Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

Auron is banking on the stupidity of his audience here when it comes to basic English. In the English language, there are many words that have multiple meanings depending on how they are used. Auron tries to redefine our founding document by implying that the word “Constitution” only has...

AThinksAloud's profile picture

A 🌸

20,781 subscribers

76,411 views • 9 months ago •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

They aren’t even hiding it “What we as Muslims want to implement here in the United States. We believe the Constitution should be replaced by the Quran” “First move that I will do, I will abolish the Constitution and I will establish the only and the only logical and rational constitution which is the Quran and the Sunnah of Rasool Allah sallallahu alaihi wasallam” “When it comes to spreading Islam on a state level, on a societal level, that method prescribed is jihad. Allah has prescribed that the ones who don't accept the ruling of Islam, they must be fought. This is simply the command of Allah.”
0:37

They aren’t even hiding it “What we as Muslims want to implement here in the United States. We believe the Constitution should be replaced by the Quran” “First move that I will do, I will abolish the Constitution and I will establish the only and the only logical and rational constitution which is the Quran and the Sunnah of Rasool Allah sallallahu alaihi wasallam” “When it comes to spreading Islam on a state level, on a societal level, that method prescribed is jihad. Allah has prescribed that the ones who don't accept the ruling of Islam, they must be fought. This is simply the command of Allah.”

Wall Street Apes

540,568 views • 1 year ago

Muslim Leaders explain how America can become an Islamic State “That what we as Muslims want to implement here in the United States, we believe the Constitution should be replaced by the Quran” “When it comes to spreading Islam on a state level, on a societal level, that method prescribed is jihad. Allah has prescribed that the ones who don't accept the ruling of Islam, they must be fought. This is simply the command of Allah.” “The first move that I will do, I will abolish the Constitution and I will establish the only and the only logical and rational constitution, which is the Quran and The Sunnah of Rasulullah. Sallallahu alaihi wasallam.”
0:33

Muslim Leaders explain how America can become an Islamic State “That what we as Muslims want to implement here in the United States, we believe the Constitution should be replaced by the Quran” “When it comes to spreading Islam on a state level, on a societal level, that method prescribed is jihad. Allah has prescribed that the ones who don't accept the ruling of Islam, they must be fought. This is simply the command of Allah.” “The first move that I will do, I will abolish the Constitution and I will establish the only and the only logical and rational constitution, which is the Quran and The Sunnah of Rasulullah. Sallallahu alaihi wasallam.”

Wall Street Apes

299,354 views • 9 months ago

General Jack Keane who was awarded The Presidential Medal of Freedom by Trump: Zelenskyy’s polling is 57% favorable.. The constitution that Ukraine has prohibits elections when you declare martial law because of the state of war takes place.. The fact that their constitution is driving this— the parliament, bipartisan support for all of the extensions they have had to the martial law. They are acting democratically in my judgement and abiding by their constitution and also the parliament is supporting it which represents the people throughout the country. These are democratic actions taking place in a democratic country.
2:21

General Jack Keane who was awarded The Presidential Medal of Freedom by Trump: Zelenskyy’s polling is 57% favorable.. The constitution that Ukraine has prohibits elections when you declare martial law because of the state of war takes place.. The fact that their constitution is driving this— the parliament, bipartisan support for all of the extensions they have had to the martial law. They are acting democratically in my judgement and abiding by their constitution and also the parliament is supporting it which represents the people throughout the country. These are democratic actions taking place in a democratic country.

Acyn

1,651,655 views • 1 year ago

Why is Trump able to begin the elimination of the Department of Education by Executive Order? Because at the heart of this military operation is the restoration of The Constitution. The 10th Amendment is all that people need to know: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” Was the Federal Government granted the power to regulate Education in the original Constitution? The answer is No. Therefore, the Department, like most of them is by definition, Unconstitutional. It’s a state issue. Period. End of story. This clip from Fox is interesting, because it’s highlighting how Democrats in The House “stopped Reagan” from eliminating the DOE. That’s an important narrative to show the normies how the Dems have perpetrated waste and fraud. But I would argue it was that bullet to Reagan’s neck that stopped this and many other plans he had to move back towards the Constitution. This time is different. This time Trump has the backing of a Military Operation that’s being used to eliminate fraud, sedition, and treason and restore our rightful Constitution.
0:27

