Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

Ankole Customary Justice vs Uganda Constitution: President Museveni left us shaking our heads when he shared his belief that Ankole cultural norms of justice (Okuhoora and Okukaraba) are superior to those established under the Uganda constitution. He shared how justice was administered during the Bush war to win hearts... in Buganda: By ignoring neo-colonial courts and conducting summary executions after speedy trials by the High Command. He presented the presumption of innocence as a colonial concept that allows somebody that commits an offence to deny it; adding that this is very provocative to ‘we’ the indigenous people and it represents impunity. And suddenly we understood all the theatre in Baguma’s court. The President also gave us insight into machinations that side-step the constitution and institutions established under it. He highlighted how the high command ignored Janet Mukwaya’s ruling and Jim Muhwezi’s pleadings to summarily execute Zabuloni; today he is impatient with courts which do not speedily try Besigye and hand him over for execution. He illustrated how he has successfully built parallel institutions to ensure that his goals are achieved! Rather than train and rehabilitate the UPDF to fight corruption and advance his goals, he simply directed his son to handpick individuals to form a parallel Force that would do his bidding just like the basossodoti military officer of the bush days. But that is not the only institution he has undermined. When the legislature would not pass the laws he wanted, he managed that institution by appointing an electoral commission filled with cadres that would give him the legislators he needed to establish a rubber stamp Parliament. If the judiciary would not bend to his will, then he appointed cadre judges who would rule in his favor. The small problem he still has with the judicial system is not a lack of cadre judges but rather the limitations that the constitution creates in their methods of work. For example it gives his enemies a right to bail and a fair hearing! He tried to dodge these in the case of Kizza Besigye by using the court martial as an alternative but this short cut was thwarted by neo-colonial courts. But he has now fixed that by turning to Parliament to change the law to ensure that in future civilians cannot escape his court martial. But in the meantime he must find a way to deal with Besigye under the neo-colonial system where accused people still have rights! If it were up to him he would abrogate the constitution and revert to the indigenous laws of Ankole to summarily try and execute Besigye just like he did Zabuloni. Now, our constitution has been raped and abused to among other things remove term and age limits in order to allow President Museveni to remain in power. What we are witnessing during this rape, is an attempt to completely remove individual rights and freedoms from the constitution. It is therefore the duty of every right thinking Ugandan to fight for Besigye’s freedom. We have stood watching, powerlessly as the institutions of the State were captured by the rulers. Now they are coming for individuals and one day it may be you. Think about it!show more

Anne Mugisha

4,315 subscribers

17,195 Aufrufe • vor 5 Tagen •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

I note Prime Minister Andrew Holness’s remarks in a TV interview this morning. Neither he nor his Party has made those proposals as part of the process of constitutional reform. His proposals are therefore not in the report of the Constitutional Reform Committee, and will not be in the new Constitution coming out of that process. Furthermore, Mr. Holness’s proposals are not in the existing Constitution, and would violate the existing Constitution. This is in keeping with his and his Government’s unfortunate history of past violations of the Constitution of Jamaica. It seems that the Prime Minister wants to make up a rule which is not part of the Constitution or laws of Jamaica, to suit his Party’s political fortune at a time when it is waning. He has no power and no authority to do that. He needs to tell the country why his statutory declarations to the Integrity Commission cannot be certified. I am compliant with the Constitution and laws of Jamaica, and I undertake to the People of Jamaica that I will continue to be so.

I note Prime Minister Andrew Holness’s remarks in a TV interview this morning. Neither he nor his Party has made those proposals as part of the process of constitutional reform. His proposals are therefore not in the report of the Constitutional Reform Committee, and will not be in the new Constitution coming out of that process. Furthermore, Mr. Holness’s proposals are not in the existing Constitution, and would violate the existing Constitution. This is in keeping with his and his Government’s unfortunate history of past violations of the Constitution of Jamaica. It seems that the Prime Minister wants to make up a rule which is not part of the Constitution or laws of Jamaica, to suit his Party’s political fortune at a time when it is waning. He has no power and no authority to do that. He needs to tell the country why his statutory declarations to the Integrity Commission cannot be certified. I am compliant with the Constitution and laws of Jamaica, and I undertake to the People of Jamaica that I will continue to be so.

Mark J. Golding

32,129 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

[WATCH] THE PRESIDENT WILL NOT RESIGN. When it comes to the President, there is always a distinctive role between him being the President of the party and the state. There are many factors that influence the state in terms of governance and stability. If the President is called upon by some to resign and he keeps quiet it can throw the state into a state of turmoil. I want to make it clear that the officials agreed with the President on his approach, he took us into confidence and explained the factors that led him to make that particular pronouncement. We believe that the President did the right thing in pronouncing in the best interest of South Africa that he will not be resigning. There was nothing in terms of the judgment that warranted the President to resign it was just mere calls made by individuals and political parties that wanted to throw our country into a state of turmoil, uncertainty and anxiety. So it was imperative that he focus on that. It was correct for him to tell the country that from where he is standing there is nothing in the judgement that states he has done any wrongdoing and what he is going to do with the options in front of him and he has made this public. The President will take the Section 89 Report on review based on the outcome of the judgment and the legal advice he has received. There are no daggers out for the President to resign just opportunistic elements. These elements do not know what they want, they want to impeach and want him to resign, they do know what they actually want. The veracity of the report has not been tested in any committee so they don’t have a basis for the President to resign.

