Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

Freedom of expression is a constitutional right. It should not become a right that exists only when it is convenient for those in power. From internet restrictions during political events to arbitrary arrests of journalists and disruptions affecting political communication, the pattern is difficult to ignore. When access to... information is restricted and criticism is met with intimidation or prosecution, it is not only individual expression that suffers. Public participation suffers with it. Political rights do not end when a person goes online. For democracy to function, people must be able to speak, question, criticise, organise, and access information without fear. Constitutional rights mean little if exercising them comes at the cost of being silenced.show more

Human Rights Commission of Pakistan

83,385 subscribers

12,692 views • 11 days ago •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

His greatest "crime" is rejecting nepotism and advocating for freedom and democracy for all… His greatest "crime" is believing in the freedom of speech and political expression. The government of Uganda is responsible for ensuring his health, safety, and immediate release. East Africa should not be stained with the pleasure of bathing and swimming in the blood, tears, and sweat of the oppressed citizens. Every person is born free and has the right to express themselves and be treated with dignity. The right to freedom, protection of dignity, privacy, and personal security is not a political favor or a privilege granted by leadership—it is a fundamental right. It is imperative to act responsibly… Kizza Besigye must be treated humanely, and the oppression against him must stop immediately.

His greatest "crime" is rejecting nepotism and advocating for freedom and democracy for all… His greatest "crime" is believing in the freedom of speech and political expression. The government of Uganda is responsible for ensuring his health, safety, and immediate release. East Africa should not be stained with the pleasure of bathing and swimming in the blood, tears, and sweat of the oppressed citizens. Every person is born free and has the right to express themselves and be treated with dignity. The right to freedom, protection of dignity, privacy, and personal security is not a political favor or a privilege granted by leadership—it is a fundamental right. It is imperative to act responsibly… Kizza Besigye must be treated humanely, and the oppression against him must stop immediately.

Boniface Mwabukusi

29,653 views • 1 year ago

The Supreme Court is already decided this… SCOTUS and 1st Amendment Press • Houchins v. KQED (1978): The First Amendment does not require the government to give the press access to information or places under government control. It “is neither a Freedom of Information Act nor an Official Secrets Act.” The press’s core protection is the right to communicate information once obtained, not a right to collect it from the government. • Pell v. Procunier (1974) and related cases: The press has no constitutional right to information or locations not available to the public generally. • Zemel v. Rusk (1965): “Entry into the White House [is not] a First Amendment right. The right to speak and publish does not carry with it the unrestrained right to gather information.”

The Supreme Court is already decided this… SCOTUS and 1st Amendment Press • Houchins v. KQED (1978): The First Amendment does not require the government to give the press access to information or places under government control. It “is neither a Freedom of Information Act nor an Official Secrets Act.” The press’s core protection is the right to communicate information once obtained, not a right to collect it from the government. • Pell v. Procunier (1974) and related cases: The press has no constitutional right to information or locations not available to the public generally. • Zemel v. Rusk (1965): “Entry into the White House [is not] a First Amendment right. The right to speak and publish does not carry with it the unrestrained right to gather information.”

GRANDPA’s FREE ADVICE

45,106 views • 10 days ago

“Malinformation” is information that is TRUE but inconvenient to those in power. The truth is never dangerous, except to those whose power depends on hiding it. Censorship does not become acceptable because we disagree with the person being censored. This should not be a Democrat or Republican issue. Freedom of speech belongs to ALL of us. We cannot allow ourselves to be divided into defending censorship when it targets the “other side.” Because once we surrender the right to speak freely, we ALL lose. There is no freedom without free speech.

“Malinformation” is information that is TRUE but inconvenient to those in power. The truth is never dangerous, except to those whose power depends on hiding it. Censorship does not become acceptable because we disagree with the person being censored. This should not be a Democrat or Republican issue. Freedom of speech belongs to ALL of us. We cannot allow ourselves to be divided into defending censorship when it targets the “other side.” Because once we surrender the right to speak freely, we ALL lose. There is no freedom without free speech.

