network hasconsistently outperformed CNN in terms of viewership.
According to AC Nielsen research report FOX News has remained the number basic cable network for over four years.CNN has suffered tremendous decline in viewership over the past ten years but the saving grace for CNN is that some of its programs are simulcast overseas so that they are able to manage their audience decline.
Many analyst are wondering how long the new owners of CNN which is AT&T ,will wait before they intervene to rescue CNN from it's policy of discarding the facts and truth in pursuit of hyper liberal fanaticism in which Jim Acosta is one of the disciples and foot soldiers. http://stratoplot.com/5EmR
The Internet and Scourge of Fake News
In a recent Facebook post a Nigerian Journalists, Mr.AbdulRafiu Lawal contented that apart from corruption, that the scourge of fake news would be next factor could that could stoke social strife in Nigeria.Mr Lawal explained that a pointer to this trend in Nigeria is the report of how fake news inspired violence in three girls school in the northern city of Damaturu, in Yobe state ,Nigeria in November,2018.He added in his post that fake news could even worsen the tense situation in parts of northern Nigeria, where radical Islamist's are battling government forces.
Clearly the fake news phenomenon has grown phenomenally with the rise of the internet and social media. The fact is that internet is largely unregulated but in contrast traditional media like newspapers, radio and television have journalists, writers and editors who are trained either by an academic program or through an internship or apprenticeship process during which they study the principles and professional ethics of communicating through the mass media platform.
Furthermore, in the traditional media landscape only people who are well trained could write or develop content meant for the public domain. Also, in traditional media there is a quality control mechanism that involves journalists, writers, editors, proof readers and sub editors. In contrast in the new media (internet and social media) the prevailing situation is lack of a robust gatekeeping process. Social media and the internet have poor quality control mechanism largely because content is not necessarily generated from an editorial process, but from user generated pathways.
The growth of the internet and social media has spurred the growth of low quality content-which is unverified, unsubstantiated and is known as fake news. The internet has had a robust effect in shaping human communication; business; banking and education but the drawback is the fake news phenomenon.
Fake news is a problem even in the developed world. Two years ago there was Pizza gate controversy in the USA that was inspired by fake news.There are several fake news stories on the internet and social media which have impacted politics,social discourse public opinion and elections across the world including Nigeria.
The fact is that every innovation no matter how useful and valuable often present snags. For example smartphones have revolutionized the way we communicate but like video games they have created an addiction among teenagers. Other examples of negative effects of technology include texting and driving; guns and violence; western medicine and addiction and cars and accidents.
ATT Has a Daunting Task In Challenging Google and Facebook For Advertising Dominance
Randall L. Stephenson,
Chief Executive Officer of AT&T
On July 5th,2018 the US Department of Justice filed a notice that it is appealing an earlier ruling by a US district court judge approving the AT&T/Time Warner Merger.The merger was authorized in a very decisive ruling in mid June, 2017 by US district judge, Richard Leon who approved the AT&T/Time Warner merger without any conditions. In the months preceding the approval of the acquisition of Time Warner ($85 billion ), AT&T CEO,Randall Stephenson consistently suggested that the merger would help his corporation challenge the dominance of Google and Facebook ,in the area of internet advertising.AT&T believes that the recent acquisitions of Time Warner and AppNexus ($2) billion provides them the distribution ;content(CNN,HBO,TBS,TNT) and advertising platform that would provide more effective ways of serving mobile Advertising to their over 100 million mobile customers.However,the evidence suggests that AT&T management should realize that challenging Google and Facebook for online advertising dollars will be a daunting task.
Google and Facebook are innovative technology entities built on the internet, but in comparison ATT in spite of its recent acquisitions remains largely a digital corporation built on a legacy telecommunication infrastructure. Currently Google and Facebook control nearly 60% of advertising spend in the US but with their innovative approaches, AT& T will have a difficult task mounting a challenge especially regarding online advertising revenue.