[WATCH] THE PRESIDENT WILL NOT RESIGN. When it comes to the President, there is always a distinctive role between him being the President of the party and the state. There are many factors that influence the state in terms of governance and stability. If the President is called upon by some to resign and he keeps quiet it can throw the state into a state of turmoil. I want to make it clear that the officials agreed with the President on his approach, he took us into confidence and explained the factors that led him to make that particular pronouncement. We believe that the President did the right thing in pronouncing in the best interest of South Africa that he will not be resigning. There was nothing in terms of the judgment that warranted the President to resign it was just mere calls made by individuals and political parties that wanted to throw our country into a state of turmoil, uncertainty and anxiety. So it was imperative that he focus on that. It was correct for him to tell the country that from where he is standing there is nothing in the judgement that states he has done any wrongdoing and what he is going to do with the options in front of him and he has made this public. The President will take the Section 89 Report on review based on the outcome of the judgment and the legal advice he has received. There are no daggers out for the President to resign just opportunistic elements. These elements do not know what they want, they want to impeach and want him to resign, they do know what they actually want. The veracity of the report has not been tested in any committee so they don’t have a basis for the President to resign.

ANC SECRETARY GENERAL | Fikile Mbalula

21,983 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Melvin: “The president repeatedly, though, did say that he would end the war in Ukraine on day one, and we are some 250 days into the administration.” Rubio: “That's not up to us to end the war. The Russians have to stop the war…What the president expressed is that it would be a priority of his. And it has been.” Melvin: “Repeatedly on the campaign trail, he said he would end it on day one. We're 246 days into the administration.” Rubio: “Which is an indication that he repeatedly said that he would make it a priority.”

Melvin: “The president repeatedly, though, did say that he would end the war in Ukraine on day one, and we are some 250 days into the administration.” Rubio: “That's not up to us to end the war. The Russians have to stop the war…What the president expressed is that it would be a priority of his. And it has been.” Melvin: “Repeatedly on the campaign trail, he said he would end it on day one. We're 246 days into the administration.” Rubio: “Which is an indication that he repeatedly said that he would make it a priority.”

The Bulwark

190,286 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

#WATCH | Chandigarh | Jaswinder Kaur Bath, wife of Colonel Pushpinder Singh Bath, who was allegedly assaulted by Punjab Police personnel in Patiala, says, "We went to meet DGP Gaurav Yadav, but he was busy. We waited for one and a half hours, but then he left without meeting us. He is an army officer's son, but he still did so... I am raising my voice just because my son said that he would not stay in this country as it is not worth staying. I had to prove to him that justice would be given... Then, we went to meet the governor, and he had tears in his eyes when I spoke to him and when I showed him the pictures and the brutality. He called the DGP and told him that FIR is my right with all the names and to please do what is needed. The governor then told us that if the FIR is not registered, we should get back to him. I want to thank the governor for standing up with us. I came to know through the media that SSP Nanak Singh had said that a magisterial inquiry had been set up, but the FIR could not be changed... Today, when everyone was standing up with me, all the politicians started calling me, but I didn't pick up a single call as this was not a political fight. They cannot say that we were under the influence of alcohol as it is there in the (medical) report of a government hospital... A police inspector told me that we cannot add the names of some police personnel in the FIR as they have been awarded as encounter specialists by the DIG and are about to be promoted. They said that police will do the needful but cannot name them in FIR ..." (21/03)

#WATCH | Chandigarh | Jaswinder Kaur Bath, wife of Colonel Pushpinder Singh Bath, who was allegedly assaulted by Punjab Police personnel in Patiala, says, "We went to meet DGP Gaurav Yadav, but he was busy. We waited for one and a half hours, but then he left without meeting us. He is an army officer's son, but he still did so... I am raising my voice just because my son said that he would not stay in this country as it is not worth staying. I had to prove to him that justice would be given... Then, we went to meet the governor, and he had tears in his eyes when I spoke to him and when I showed him the pictures and the brutality. He called the DGP and told him that FIR is my right with all the names and to please do what is needed. The governor then told us that if the FIR is not registered, we should get back to him. I want to thank the governor for standing up with us. I came to know through the media that SSP Nanak Singh had said that a magisterial inquiry had been set up, but the FIR could not be changed... Today, when everyone was standing up with me, all the politicians started calling me, but I didn't pick up a single call as this was not a political fight. They cannot say that we were under the influence of alcohol as it is there in the (medical) report of a government hospital... A police inspector told me that we cannot add the names of some police personnel in the FIR as they have been awarded as encounter specialists by the DIG and are about to be promoted. They said that police will do the needful but cannot name them in FIR ..." (21/03)