Children’s Health Defense

16,721 views • 20 days ago

Reporter: Is it true that you do not use your mobile phone for communication ? NSA Ajit Doval: It is true that I do not use the internet. I use my mobile phone only to speak with my family on personal matters and to communicate with foreign leaders when required. A mobile phone is not the only means of staying in touch. There are several other modes of communication that the public may not be aware of. Smiles Enigmatically.....

Reporter: Is it true that you do not use your mobile phone for communication ? NSA Ajit Doval: It is true that I do not use the internet. I use my mobile phone only to speak with my family on personal matters and to communicate with foreign leaders when required. A mobile phone is not the only means of staying in touch. There are several other modes of communication that the public may not be aware of. Smiles Enigmatically.....

Dr Poornima 🇮🇳

290,151 views • 7 months ago

This is a pattern that the law does not apply to those who are favored by the political class, and political violence and just violence is A-OK. That’s not the way our constitutional system is meant to work. If you commit a crime of violence, you should be punished. That did not used to be a controversial proposition.

This is a pattern that the law does not apply to those who are favored by the political class, and political violence and just violence is A-OK. That’s not the way our constitutional system is meant to work. If you commit a crime of violence, you should be punished. That did not used to be a controversial proposition.

Ted Cruz

86,866 views • 29 days ago

Otieno Mokaya - Advocate: It is inaccurate to assume that because people are registering as voters, they are automatically aligning with your political agenda. They are registering to exercise their constitutional right to vote. We did not go to school on behalf of others, and we will not vote on behalf of others either. If Tuko Kadi is truly a voter registration movement, then it should remain exactly that, a platform to encourage civic participation, not a tool to advance hate, promote political loyalties, or serve the interests of individuals chasing positions and power #CitizenDayBreak

Otieno Mokaya - Advocate: It is inaccurate to assume that because people are registering as voters, they are automatically aligning with your political agenda. They are registering to exercise their constitutional right to vote. We did not go to school on behalf of others, and we will not vote on behalf of others either. If Tuko Kadi is truly a voter registration movement, then it should remain exactly that, a platform to encourage civic participation, not a tool to advance hate, promote political loyalties, or serve the interests of individuals chasing positions and power #CitizenDayBreak

Citizen TV Kenya

10,969 views • 5 months ago

We stand today for something simple yet powerful: the right to speak freely. Around the world, journalists are being silenced - some imprisoned, others forced into exile. Some lose their lives. When journalists are silenced, truth is silenced. Freedom of expression is not just a media issue — it’s a human rights issue. Press freedom is not up for debate. We must defend it, together.” — Tarık Toros (TARIK TOROS ) #PressFreedom #FreeSpeech #JournalismIsNotACrime DijitalSansürle Mücadele

We stand today for something simple yet powerful: the right to speak freely. Around the world, journalists are being silenced - some imprisoned, others forced into exile. Some lose their lives. When journalists are silenced, truth is silenced. Freedom of expression is not just a media issue — it’s a human rights issue. Press freedom is not up for debate. We must defend it, together.” — Tarık Toros (TARIK TOROS ) #PressFreedom #FreeSpeech #JournalismIsNotACrime DijitalSansürle Mücadele

Human Rights Solidarity

11,757 views • 1 year ago

Fred Okango: ODM is not a protest movement or club. It is a political party that is constitutionally mandated to obtain political power through constitutional means. The contest within ODM should be about the people and not about who would say what Raila said #CitizenDayBreak

Fred Okango: ODM is not a protest movement or club. It is a political party that is constitutionally mandated to obtain political power through constitutional means. The contest within ODM should be about the people and not about who would say what Raila said #CitizenDayBreak