Google and Facebook are innovative technology entities built on the internet, but in comparison ATT in spite of its recent acquisitions remains largely a digital corporation built on a legacy telecommunication infrastructure. Currently Google and Facebook control nearly 60% of advertising spend in the US but with their innovative approaches, AT& T will have a difficult task mounting a challenge especially regarding online advertising revenue.
Also, AT&T’s acquisition of Time Warner has given them access to rich programming that is based on scripted and edited content which remain expensive to produce and are declining in terms of audience preference. On the other hand, Google and Facebook are built on a platform that promotes user generated content which is free and tends to breed more consumer interest. Also, the value of Google and Facebook comes from the amount of registered users on their platform. In North America, Google remains the dominant internet search engine with about 88% of internet search traffic with about 1.17 billion daily users and Google Gmail has about 1.2 billion users. The other top search engines as ranked by stats counter.com are Microsoft- Bing which is number 2 with about 6.7% and Verizon owned Yahoo is third with 3.67% of internet search traffic. However, on mobile devices and worldwide Google's dominance is larger.
Furthermore, CNN Money reported in 2018 that Facebook has nearly 2 billion registered users and about 1.45 billion daily active users. WhatsApp which is owned by Facebook has about 1 billion daily users according to information provided by the company. In addition, based on Alexa ranking the top six websites in the world are: 1.Google 2.YouTube 3.Facebook 4.Baidu 5.Wikipedia 6.Yahoo (owned by Verizon).The power of Google and Facebook comes from their massive user base, where consumers and advertising messages interact freely in continuous fashion. In contrast, all of AT& T, including Warner Media, Direct TV and App Nexus’s active customer base is projected to be in the region of 400 million .However,the number of customers who are daily visitors to AT&T websites are projected to be approximately 200 million. Actually none of AT&T related web properties are even in Alexa's list of top 50 global websites. The most visited of AT&T websites-CNN is ranked #125 by Alexa.Looking at it from a purely business perspective, Google and Facebook provide free but advertising supported platforms to users. As a result their user base continued to expand over the years while AT&T payed platform has continued to stagnate.
Another aspect of the unfolding dynamic is that the television distribution business (cable and satellite) of which AT&T (Direct TV), Comcast and Dish Newark are a part of, has faced huge challenges in the last few years. Over 22 million people have discarded those services and replaced them with cheaper alternatives like Netflix and Hulu. In the last two years Direct TV has lost over 2 million subscribers. So the AT&T Time Warner merger is part of AT&T’s strategy of the dealing with the dynamics of the pay television industry.
While AT&T has faced problems, one of their target competitors- Alphabet (Google's) has continued to be on the upward swing. Alphabet Google’s revenue for 2017 was about $110 billion dollars and a large chunk of that was from internet advertising. The other company that AT&T is targeting- Facebook's had revenue of about $40 billion in 2017 and it was largely generated from internet advertising. AT& T and Warner media's combined revenue for 2017 was about $220 billion, but the advertising component may not have exceeded $30 billion.Approximately less than $3 billion of that may have been generated from internet related advertising.
In essence, a comparative review of internet advertising shows Google and Facebook are far ahead of AT& T. AT& T's acquisitions of Time Warner and AppNexus are a survival strategy that is designed to ensure the company withstands the cut throat competition in the evolving mobile industry. To remain relevant AT&T has been developing an Ad platform that narrowly targets TV ads to its consumers based on user data. The acquisition of AppNexus, a New York based firm which has an ad buying platform and is expanding into online video advertising is AT&T’s arrowhead for challenging Google and Facebook. To support the advertising effort AT&T recently appointed Brian Lesser, CEO of its new Advertising and Analytics Company.