ANI

196,239 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

This is a terrible day in democracy... There's nowhere in the Constitution that gives Tinubu the power to, by a declaration, unsit a Governor, and dislodge the Legislature of a state. This is a total mess... Datti Baba Ahmed saw it coming and he said it categorically that the Constitution will be messed up if Tinubu is declared President by the Supreme Court. HE CALLED IT A RISK TO SWEAR IN TINUBU. Watch it again and be reminded

This is a terrible day in democracy... There's nowhere in the Constitution that gives Tinubu the power to, by a declaration, unsit a Governor, and dislodge the Legislature of a state. This is a total mess... Datti Baba Ahmed saw it coming and he said it categorically that the Constitution will be messed up if Tinubu is declared President by the Supreme Court. HE CALLED IT A RISK TO SWEAR IN TINUBU. Watch it again and be reminded

Chief UC Maxwell, SAL 𓃵

158,784 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Andrei Tarkovsky on Ingmar Bergman's Shame (1968): "Let us look at Bergman's Shame. The film doesn't contain a single 'actor's piece' for the performer to 'give away' the director's purpose, to play the conception of the persona, his attitude to it, to assess it in relation to the overall idea; and the latter is entirely hidden within the dynamic of the characters' lives, at one with it. The people in the film are crushed by circumstances; they act only in accordance with their situation, to which they themselves are subordinate; they make no attempt to proffer us any idea, any perspective on what is happening, or to draw any conclusion. All of that is left to the film as a whole, to the director's vision. And how superbly it is accomplished! You cannot say in simple terms who amongst them is good or bad. I could never say that von Sydow is a bad man. They are all partly good and partly bad, each in his own way. No judgements are passed, because there is no hint of tendentiousness in any of the actors, and the circumstances of the film are used by the director to explore the human possibilities which they test, and not for a moment in order to illustrate a thesis. Max von Sydow's character is developed with masterly power. He is a very good man; a musician; kind and sensitive. It turns out that he is a coward. But by no means every bold man is a good human being, and cowards are not always scoundrels. Of course, he is weak and irresolute. His wife is far stronger than he, so much so that she can overcome her fear. The hero lacks that strength. He is tormented by his own weakness, vulnerability, lack of resilience; he tries to hide, to cower in a corner, not to see and not to hear; and he does this like a child, naively and with complete sincerity. But when circumstances nevertheless force him to defend himself, he instantly turns into a scoundrel. He loses all that was best in him; but the drama and absurdity of his situation is that as he is now he becomes necessary to his wife, who, in her turn, looks to him for protection and succour instead of despising him as she always had. When he beats her about the face and says 'Get out!' she goes crawling after him. There is something here of the age-old idea of passive good and active evil; but its expression is immensely complex. At the beginning of the film the hero cannot even kill a chicken, but as soon as he has found a way of defending himself he becomes a cruel cynic. He has something of Hamlet: my view is that the Prince of Denmark perishes not as a result of the duel, when he dies physically, but immediately after the 'rat' scene, when he understands how irreversible are those laws of life which have forced him, a man of humanity and intellect, to act like the inferior people who inhabit Elsinore. Von Sydow is now a sinister character, afraid of nothing: he kills; will not raise a finger to save his fellows; pursues only his own interests. The point is that you have to be a person of great integrity to feel fear in the face of the foul necessity to kill and humiliate. And by shedding that fear and apparently acquiring courage, a person in fact loses his spiritual strength and intellectual honesty and parts from his innocence. War is the obvious catalyst for the cruel, anti-human elements in people. Bergman uses the war in this film exactly as he uses the heroine's illness in Through a Glass Darkly: to explore his view of man." — "Sculpting in Time" by Andrei Tarkovsky (translated by Kitty Hunter-Blair, 1987)