Citizen TV Kenya

10,959 views • 5 months ago

Today, alongside fellow opposition leaders and members of the Linda Mwananchi movement, we addressed the escalating pattern of political violence and intimidation in the country. We have seen political gatherings disrupted, convoys attacked, citizens assaulted and goons openly deployed to intimidate those exercising their constitutional rights. Homa Bay is the latest example of a pattern that is untenable and should not be tolerated. Many of those involved in this state sponsored goonism have been captured clearly on camera. Why have we not seen those responsible and those who organise, finance and enable them held to account? The contest for Kenya’s future must be fought with ideas and decided by the people at the ballot. No act of intimidation should ever have a place in that contest. #EndPoliticalViolence

Today, alongside fellow opposition leaders and members of the Linda Mwananchi movement, we addressed the escalating pattern of political violence and intimidation in the country. We have seen political gatherings disrupted, convoys attacked, citizens assaulted and goons openly deployed to intimidate those exercising their constitutional rights. Homa Bay is the latest example of a pattern that is untenable and should not be tolerated. Many of those involved in this state sponsored goonism have been captured clearly on camera. Why have we not seen those responsible and those who organise, finance and enable them held to account? The contest for Kenya’s future must be fought with ideas and decided by the people at the ballot. No act of intimidation should ever have a place in that contest. #EndPoliticalViolence

Martha Karua

14,059 views • 1 month ago

If Washington is serious about peace, it must begin with reality — and three fundamentals: 1.Israel’s campaign of erasure in Gaza and the West Bank must end. Accountability for war crimes and crimes against humanity is not optional. 2.This is not about managing or feeding a population. It is about freeing them. It is about ending the occupation. It is about the inalienable historic, legal, and political rights of the Palestinian people — to self-determination and return. 3. No just and lasting peace can be built around the Palestinian people. It must be built with them. Link to interview with NPR

If Washington is serious about peace, it must begin with reality — and three fundamentals: 1.Israel’s campaign of erasure in Gaza and the West Bank must end. Accountability for war crimes and crimes against humanity is not optional. 2.This is not about managing or feeding a population. It is about freeing them. It is about ending the occupation. It is about the inalienable historic, legal, and political rights of the Palestinian people — to self-determination and return. 3. No just and lasting peace can be built around the Palestinian people. It must be built with them. Link to interview with NPR

Husam Zomlot

35,076 views • 7 months ago

One might think he was involved in a random fight, which is why he’s injured and covered in bandages, without realizing that these injuries were allegedly inflicted by political thugs. Imagine simply going about your day and being attacked by individuals allegedly acting on behalf of powerful political interests. According to reports, that is what happened to Mathew John in Osun State. Democracy is meant to protect the rights, freedoms, and safety of citizens. It is deeply troubling when violence, intimidation, and fear become part of the political process. Anyone involved in harming, attacking, or taking the life of another person must be held accountable and brought to justice. #ProtectOsunVoters

One might think he was involved in a random fight, which is why he’s injured and covered in bandages, without realizing that these injuries were allegedly inflicted by political thugs. Imagine simply going about your day and being attacked by individuals allegedly acting on behalf of powerful political interests. According to reports, that is what happened to Mathew John in Osun State. Democracy is meant to protect the rights, freedoms, and safety of citizens. It is deeply troubling when violence, intimidation, and fear become part of the political process. Anyone involved in harming, attacking, or taking the life of another person must be held accountable and brought to justice. #ProtectOsunVoters

𝔸b𝕒𝕫𝕫

101,869 views • 3 months ago

The health of a republic depends not only on elections being held, but on citizens trusting that institutions act fairly, transparently, and without discrimination. When people believe that voter registration, identity verification, or access to essential rights can be affected by administrative errors or arbitrary decisions, confidence in democracy inevitably weakens. A democracy must ensure that every eligible citizen has a genuine opportunity to vote and that any disputes are resolved quickly, transparently, and with due process. If bureaucratic procedures become so burdensome that they interfere with fundamental rights or essential public services, the state risks appearing more punitive than protective. Institutions derive their legitimacy from public trust, and that trust depends on fairness, accountability, and equal treatment under the law—not on selective or inconsistent application of rules. The strength of a constitutional republic is measured not by how efficiently it exercises power, but by how carefully it safeguards the rights and dignity of every individual, especially when mistakes occur. Protecting civil liberties, ensuring prompt remedies, and maintaining institutional neutrality are indispensable for preserving democratic legitimacy and the rule of law.