On June, 21, 2018 as part of the strategy of stimulating consumer interest AT&T announed its plans to launch Watch TV, sports free low cost streaming service.Watch TV will have 31 channels and available for mobile customers who sign up for the new unlimited plans. Mass media analysts argue that Watch TV will strenghten AT&T in the realm of online TV streaming services.However, the facts suggest that strategy may not put the company in strong contention for dominance of internet advertising. This is because Google’s dominance of internet advertising is derived from the fact that it is a gateway to to the web.Facebook's dominant position is also because it able to offer a free platform that has rapidly grown its user base and it is the dominant social networking site.
Facebook has acquired over 69 companies since its founding .The most prominent Facebook's acquisition was WhatsApp ($19 billion)in 2014 and Instagram($1 billion) in April 2012 .Those acqusitions were part of the grand strategy of achieving dominance on the mobile and web space. Furthermore, Alphabet (Google) has acquired nearly 200 companies since inception.Analysts say to dominate the web, Google developed its search engine and algorithm into a very effective and efficient application that is unrivalled. Google also developed the Chrome web browser and Android operating system (the most popular mobile OS in the world).Also, Google owns YouTube which is a social network and a video search engine. AT& T would find it a daunting task to outpace Google and Facebook because its business platform; philosophy and processes may prove inadequate for that challenge.
If there was any company that should have challenged Google in internet advertising, it should have been Microsoft especially after the Bing Search engine was launched in 2009. However, nearly 85% of Alphabet’s (Google) 2017 revenue of $110 billion came from search advertising .In comparison Microsoft’s Bing Search engine revenue for 2017 was about $1.8 billion based on its filing with US Securities and exchange commission.Microsoft’s Bing 2017 revenue of $1.8 billion is significantly low giving the fact that it was launched eight years prior. To dominate the web as Google has done any worthy competitor needs to develop a dominant search or social networking platform; a successful browser; mobile operating system or a dominant consumer web application. So far AT&T is not on track to develop any of those applications.
Google and Facebook have proved repeatedly that they have a business strategy tailored to developing web applications or platforms that are innovative and enjoy high consumer confidence.In addittion , the decision by the Department of Justice has brought some uncertainty into the future of the merger,but most analysts think AT&T will prevail in court. In spite of AT&T’s acquisition of AppNexus the company would face daunting challenges in seeking to challenge for internet search dominance .AT&T structure; platform and personnel still needs further re-tooling before it can build an advertising juggernaut that would compete with the current leaders. On the other hand the acquisition of Yahoo and AOL by Verizon gives that corporation a better chance of challenging for online advertising dollars. This is because Yahoo is the third largest search engine and like AOL is content site built for internet users.
Google and Facebook's dominance of the web comes from the fact that they understand one of the immutable laws of Marketing-The law of Focus. All the acquisitions made by the two companies were strategically designed to strengthen their core areas of search and social networking respectively. Google’s dominance of internet search advertising is akin to how Microsoft Windows dominated the desktop computer operating system in the 1980's to early 2000's.Even till today Microsoft Windows still dominates in desktop computer operating systems. Despite AT& T's CEO, Randall Stevenson's dream of making AT& T challenge for internet search advertising dominance, Google and Facebook are likely to remain the leaders because they they have develpoed technology platforms with capabilities that are constantly evolving,dynamic,unrivalled and difficult to replicate.
This article was written by Mr.Henry Aladiume,who has a masters degree in Mass Communications and over fifteen years experience in Mass Media,Marketing,Brand Management and Internet Marketing.Mr.Aladiume is currently pursuing a doctorate degree in Marketing at Northcentral University,San Diego ,California.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFhV_rSl1O9osRVmcpObEbg? view_as=public (My YouTube Channel)
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFhV_rSl1O9osRVmcpObEbg? view_as=public (My YouTube Channel)
http://zipansion.com/1uZzg Link to my Youtube Channel)
https://join-adf.ly/19849155 - (Click on this Adfly referal link to make extra income)
https://creaal.blogspot.com/ (Visit my blog)
Photo/Picture Credits :By Robert Scoble -
Flickr, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=3460064
Flickr, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=3460064
No comments:
Post a Comment
Share your opinion