Andrei Tarkovsky on Ingmar Bergman's Shame (1968): "Let us look at Bergman's Shame. The film doesn't contain a single 'actor's piece' for the performer to 'give away' the director's purpose, to play the conception of the persona, his attitude to it, to assess it in relation to the overall idea; and the latter is entirely hidden within the dynamic of the characters' lives, at one with it. The people in the film are crushed by circumstances; they act only in accordance with their situation, to which they themselves are subordinate; they make no attempt to proffer us any idea, any perspective on what is happening, or to draw any conclusion. All of that is left to the film as a whole, to the director's vision. And how superbly it is accomplished! You cannot say in simple terms who amongst them is good or bad. I could never say that von Sydow is a bad man. They are all partly good and partly bad, each in his own way. No judgements are passed, because there is no hint of tendentiousness in any of the actors, and the circumstances of the film are used by the director to explore the human possibilities which they test, and not for a moment in order to illustrate a thesis. Max von Sydow's character is developed with masterly power. He is a very good man; a musician; kind and sensitive. It turns out that he is a coward. But by no means every bold man is a good human being, and cowards are not always scoundrels. Of course, he is weak and irresolute. His wife is far stronger than he, so much so that she can overcome her fear. The hero lacks that strength. He is tormented by his own weakness, vulnerability, lack of resilience; he tries to hide, to cower in a corner, not to see and not to hear; and he does this like a child, naively and with complete sincerity. But when circumstances nevertheless force him to defend himself, he instantly turns into a scoundrel. He loses all that was best in him; but the drama and absurdity of his situation is that as he is now he becomes necessary to his wife, who, in her turn, looks to him for protection and succour instead of despising him as she always had. When he beats her about the face and says 'Get out!' she goes crawling after him. There is something here of the age-old idea of passive good and active evil; but its expression is immensely complex. At the beginning of the film the hero cannot even kill a chicken, but as soon as he has found a way of defending himself he becomes a cruel cynic. He has something of Hamlet: my view is that the Prince of Denmark perishes not as a result of the duel, when he dies physically, but immediately after the 'rat' scene, when he understands how irreversible are those laws of life which have forced him, a man of humanity and intellect, to act like the inferior people who inhabit Elsinore. Von Sydow is now a sinister character, afraid of nothing: he kills; will not raise a finger to save his fellows; pursues only his own interests. The point is that you have to be a person of great integrity to feel fear in the face of the foul necessity to kill and humiliate. And by shedding that fear and apparently acquiring courage, a person in fact loses his spiritual strength and intellectual honesty and parts from his innocence. War is the obvious catalyst for the cruel, anti-human elements in people. Bergman uses the war in this film exactly as he uses the heroine's illness in Through a Glass Darkly: to explore his view of man." — "Sculpting in Time" by Andrei Tarkovsky (translated by Kitty Hunter-Blair, 1987)

RadiantFilm

27,723 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

Who Do You Think The 3rd Person Is? Bill Gates? Klaus Schwab? Someone Else? “Nostradamus saw in his future three men that he called antichrists. One was Napoleon, the second one was Hitler, and the third one is the one that is to come, who is said to be the worst of all, because he will learn from the mistakes of the others. A very dangerous person. He didn't like the term antichrist. He said it was a Christian term, and it was not exactly what he meant. But he said, if you think of Christ as representing people, humanity, then antichrist is someone who does terrible things against humanity, against people. And it can be the type of personality like Genghis Khan or Attila the Hun, the type that doesn't care anything about what it's doing, it only wants power. So this is what he meant by an Antichrist. But the third one, he gave us a great deal of information about him because he wanted us to do something to stop the man. He said in the Bible, in the book of Revelation and other books in the Old Testament, the people saw the same things that he saw their symbolism they could understand in their time, but they all saw the same thing. And the man he refers to as the Antichrist is the number 666 in the Book of Revelation, called the Beast. Of course he said 666 also refers to his connection to his computers. So there's a lot more to it. But he has been predicted as far back as Bible times. So he said he has a destiny to fulfill. He has to come, but after he comes, what happens after that is in the hands of mankind. Do we allow it to go through the worst case scenarios or can we lessen it? That's the point fulfill. We were given a lot of information about this man because he is so important. We have his horoscope. He was born on February the 4th, 1962 in Jerusalem, but he's not Jewish. And his parents were killed during the Israeli war and when he was about six or seven years old, and he was raised by his uncle. His uncle is a very evil man, and we have had many people see him, and we have in my work, and we had one woman who was able to put together a police composite picture of the uncle and of the antichrist. She was a psychic who had worked with police on many cases, so she knew how to do the police composite kits. But the uncle took the young boy him as his own. What the young boy doesn't know was that the uncle had his parents killed, so he could have him for himself. And he has gotten together a very powerful group of rich Arabs in the Middle East, and they've been taking care of this young boy and grooming him for the role he is to take. It's a very powerful group of people that control everything that happens in the Middle East. They're the puppet masters behind the scenes. Nusrat Dhamma said, by the time seven puppets arise in the Middle East, you will realize what is happening that they are not the real leaders of the countries, but they are the puppets being manipulated by the puppet masters behind the scenes. The young Antichrist went to college in Egypt, and we were working on this at the same time he was in college, so we were shown several scenes of him in college. We knew where he was living. We had all this information.”