The health of a republic depends not only on elections being held, but on citizens trusting that institutions act fairly, transparently, and without discrimination. When people believe that voter registration, identity verification, or access to essential rights can be affected by administrative errors or arbitrary decisions, confidence in democracy inevitably weakens. A democracy must ensure that every eligible citizen has a genuine opportunity to vote and that any disputes are resolved quickly, transparently, and with due process. If bureaucratic procedures become so burdensome that they interfere with fundamental rights or essential public services, the state risks appearing more punitive than protective. Institutions derive their legitimacy from public trust, and that trust depends on fairness, accountability, and equal treatment under the law—not on selective or inconsistent application of rules. The strength of a constitutional republic is measured not by how efficiently it exercises power, but by how carefully it safeguards the rights and dignity of every individual, especially when mistakes occur. Protecting civil liberties, ensuring prompt remedies, and maintaining institutional neutrality are indispensable for preserving democratic legitimacy and the rule of law.

Ashok Dadhwal

13,045 views • 3 months ago

Freedom is not about saying nice things or agreeing with those in power. It is not flattering the President of the United States. It is the right to express your point of view without government interference. We must not allow anybody to take that freedom away from us.

Freedom is not about saying nice things or agreeing with those in power. It is not flattering the President of the United States. It is the right to express your point of view without government interference. We must not allow anybody to take that freedom away from us.

Sen. Bernie Sanders

917,956 views • 1 year ago

Armed men accompanied by the Zimbabwean police forced their way into the offices of Prof Lovemore Madhuku’s political party, violently interrupting a meeting and attacking several participants, among them the constitutional lawyer, Prof Lovemore Madhuku. This attack is deeply troubling for Zimbabwe as it reflects a dangerous erosion of democratic space and shows that even lawful constitutional engagement is no longer safe from intimidation and violence. When armed individuals can storm a civic and political meeting with apparent impunity, it casts serious doubt on the state of the rule of law and the security of citizens exercising their constitutional rights. Prof Madhuku is opposed to Constitutional Amendment No. 3, which seeks to extend President Mnangagwa’s term of office and change the presidential term from five to seven years. He has an active case before the Constitutional Court challenging this process. Targeting him, as the state has now effectively done, sends a deeply disturbing message that this amendment will not be handled through open, democratic engagement where citizens are free to oppose or support it without fear. When a constitutional lawyer with a matter before the highest court is assaulted and intimidated, it undermines the integrity of the judicial process itself. It shows that power is being asserted through coercion rather than constitutionalism. Instead of allowing robust debate and lawful challenge, the authorities appear to be repeating the very mistakes that have, in the past, drawn damaging international scrutiny and weakened the country’s global standing. Heavy handed tactics do not silence controversy, they amplify it. If this process continues in this manner, it will inevitably attract serious international attention and further erode confidence in Zimbabwe’s commitment to the rule of law and democratic governance. These violent attacks even make it difficult for those who were supporting the amendment to continue doing so publicly, because they expose the reality that this process is not being advanced on the basis of legal principle or genuine constitutional reform. Instead, it increasingly appears to be driven by intimidation, violence and repression aimed at forcing citizens into submission without honest, open debate. When support for a constitutional amendment must be sustained through fear rather than persuasion, the legitimacy of that amendment is already compromised. A constitutional change of this magnitude should stand on the strength of its arguments, not on the silencing of critics. Resorting to coercion does not strengthen the case for reform, it weakens it and deepens national division. If a constitution must be amended at gunpoint, then it is no longer reform, it is a declaration that power fears the very people it claims to represent. You don’t win hearts and minds through violence, you do so through engagement!