Why is Trump able to begin the elimination of the Department of Education by Executive Order? Because at the heart of this military operation is the restoration of The Constitution. The 10th Amendment is all that people need to know: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” Was the Federal Government granted the power to regulate Education in the original Constitution? The answer is No. Therefore, the Department, like most of them is by definition, Unconstitutional. It’s a state issue. Period. End of story. This clip from Fox is interesting, because it’s highlighting how Democrats in The House “stopped Reagan” from eliminating the DOE. That’s an important narrative to show the normies how the Dems have perpetrated waste and fraud. But I would argue it was that bullet to Reagan’s neck that stopped this and many other plans he had to move back towards the Constitution. This time is different. This time Trump has the backing of a Military Operation that’s being used to eliminate fraud, sedition, and treason and restore our rightful Constitution.

NewsTreason Channel 17

28,243 views • 1 year ago

I want to start my speech by quoting your Supreme Leader Savarkar and his ideas on the Constitution of India and how he thought India should be run. Savarkar writes: ''The worst thing about the Constitution of India is that there is nothing Indian about it. Manusmriti is that scripture that is most worshippable after the Vedas, and which, from ancient times, had begun the basis of our culture, customs, thought, and practices. This book for centuries has codified the spiritual and divine march of our nation. Today, Manusmriti is law.'' These are the words of Savarkar. Those in the ruling side are defending the Constitution, but I want to ask you, do you stand by your leader's words? But when you defend the Constitution, you are ridiculing Savarkar and defaming him. : LoP Shri Rahul Gandhi in the Lok Sabha
2:13

I want to start my speech by quoting your Supreme Leader Savarkar and his ideas on the Constitution of India and how he thought India should be run. Savarkar writes: ''The worst thing about the Constitution of India is that there is nothing Indian about it. Manusmriti is that scripture that is most worshippable after the Vedas, and which, from ancient times, had begun the basis of our culture, customs, thought, and practices. This book for centuries has codified the spiritual and divine march of our nation. Today, Manusmriti is law.'' These are the words of Savarkar. Those in the ruling side are defending the Constitution, but I want to ask you, do you stand by your leader's words? But when you defend the Constitution, you are ridiculing Savarkar and defaming him. : LoP Shri Rahul Gandhi in the Lok Sabha

Congress

14,011 views • 1 year ago

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.
1:26

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 views • 2 years ago

The RSS believes that India is one idea and we believe that India is a multiplicity of ideas. We believe that everybody should be allowed to participate, allowed to dream, and given space regardless of their caste, language, religion, tradition or history. This is the fight, and the fight was crystallised in the election when millions of people in India clearly understood that the Prime Minister of India was attacking the Constitution of India. Every single word that I have said to you is in the Constitution. The foundation of modern India is the Constitution. What people understood in the election clearly, and I saw it happening when I used to raise the Constitution, people understood what I was saying. They were saying that the BJP is attacking our tradition, attacking our language, attacking our states, attacking our histories. Most importantly, what they understood was that anybody who is attacking the Constitution of India is also attacking our religious tradition. That is why in my first speech in Parliament you must have noticed when I describe Abhayamudra, the fact that this is a symbol of fearlessness and it is present in every single Indian religion. When I was saying this, the BJP could not stand it. They don't understand, and we are going to make them understand. The other thing that happened was that the fear of the BJP vanished. We saw that immediately, within minutes of the election result, nobody in India was scared of the BJP or the Prime Minister of India. So these are huge achievements, not of Rahul Gandhi or the Congress party. We are peripheral. These are huge achievements of the people of India who realised democracy, of the people of India who realised that we are not going to accept an attack on our Constitution. We are not going to accept an attack on our religion, on our state. : Shri Rahul Gandhi 📍Dallas, USA
3:58