Who Do You Think The 3rd Person Is? Bill Gates? Klaus Schwab? Someone Else? “Nostradamus saw in his future three men that he called antichrists. One was Napoleon, the second one was Hitler, and the third one is the one that is to come, who is said to be the worst of all, because he will learn from the mistakes of the others. A very dangerous person. He didn't like the term antichrist. He said it was a Christian term, and it was not exactly what he meant. But he said, if you think of Christ as representing people, humanity, then antichrist is someone who does terrible things against humanity, against people. And it can be the type of personality like Genghis Khan or Attila the Hun, the type that doesn't care anything about what it's doing, it only wants power. So this is what he meant by an Antichrist. But the third one, he gave us a great deal of information about him because he wanted us to do something to stop the man. He said in the Bible, in the book of Revelation and other books in the Old Testament, the people saw the same things that he saw their symbolism they could understand in their time, but they all saw the same thing. And the man he refers to as the Antichrist is the number 666 in the Book of Revelation, called the Beast. Of course he said 666 also refers to his connection to his computers. So there's a lot more to it. But he has been predicted as far back as Bible times. So he said he has a destiny to fulfill. He has to come, but after he comes, what happens after that is in the hands of mankind. Do we allow it to go through the worst case scenarios or can we lessen it? That's the point fulfill. We were given a lot of information about this man because he is so important. We have his horoscope. He was born on February the 4th, 1962 in Jerusalem, but he's not Jewish. And his parents were killed during the Israeli war and when he was about six or seven years old, and he was raised by his uncle. His uncle is a very evil man, and we have had many people see him, and we have in my work, and we had one woman who was able to put together a police composite picture of the uncle and of the antichrist. She was a psychic who had worked with police on many cases, so she knew how to do the police composite kits. But the uncle took the young boy him as his own. What the young boy doesn't know was that the uncle had his parents killed, so he could have him for himself. And he has gotten together a very powerful group of rich Arabs in the Middle East, and they've been taking care of this young boy and grooming him for the role he is to take. It's a very powerful group of people that control everything that happens in the Middle East. They're the puppet masters behind the scenes. Nusrat Dhamma said, by the time seven puppets arise in the Middle East, you will realize what is happening that they are not the real leaders of the countries, but they are the puppets being manipulated by the puppet masters behind the scenes. The young Antichrist went to college in Egypt, and we were working on this at the same time he was in college, so we were shown several scenes of him in college. We knew where he was living. We had all this information.”

Wall Street Apes

1,338,694 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

🔥WOWWWWW.. “I KNOW John Brennan has been COLLUDING with people in our government and with people outside the government that recently served to UNDERMINE our government. What I just said is a VERY TRUE statement.” He needs to call in Gabbard, Wiles, Ratcliffe & Hesgeth. I want to know everything about JOHN BRENNAN in one hour about the LAST 90 DAYS and WHERE HE HAS BEEN, WHERE HE IS AT AND WHO HE TALKED TO AND BRING HIS AS* in..send the Marshals to get him' - General Flynn He is the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES he is the only one that takes the OATH TO PRESERVE. We will get behind him. General Mike Flynn is right..he could have left this life a long time ago and golfed BUT HE DIDN'T. This man loves this country and wants to save it..I cannot comprehend HOW he is not in the administration as we speak. He is right when he says if we do not do this we are ONE ELECTION AWAY from losing it all.

🔥WOWWWWW.. “I KNOW John Brennan has been COLLUDING with people in our government and with people outside the government that recently served to UNDERMINE our government. What I just said is a VERY TRUE statement.” He needs to call in Gabbard, Wiles, Ratcliffe & Hesgeth. I want to know everything about JOHN BRENNAN in one hour about the LAST 90 DAYS and WHERE HE HAS BEEN, WHERE HE IS AT AND WHO HE TALKED TO AND BRING HIS AS* in..send the Marshals to get him' - General Flynn He is the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES he is the only one that takes the OATH TO PRESERVE. We will get behind him. General Mike Flynn is right..he could have left this life a long time ago and golfed BUT HE DIDN'T. This man loves this country and wants to save it..I cannot comprehend HOW he is not in the administration as we speak. He is right when he says if we do not do this we are ONE ELECTION AWAY from losing it all.

Johnny St.Pete

381,365 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

Today marks the 9th anniversary of Justice Antonin Scalia’s passing. With his indefatigable commitment to constitutional originalism and textualism, Justice Scalia helped build what is the modern conservative legal movement. Thanks to him, we think about the law and the role of courts much differently than we did a generation ago. “They call it the living Constitution...I will call mine an enduring Constitution, one that doesn't change, one that has the force and the meaning today that it had when it was adopted. But the living Constitution, as I told you, is popular not only among lawyers, judges, and law professors, it has drifted down to the people.”

Today marks the 9th anniversary of Justice Antonin Scalia’s passing. With his indefatigable commitment to constitutional originalism and textualism, Justice Scalia helped build what is the modern conservative legal movement. Thanks to him, we think about the law and the role of courts much differently than we did a generation ago. “They call it the living Constitution...I will call mine an enduring Constitution, one that doesn't change, one that has the force and the meaning today that it had when it was adopted. But the living Constitution, as I told you, is popular not only among lawyers, judges, and law professors, it has drifted down to the people.”