Armed men accompanied by the Zimbabwean police forced their way into the offices of Prof Lovemore Madhuku’s political party, violently interrupting a meeting and attacking several participants, among them the constitutional lawyer, Prof Lovemore Madhuku. This attack is deeply troubling for Zimbabwe as it reflects a dangerous erosion of democratic space and shows that even lawful constitutional engagement is no longer safe from intimidation and violence. When armed individuals can storm a civic and political meeting with apparent impunity, it casts serious doubt on the state of the rule of law and the security of citizens exercising their constitutional rights. Prof Madhuku is opposed to Constitutional Amendment No. 3, which seeks to extend President Mnangagwa’s term of office and change the presidential term from five to seven years. He has an active case before the Constitutional Court challenging this process. Targeting him, as the state has now effectively done, sends a deeply disturbing message that this amendment will not be handled through open, democratic engagement where citizens are free to oppose or support it without fear. When a constitutional lawyer with a matter before the highest court is assaulted and intimidated, it undermines the integrity of the judicial process itself. It shows that power is being asserted through coercion rather than constitutionalism. Instead of allowing robust debate and lawful challenge, the authorities appear to be repeating the very mistakes that have, in the past, drawn damaging international scrutiny and weakened the country’s global standing. Heavy handed tactics do not silence controversy, they amplify it. If this process continues in this manner, it will inevitably attract serious international attention and further erode confidence in Zimbabwe’s commitment to the rule of law and democratic governance. These violent attacks even make it difficult for those who were supporting the amendment to continue doing so publicly, because they expose the reality that this process is not being advanced on the basis of legal principle or genuine constitutional reform. Instead, it increasingly appears to be driven by intimidation, violence and repression aimed at forcing citizens into submission without honest, open debate. When support for a constitutional amendment must be sustained through fear rather than persuasion, the legitimacy of that amendment is already compromised. A constitutional change of this magnitude should stand on the strength of its arguments, not on the silencing of critics. Resorting to coercion does not strengthen the case for reform, it weakens it and deepens national division. If a constitution must be amended at gunpoint, then it is no longer reform, it is a declaration that power fears the very people it claims to represent. You don’t win hearts and minds through violence, you do so through engagement!

Hopewell Chin’ono

65,278 views • 7 months ago

When a citizen is forced to repeatedly prove that they are a citizen, democracy itself begins to stand trial. Former Election Commissioner Ashok Lavasa raises a constitutional question that deserves every Indian's attention. If Aadhaar is not conclusive proof of citizenship, PAN is not, Voter ID is not, and the Ministry of External Affairs says even a passport is only a travel document and not conclusive proof of citizenship, then what certainty does an ordinary citizen have? In a democracy, the citizen is sovereign and the State exists to serve the citizen—not to keep every citizen under perpetual suspicion. Burdening millions of law-abiding people with repeatedly proving their identity and citizenship undermines trust in democratic institutions and risks excluding genuine citizens from exercising their constitutional rights. Lavasa argues that determining citizenship is not the Election Commission's role and cautions against shifting this burden onto citizens. A constitutional democracy is strengthened by inclusion, transparency and due process, not by creating uncertainty over the status of those who have lived, voted, paid taxes and contributed to the nation for decades. Video Link:

When a citizen is forced to repeatedly prove that they are a citizen, democracy itself begins to stand trial. Former Election Commissioner Ashok Lavasa raises a constitutional question that deserves every Indian's attention. If Aadhaar is not conclusive proof of citizenship, PAN is not, Voter ID is not, and the Ministry of External Affairs says even a passport is only a travel document and not conclusive proof of citizenship, then what certainty does an ordinary citizen have? In a democracy, the citizen is sovereign and the State exists to serve the citizen—not to keep every citizen under perpetual suspicion. Burdening millions of law-abiding people with repeatedly proving their identity and citizenship undermines trust in democratic institutions and risks excluding genuine citizens from exercising their constitutional rights. Lavasa argues that determining citizenship is not the Election Commission's role and cautions against shifting this burden onto citizens. A constitutional democracy is strengthened by inclusion, transparency and due process, not by creating uncertainty over the status of those who have lived, voted, paid taxes and contributed to the nation for decades. Video Link:

Ashok Dadhwal

11,470 views • 3 months ago

We condemn the heinous attack on Governor James Orengo in Migori during an engagement with the people today. What started with senseless interruption of a peaceful meeting by police officers culminated in a brazen attack by thugs who torched one of the cars in the entourage and sprayed it with bullets. This level of violence is not only unacceptable, it is a precursor to a state of insecurity that the government will be unable to contain if it is left unchecked. Democratic freedoms and the expression thereof cannot be used as an excuse to weaponize organised crime against people of different political persuasion. This intolerance, especially when it is sanctioned, supported and defended by political leaders, signals a worrying trend that our security agencies seem both unprepared for and disinterested in resolving. Failure to act now in response to this national security crisis is an abdication of constitutional duty which is untenable. We demand that those charged with the security and safety of our country do their work before it is too late.

We condemn the heinous attack on Governor James Orengo in Migori during an engagement with the people today. What started with senseless interruption of a peaceful meeting by police officers culminated in a brazen attack by thugs who torched one of the cars in the entourage and sprayed it with bullets. This level of violence is not only unacceptable, it is a precursor to a state of insecurity that the government will be unable to contain if it is left unchecked. Democratic freedoms and the expression thereof cannot be used as an excuse to weaponize organised crime against people of different political persuasion. This intolerance, especially when it is sanctioned, supported and defended by political leaders, signals a worrying trend that our security agencies seem both unprepared for and disinterested in resolving. Failure to act now in response to this national security crisis is an abdication of constitutional duty which is untenable. We demand that those charged with the security and safety of our country do their work before it is too late.

Faith Odhiambo

106,273 views • 1 month ago

The Constitution of Ireland begins not with government, but with the Nation—with the People themselves. That is not symbolism. That is authority. It is from the People that all power flows, and it is by our collective will that we established the Constitution as the supreme law of this State. Within it, we gave ourselves courts—not as instruments of control, but as guardians of liberty. Under Article 34, we vested those courts with a solemn duty: to protect and vindicate our personal rights. Those personal rights are not abstract ideas. They are expressly recognised and protected across the Constitution—beginning in Article 40, and extending through Articles 41, 42, 42A, 43, and 44. Together, they safeguard what it means to live freely and with dignity in Ireland: our personal liberty, our families, our children, our right to educate according to conscience, our private property, and our freedom of religion. These rights do not exist at the pleasure of the State. They do not depend on policy, preference, or administrative convenience. They are fundamental, and they are inalienable. What we are witnessing at this moment is something profoundly serious. A member of the Government—holding office as a Minister of State, an office that exists only by statute—has purported, through a statutory instrument, to prevent the People of Ireland from exercising their constitutional rights in their own courts. That cannot stand. No statutory instrument can override the Constitution. No minister, junior or otherwise, can suspend fundamental rights. No act of secondary legislation can lawfully obstruct access to the courts where those rights are vindicated. To suggest otherwise is not merely mistaken—it is constitutionally impossible. The courts do not belong to the executive. They do not belong to departments. They belong to the People, because the Constitution says so. And so, this is where the line is drawn. The Constitution is not optional. Fundamental rights are not negotiable. Access to justice is not a privilege to be rationed. Tomorrow, the law will be laid plainly before the Minister for Justice—not in defiance, but in fidelity to the Constitution; not in anger, but in duty to the People; not for personal grievance, but for the protection of all. Because if fundamental rights can be restrained today, they can be extinguished tomorrow. And if we do not stand now, we leave our children standing alone later. This is not about power. It is about principle. It is about ensuring that the Constitution lives—not on paper, but in practice. And it is about the furtherance of our fundamental rights, so that we may protect ourselves, our families, our children, the way we educate our children, our private property, and our religion—today, and for generations to come. #NoFeeOnGuarantee