The RSS believes that India is one idea and we believe that India is a multiplicity of ideas. We believe that everybody should be allowed to participate, allowed to dream, and given space regardless of their caste, language, religion, tradition or history. This is the fight, and the fight was crystallised in the election when millions of people in India clearly understood that the Prime Minister of India was attacking the Constitution of India. Every single word that I have said to you is in the Constitution. The foundation of modern India is the Constitution. What people understood in the election clearly, and I saw it happening when I used to raise the Constitution, people understood what I was saying. They were saying that the BJP is attacking our tradition, attacking our language, attacking our states, attacking our histories. Most importantly, what they understood was that anybody who is attacking the Constitution of India is also attacking our religious tradition. That is why in my first speech in Parliament you must have noticed when I describe Abhayamudra, the fact that this is a symbol of fearlessness and it is present in every single Indian religion. When I was saying this, the BJP could not stand it. They don't understand, and we are going to make them understand. The other thing that happened was that the fear of the BJP vanished. We saw that immediately, within minutes of the election result, nobody in India was scared of the BJP or the Prime Minister of India. So these are huge achievements, not of Rahul Gandhi or the Congress party. We are peripheral. These are huge achievements of the people of India who realised democracy, of the people of India who realised that we are not going to accept an attack on our Constitution. We are not going to accept an attack on our religion, on our state. : Shri Rahul Gandhi 📍Dallas, USA

Congress

68,142 views • 2 years ago

Mr. President and Governor Bola Ahmed Tinubu and Babajide Sanwo-Olu , you swore to protect the constitution of this country. If you don't call your supporters in NURTW to order, don't be surprised if people uphold their constitutional right, which is the right to live and protect their lives. Agberos are not immortals, they are human and if they they do anything stupid, they will be met with resistance. Nobody has the right to threaten other people this way. The constitution guarantees the freedom of Association. It is a fundamental human right and anyone who goes against it goes against the constitution. Let the NURTW be warned, they don't have monopoly of madness!
4:20

Mr. President and Governor Bola Ahmed Tinubu and Babajide Sanwo-Olu , you swore to protect the constitution of this country. If you don't call your supporters in NURTW to order, don't be surprised if people uphold their constitutional right, which is the right to live and protect their lives. Agberos are not immortals, they are human and if they they do anything stupid, they will be met with resistance. Nobody has the right to threaten other people this way. The constitution guarantees the freedom of Association. It is a fundamental human right and anyone who goes against it goes against the constitution. Let the NURTW be warned, they don't have monopoly of madness!

Ayekooto

143,403 views • 11 months ago

“Tread lightly” when it comes to changing the U.S. Constitution. OAN Columnist Leia Page warns that those who see the Constitution as a “living document” and want to change it probably don’t understand the Constitution while discussing the importance of our Founding Documents with Riley Lewis on The Real Story with Riley Lewis Watch here:
1:14

“Tread lightly” when it comes to changing the U.S. Constitution. OAN Columnist Leia Page warns that those who see the Constitution as a “living document” and want to change it probably don’t understand the Constitution while discussing the importance of our Founding Documents with Riley Lewis on The Real Story with Riley Lewis Watch here:

One America News

23,434 views • 11 months ago

Constitution framers were very wise people who deeply believed in national welfare. They debated for 18 sessions for a little less than three years. There was no confrontation. There were no disturbance, no disruption. There were dialogue, debate, discussion and deliberation. They framed one rule. The judges will be appointed under Article 124 and the word consultation was used. Consultation is not concurrence. Consultation is consultation. Article 124 was very specific and with respect to it, we have a very important discourse by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar and I quote, “To allow the Chief Justice practically a veto upon the appointment of a judge is really to transfer the authority to the Chief Justice which we are not prepared to vest in the President or the Government of the day. I therefore think that is also a dangerous proposition.” But in the Second Judge’s case in 1993, the court interpreted consultation will be read as concurrence. The two words are different. But the bench did not notice that Indian Constitution uses these words consultation and concurrence in the same article. Article 370 with respect to the then state of Jammu and Kashmir has both expressions in the same sub-articles. How can these two words used differently by the constituent assembly members in the Constitution be read differently? Now the situation is engaging attention of everyone. And it is our obligation as citizens of this country to think about how things have to evolve. #RajyaSabha
3:15

Constitution framers were very wise people who deeply believed in national welfare. They debated for 18 sessions for a little less than three years. There was no confrontation. There were no disturbance, no disruption. There were dialogue, debate, discussion and deliberation. They framed one rule. The judges will be appointed under Article 124 and the word consultation was used. Consultation is not concurrence. Consultation is consultation. Article 124 was very specific and with respect to it, we have a very important discourse by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar and I quote, “To allow the Chief Justice practically a veto upon the appointment of a judge is really to transfer the authority to the Chief Justice which we are not prepared to vest in the President or the Government of the day. I therefore think that is also a dangerous proposition.” But in the Second Judge’s case in 1993, the court interpreted consultation will be read as concurrence. The two words are different. But the bench did not notice that Indian Constitution uses these words consultation and concurrence in the same article. Article 370 with respect to the then state of Jammu and Kashmir has both expressions in the same sub-articles. How can these two words used differently by the constituent assembly members in the Constitution be read differently? Now the situation is engaging attention of everyone. And it is our obligation as citizens of this country to think about how things have to evolve. #RajyaSabha

Vice-President of India

73,719 views • 1 year ago

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.
6:58

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

62,380 views • 6 months ago

#WATCH | Delhi: On being conferred the 'Outstanding Contribution to National Development' Award at IIT Delhi, author and Advaita teacher Acharya Prashant says, "... It is pertinent to know the real meaning of a nation. The concept of nation faces many dangers and questions. Nation means instilling values in all its citizens, which are there in the foundation of the Indian nation. And the values in the foundational structure of our nation are of a very high spiritual order, which can be seen in the Gita and Vedant Darshan. These values have gone on to become the basis of our Constitution. To strengthen the nation, it is the need of the hour to awaken the values of the Gita among its citizens... This is why IIT Delhi Alumni Association has honoured me with this award... Climate crisis is basically a spiritual crisis, and there is no technical, economic, or political solution to it. Spirituality is the only solution to it..."
4:20

#WATCH | Delhi: On being conferred the 'Outstanding Contribution to National Development' Award at IIT Delhi, author and Advaita teacher Acharya Prashant says, "... It is pertinent to know the real meaning of a nation. The concept of nation faces many dangers and questions. Nation means instilling values in all its citizens, which are there in the foundation of the Indian nation. And the values in the foundational structure of our nation are of a very high spiritual order, which can be seen in the Gita and Vedant Darshan. These values have gone on to become the basis of our Constitution. To strengthen the nation, it is the need of the hour to awaken the values of the Gita among its citizens... This is why IIT Delhi Alumni Association has honoured me with this award... Climate crisis is basically a spiritual crisis, and there is no technical, economic, or political solution to it. Spirituality is the only solution to it..."

ANI

103,312 views • 1 year ago

Thank You Candace. When good people are assailed by the darkest forces of demonic evil on earth, it is up to people of goodwill to speak out. We are sure many more will. Other friends and Turning Point donors have now been in touch as have others. We are humbled by the degree to which our open communication has helped to bring evil into the light. That it has struck a chord with so many people is a sign that decency and people of goodwill will win. And that the truth will be known, for Charlie. Many mentioned that when Candace read this letter out on her show that it resonated with them in a different way that when they read the written copy so we are reposting it here - There are more good guys than bad guys. Join the team of the good guys. Please share this. Those who prefer to read it the original open letter, it below.
11:30

Thank You Candace. When good people are assailed by the darkest forces of demonic evil on earth, it is up to people of goodwill to speak out. We are sure many more will. Other friends and Turning Point donors have now been in touch as have others. We are humbled by the degree to which our open communication has helped to bring evil into the light. That it has struck a chord with so many people is a sign that decency and people of goodwill will win. And that the truth will be known, for Charlie. Many mentioned that when Candace read this letter out on her show that it resonated with them in a different way that when they read the written copy so we are reposting it here - There are more good guys than bad guys. Join the team of the good guys. Please share this. Those who prefer to read it the original open letter, it below.

John Mappin

359,860 views • 10 months ago