Carrie Severino

351,029 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

The office of The ODM Party’s Secretary General is not a platform for personal opinion. It is an institutional role that demands discipline and loyalty to the party constitution. Edwin Sifuna has failed in this duty. If he wishes to pursue a different political path, that is his democratic right. But as long as he remains ODM’s Secretary General, he must respect the Party Leader and communicate the party’s official position, not his own. The Secretary General does not make policy. He articulates it. Personal views masquerading as party position are unacceptable. He was handpicked by the party, and the party can handpick another. ODM is bigger than any individual.

The office of The ODM Party’s Secretary General is not a platform for personal opinion. It is an institutional role that demands discipline and loyalty to the party constitution. Edwin Sifuna has failed in this duty. If he wishes to pursue a different political path, that is his democratic right. But as long as he remains ODM’s Secretary General, he must respect the Party Leader and communicate the party’s official position, not his own. The Secretary General does not make policy. He articulates it. Personal views masquerading as party position are unacceptable. He was handpicked by the party, and the party can handpick another. ODM is bigger than any individual.

Kasmuel McOure

74,204 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

Van Hollen: Now, we know the state of our Union. We know it is under attack from a lawless president who is shredding our Constitution and attacking our democracy. A president whose private ICE army kills Americans and then calls the victims “domestic terrorists.” That is what Donald Trump and his administration said. We are here because we know our country is being robbed by the most corrupt president in American history — one who is exploiting the Oval Office to enrich himself, his family, and his billionaire buddies. A president who continues to hide portions of the Epstein files from both survivors and the American people. When are they going to release the files? A president who wants to erase our history. Are we going to let him erase America’s history? A president who promised that on day one he would bring down costs — but ever since he was sworn in, prices have gone up on the American people, even as he refuses to extend tax cuts and tax credits that help families afford their health care. We have a president who seeks not to build a more perfect union, but to tear it down. A president who said he would stop wars — but instead is responsible for war crimes and, as we speak, is threatening more wars. We are gathered here because we know we cannot pretend that any of this is normal. We will not — and must not — pretend this is business as usual. We must get in the way of Donald Trump’s march toward fascism. We cannot let our country go down that road. What Donald Trump wants to do is what all bullies do — what all dictators do. He wants to intimidate us. He wants us to sit obediently and quietly while he lies and lies and lies to the American people.

Van Hollen: Now, we know the state of our Union. We know it is under attack from a lawless president who is shredding our Constitution and attacking our democracy. A president whose private ICE army kills Americans and then calls the victims “domestic terrorists.” That is what Donald Trump and his administration said. We are here because we know our country is being robbed by the most corrupt president in American history — one who is exploiting the Oval Office to enrich himself, his family, and his billionaire buddies. A president who continues to hide portions of the Epstein files from both survivors and the American people. When are they going to release the files? A president who wants to erase our history. Are we going to let him erase America’s history? A president who promised that on day one he would bring down costs — but ever since he was sworn in, prices have gone up on the American people, even as he refuses to extend tax cuts and tax credits that help families afford their health care. We have a president who seeks not to build a more perfect union, but to tear it down. A president who said he would stop wars — but instead is responsible for war crimes and, as we speak, is threatening more wars. We are gathered here because we know we cannot pretend that any of this is normal. We will not — and must not — pretend this is business as usual. We must get in the way of Donald Trump’s march toward fascism. We cannot let our country go down that road. What Donald Trump wants to do is what all bullies do — what all dictators do. He wants to intimidate us. He wants us to sit obediently and quietly while he lies and lies and lies to the American people.

Acyn

37,022 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

I have listened to the debate on Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 between legal scholar Dr Justice Mavedzenge and political scientist Prof Jonathan Moyo today on Twitter. Without any doubt, Dr Justice Mavedzenge explained, clarified, and made ordinary people understand the issues, and more importantly, in my humble view, he won the debate on whether there is need for Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 to be subjected to a referendum or not. Anything done for the people, as Prof Jonathan Moyo says these monumental amendments are, should be subjected to the people. The Constitution is not ambiguous on this. It is clear that term limits should be subjected to a referendum for any change to be done legally. Under Section 328 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, any amendment that seeks to extend the length of time a President may hold office, or to remove or alter term limits in a way that benefits an incumbent, cannot apply to the sitting President and must be subjected to constitutional safeguards. You cannot claim to be doing something for the people and yet deny those same people the right to have a say. Prof Jonathan Moyo has a right to his views, but those views must be subjected to the law for the amendments to be implemented legally, and based on what I have read in our Constitution, his views are not aligned with the law. And I am not making this up. It is in the Constitution. Even veteran Zimbabwean lawyer and former ZANUPF legal secretary, Patrick Chinamasa, has said so. In this video, he explains in front of President Mnangagwa that what they are attempting to do today, which Prof Jonathan Moyo argues does not require a referendum, would in fact require two referendums. One to remove or alter presidential term limits from five to seven years, and another to extend the sitting president’s tenure to 2030. This position was declared, and not contradicted, at a ZANUPF conference in Bulawayo. What the broader legal fraternity in Zimbabwe is saying, save for a few lawyers who have since revised their positions and now echo the same view, is that the Constitution is explicit on these prescripts. Anything else is political propaganda to win hearts and minds. The problem with propaganda is that it cannot be anchored in constitutional provisions. It rests on opinion. In this instance, however, we are not expressing opinions. We are stating what is contained in the Constitution and what ZANUPF itself has previously acknowledged. You can decide today that you want a 20-year presidential term. That is your right to hold that view, but you must subject that proposition to the law. If you believe in it, take it to the citizens in the manner prescribed by the Constitution. You cannot decide, through opinion or political argument, whether a referendum is required or not. That question is not settled by what anyone thinks. It is settled by what the law says. If the Constitution requires a referendum, then you must subject yourself to it. That is how constitutional democracy works. We know that the judiciary in Zimbabwe is captured. We know how they are going to rule, but the whole world knows the truth, that if they rule in favour of these amendments going ahead without a referendum, they are simply a captured judiciary without the respect that is required for anyone holding such an important office, and history will remember them as such.