The Constitution of Ireland begins not with government, but with the Nation—with the People themselves. That is not symbolism. That is authority. It is from the People that all power flows, and it is by our collective will that we established the Constitution as the supreme law of this State. Within it, we gave ourselves courts—not as instruments of control, but as guardians of liberty. Under Article 34, we vested those courts with a solemn duty: to protect and vindicate our personal rights. Those personal rights are not abstract ideas. They are expressly recognised and protected across the Constitution—beginning in Article 40, and extending through Articles 41, 42, 42A, 43, and 44. Together, they safeguard what it means to live freely and with dignity in Ireland: our personal liberty, our families, our children, our right to educate according to conscience, our private property, and our freedom of religion. These rights do not exist at the pleasure of the State. They do not depend on policy, preference, or administrative convenience. They are fundamental, and they are inalienable. What we are witnessing at this moment is something profoundly serious. A member of the Government—holding office as a Minister of State, an office that exists only by statute—has purported, through a statutory instrument, to prevent the People of Ireland from exercising their constitutional rights in their own courts. That cannot stand. No statutory instrument can override the Constitution. No minister, junior or otherwise, can suspend fundamental rights. No act of secondary legislation can lawfully obstruct access to the courts where those rights are vindicated. To suggest otherwise is not merely mistaken—it is constitutionally impossible. The courts do not belong to the executive. They do not belong to departments. They belong to the People, because the Constitution says so. And so, this is where the line is drawn. The Constitution is not optional. Fundamental rights are not negotiable. Access to justice is not a privilege to be rationed. Tomorrow, the law will be laid plainly before the Minister for Justice—not in defiance, but in fidelity to the Constitution; not in anger, but in duty to the People; not for personal grievance, but for the protection of all. Because if fundamental rights can be restrained today, they can be extinguished tomorrow. And if we do not stand now, we leave our children standing alone later. This is not about power. It is about principle. It is about ensuring that the Constitution lives—not on paper, but in practice. And it is about the furtherance of our fundamental rights, so that we may protect ourselves, our families, our children, the way we educate our children, our private property, and our religion—today, and for generations to come. #NoFeeOnGuarantee

Patrick McGreal

11,855 views • 9 months ago

My heart goes out to Charlie Kirk's family. This is a tragic shooting and from all appearances, it is an act of political violence. Political violence is on the rise and it is a sign of crisis and weakness in a democracy. I condemn all forms of political violence. We all must take responsibility for working to end it, to secure our democracy and to promote peace and strength in our nation and beyond.

My heart goes out to Charlie Kirk's family. This is a tragic shooting and from all appearances, it is an act of political violence. Political violence is on the rise and it is a sign of crisis and weakness in a democracy. I condemn all forms of political violence. We all must take responsibility for working to end it, to secure our democracy and to promote peace and strength in our nation and beyond.

Sen. Cory Booker

202,883 views • 1 year ago

Court Interference in Electoral Process: The Problem Is Not Judicial Intervention, It Is Jurisprudence - Amadi It is not for judges to substitute their reasoning for voters; it is for them to disqualify and invalidate processes that hinder the true expression of voters. Dr. Sam Amadi, Director, Abuja School of Social and Political Thought

Court Interference in Electoral Process: The Problem Is Not Judicial Intervention, It Is Jurisprudence - Amadi It is not for judges to substitute their reasoning for voters; it is for them to disqualify and invalidate processes that hinder the true expression of voters. Dr. Sam Amadi, Director, Abuja School of Social and Political Thought

ARISE NEWS

24,553 views • 1 month ago