I have listened to the debate on Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 between legal scholar Dr Justice Mavedzenge and political scientist Prof Jonathan Moyo today on Twitter. Without any doubt, Dr Justice Mavedzenge explained, clarified, and made ordinary people understand the issues, and more importantly, in my humble view, he won the debate on whether there is need for Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 to be subjected to a referendum or not. Anything done for the people, as Prof Jonathan Moyo says these monumental amendments are, should be subjected to the people. The Constitution is not ambiguous on this. It is clear that term limits should be subjected to a referendum for any change to be done legally. Under Section 328 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, any amendment that seeks to extend the length of time a President may hold office, or to remove or alter term limits in a way that benefits an incumbent, cannot apply to the sitting President and must be subjected to constitutional safeguards. You cannot claim to be doing something for the people and yet deny those same people the right to have a say. Prof Jonathan Moyo has a right to his views, but those views must be subjected to the law for the amendments to be implemented legally, and based on what I have read in our Constitution, his views are not aligned with the law. And I am not making this up. It is in the Constitution. Even veteran Zimbabwean lawyer and former ZANUPF legal secretary, Patrick Chinamasa, has said so. In this video, he explains in front of President Mnangagwa that what they are attempting to do today, which Prof Jonathan Moyo argues does not require a referendum, would in fact require two referendums. One to remove or alter presidential term limits from five to seven years, and another to extend the sitting president’s tenure to 2030. This position was declared, and not contradicted, at a ZANUPF conference in Bulawayo. What the broader legal fraternity in Zimbabwe is saying, save for a few lawyers who have since revised their positions and now echo the same view, is that the Constitution is explicit on these prescripts. Anything else is political propaganda to win hearts and minds. The problem with propaganda is that it cannot be anchored in constitutional provisions. It rests on opinion. In this instance, however, we are not expressing opinions. We are stating what is contained in the Constitution and what ZANUPF itself has previously acknowledged. You can decide today that you want a 20-year presidential term. That is your right to hold that view, but you must subject that proposition to the law. If you believe in it, take it to the citizens in the manner prescribed by the Constitution. You cannot decide, through opinion or political argument, whether a referendum is required or not. That question is not settled by what anyone thinks. It is settled by what the law says. If the Constitution requires a referendum, then you must subject yourself to it. That is how constitutional democracy works. We know that the judiciary in Zimbabwe is captured. We know how they are going to rule, but the whole world knows the truth, that if they rule in favour of these amendments going ahead without a referendum, they are simply a captured judiciary without the respect that is required for anyone holding such an important office, and history will remember them as such.

Hopewell Chin’ono

62,272 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Quentin Tarantino recounts a dinner with Robert De Niro during the making of Jackie Brown, where he asked him whether he understood when he landed the role of Vito in The Godfather Part II, that it would change his life. De Niro’s answer revealed a great deal about his mindset at the time. “I was working with Robert De Niro on Jackie brown, and we went out to dinner once. - When he got Vito in the Godfather Part II, that was going to be a big thing for him. He won the Oscar for it - it set him up to be a movie star. So I asked him - and I've asked this to quite a few actors when it comes to when they got the role that would end up changing their career - did he realize that the moment when he got the role, that it would have this sort of effect? And he goes oh, “I tried not to let it do that. I tried not to think about that” I go, "really? and why did you try not to think about that?" “Well because I’ve seen it happen and then go the other way” And then he used an example. “There was this guy, he was a young actor, and he was part of our crowd in New York. He'd been doing okay, but we were all in the same boat. Then all of a sudden he got a lead role. He's one of the two leads in a brand new movie by a director who had just done a smash hit.” And he's talking about Larry Pierce (the director) and uh... Goodbye Columbus. ”And he started dining out on it. And all of a sudden I go to the places that we used to go to, and now he's there and everyone's kind of revolving around him. He's kind of holding court. He's not doing anything bad; he's just arisen in the way that none of us have - and we're all treating him different. Then the movie comes out; nobody likes it - The movie comes out, and it goes away, and he's exactly in the same place he was. And I just wanted to make sure that that would never happen to me because I watched it happen to him.” Quote from Video Archives Podcast, sourced from James Whale Bake Sale YouTube channel. Clip below from the Godfather Part II (1974)

Gangster Cinema Central

97,458 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Pritzker: We just saw Vance talk about maybe sending troops into Detroit. This is after the governor has been working with the administration, trying to get things done for her state by sitting down with the president and figuring out what they could do together. And now this is how she's paid back. You can see that it does not matter. Making a deal with this administration leads simply to them getting in the near term what they want, which is capitulation. And in the long term, they're going to abrogate that deal. You've seen it. Donald Trump's entire life. He breaks contracts. He did it in business over and over and over again. He would sue people when he knew that he was going to get sued in order to stop the action against him, or prevent people from being able to afford to actually bring that lawsuit. Now he's president of the United States. He's got a lot more power at his fingertips.

Pritzker: We just saw Vance talk about maybe sending troops into Detroit. This is after the governor has been working with the administration, trying to get things done for her state by sitting down with the president and figuring out what they could do together. And now this is how she's paid back. You can see that it does not matter. Making a deal with this administration leads simply to them getting in the near term what they want, which is capitulation. And in the long term, they're going to abrogate that deal. You've seen it. Donald Trump's entire life. He breaks contracts. He did it in business over and over and over again. He would sue people when he knew that he was going to get sued in order to stop the action against him, or prevent people from being able to afford to actually bring that lawsuit. Now he's president of the United States. He's got a lot more power at his fingertips.

Acyn

252,134 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

Former Trump Comms Director Anthony Scaramucci: There are 40 of us, including his former Vice President, that explained to the American people the systemic danger Trump represents to not only America but the world. We've seen what he is like in terms of his destructive capability. He disavows the Constitution, he's told his lawyers that he would like to use the FBI as the 'Gestapo.' This a very dangerous guy and he shouldn't be anywhere near that White House again

Former Trump Comms Director Anthony Scaramucci: There are 40 of us, including his former Vice President, that explained to the American people the systemic danger Trump represents to not only America but the world. We've seen what he is like in terms of his destructive capability. He disavows the Constitution, he's told his lawyers that he would like to use the FBI as the 'Gestapo.' This a very dangerous guy and he shouldn't be anywhere near that White House again

Headquarters

371,454 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

Dr. Barrack Muluka: President William Ruto operates in an environment where he thinks that he is the only intelligent person in this country. In fact, he looks at the rest of us and he says, "If they are intelligent, why is it that they are not the president. I am the most intelligent person; I'll not listen to anybody. If I bring you around me to advise me, please wait for me to advise you on how you should advise me." Because of that, he has lost it in the sense that the people who sit around him have become sycophants who read his lips and tell him what he would like to hear, and it is known as a fact that cabinet meetings are lecture sessions. Here is a situation where the country must accept that it is in the grip of a one-man rule assisted by a poodle, a lapdog that crossed over from the other side of the aisle and joined in. #ktnat35 #KTNPrime Jesse Rogers Ashley Mazuri

Dr. Barrack Muluka: President William Ruto operates in an environment where he thinks that he is the only intelligent person in this country. In fact, he looks at the rest of us and he says, "If they are intelligent, why is it that they are not the president. I am the most intelligent person; I'll not listen to anybody. If I bring you around me to advise me, please wait for me to advise you on how you should advise me." Because of that, he has lost it in the sense that the people who sit around him have become sycophants who read his lips and tell him what he would like to hear, and it is known as a fact that cabinet meetings are lecture sessions. Here is a situation where the country must accept that it is in the grip of a one-man rule assisted by a poodle, a lapdog that crossed over from the other side of the aisle and joined in. #ktnat35 #KTNPrime Jesse Rogers Ashley Mazuri

KTN News

67,633 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

Winnie Odinga: I think Dr Oburu Oginga is a wonderful acting party leader in this transition period and he is steadying the ship. This is not a very easy ship to steady, but he is weathering the storm and he has said many times that he is acting transitionally and will make space for other young people. My uncle has lived a life of determination, strength and loyalty. Winnie Odinga would be the last person that at his age of 82, would allow his legacy to be besmirched by a political tug of war. We are very happy with him being in the position that he is; he is certainly the best person in that position #CitizenExplainer

Winnie Odinga: I think Dr Oburu Oginga is a wonderful acting party leader in this transition period and he is steadying the ship. This is not a very easy ship to steady, but he is weathering the storm and he has said many times that he is acting transitionally and will make space for other young people. My uncle has lived a life of determination, strength and loyalty. Winnie Odinga would be the last person that at his age of 82, would allow his legacy to be besmirched by a political tug of war. We are very happy with him being in the position that he is; he is certainly the best person in that position #CitizenExplainer

Citizen TV Kenya

20,504 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten