Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

Sometimes a speech doesn’t just answer political claims—it rewrites the narrative. This is one such rebuttal. Superb 😃👌 Ganesh Godiyal systematically challenges the BJP’s repeated claims of “historic achievements” by asking a simple but powerful question: How much of what is celebrated today was actually conceived, built, and initiated...

GuptaPragnya's profile picture

Pragnya Gupta

29,923 subscribers

32,163 просмотров • 1 месяц назад •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

AOC: We heard that CNN is not disclosing the party affiliation of the federal workers that are here tonight. And that's for a reason—because there is a fear over political retaliation by this administration and a singling out and isolating of career federal workers based on party affiliation, just in their participation in public civic discourse. And this is from a Republican party that claims to believe in free speech, which we know from their actions in the last couple of months, have actually been doing nothing but the opposite
2:19

AOC: We heard that CNN is not disclosing the party affiliation of the federal workers that are here tonight. And that's for a reason—because there is a fear over political retaliation by this administration and a singling out and isolating of career federal workers based on party affiliation, just in their participation in public civic discourse. And this is from a Republican party that claims to believe in free speech, which we know from their actions in the last couple of months, have actually been doing nothing but the opposite

Acyn

256,211 просмотров • 10 месяцев назад

The ADC Itself is a Product of The Destabilisation of All the Opposition Political Parties - Abdullahi In 2014/2015 what you saw was a product of political strategy. But what has brought about the ADC now is a product of political necessity occasioned by governments intension to destabilize all other political parties. ADC is not just here for political power, ADC is here to reset politics and democracy in Nigeria. Bolaji Abdullahi, National Publicity Secretary, African Democratic Congress.
3:05

The ADC Itself is a Product of The Destabilisation of All the Opposition Political Parties - Abdullahi In 2014/2015 what you saw was a product of political strategy. But what has brought about the ADC now is a product of political necessity occasioned by governments intension to destabilize all other political parties. ADC is not just here for political power, ADC is here to reset politics and democracy in Nigeria. Bolaji Abdullahi, National Publicity Secretary, African Democratic Congress.

ARISE NEWS

13,788 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

The speaker argues that the current student protests over exam paper leaks should not be limited to demanding the resignation of the Education Minister. Instead, he claims the root cause lies with the central government, alleging that institutions such as the Election Commission and the electoral system have been compromised. Key themes include: Criticism of the Prime Minister, the BJP, RSS, and the Union government. Allegations that repeated exam paper leaks reflect systemic governance failures. Calls for a broader political movement rather than a single-issue protest. Strong criticism of EVMs and advocacy for a return to paper ballots. Claims that democratic institutions have been weakened. Criticism of India's foreign policy, particularly regarding the US, Israel, Iran, China, and oil imports. Appeals for youth and citizens to participate in peaceful, sustained democratic movements. The video primarily expresses political opinions and allegations, many of which are disputed or not established as fact. For example: Claims that elections cannot be won unless permitted by the Prime Minister are political assertions, not proven facts. Statements about the Election Commission being completely controlled or elections being predetermined remain matters of political debate rather than judicially established conclusions. References to exam paper leaks are grounded in real incidents, but the attribution of responsibility to specific political actors is the speaker's interpretation. This video is less a news report and more a political speech. It mixes genuine public concerns—such as exam paper leaks, unemployment, and institutional accountability—with strong political accusations and personal opinions. Some criticisms are based on real events, while many broader conclusions are contested and should not be accepted as established facts without independent evidence. A healthy democracy allows criticism of governments, but it also requires citizens to distinguish between verified facts, political opinion, and rhetorical claims.
14:02

The speaker argues that the current student protests over exam paper leaks should not be limited to demanding the resignation of the Education Minister. Instead, he claims the root cause lies with the central government, alleging that institutions such as the Election Commission and the electoral system have been compromised. Key themes include: Criticism of the Prime Minister, the BJP, RSS, and the Union government. Allegations that repeated exam paper leaks reflect systemic governance failures. Calls for a broader political movement rather than a single-issue protest. Strong criticism of EVMs and advocacy for a return to paper ballots. Claims that democratic institutions have been weakened. Criticism of India's foreign policy, particularly regarding the US, Israel, Iran, China, and oil imports. Appeals for youth and citizens to participate in peaceful, sustained democratic movements. The video primarily expresses political opinions and allegations, many of which are disputed or not established as fact. For example: Claims that elections cannot be won unless permitted by the Prime Minister are political assertions, not proven facts. Statements about the Election Commission being completely controlled or elections being predetermined remain matters of political debate rather than judicially established conclusions. References to exam paper leaks are grounded in real incidents, but the attribution of responsibility to specific political actors is the speaker's interpretation. This video is less a news report and more a political speech. It mixes genuine public concerns—such as exam paper leaks, unemployment, and institutional accountability—with strong political accusations and personal opinions. Some criticisms are based on real events, while many broader conclusions are contested and should not be accepted as established facts without independent evidence. A healthy democracy allows criticism of governments, but it also requires citizens to distinguish between verified facts, political opinion, and rhetorical claims.

Ashok Dadhwal

14,868 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

The Presidency appears to be upset because the presidential candidate of the NDC, Peter Obi, called for the resignation of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. It is important to understand that many of the criticisms being made today are not new to Nigerian politics. Similar criticisms and demands were made by opposition figures, including Bola Tinubu himself, during the administration of former President Goodluck Jonathan. It is also important for Nigerians to remember that the current President was one of the leading figures of the opposition movement that challenged the government of the day and ultimately contributed to a historic political transition. That is why we must continue to speak up, peacefully and lawfully, in pursuit of a better Nigeria. We should not allow those who exercised their right to criticize previous governments to deny others that same right today. A healthy democracy thrives on accountability, constructive criticism, and the freedom of citizens to express their views without fear. The journey toward a better Nigeria must continue.
3:22

The Presidency appears to be upset because the presidential candidate of the NDC, Peter Obi, called for the resignation of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. It is important to understand that many of the criticisms being made today are not new to Nigerian politics. Similar criticisms and demands were made by opposition figures, including Bola Tinubu himself, during the administration of former President Goodluck Jonathan. It is also important for Nigerians to remember that the current President was one of the leading figures of the opposition movement that challenged the government of the day and ultimately contributed to a historic political transition. That is why we must continue to speak up, peacefully and lawfully, in pursuit of a better Nigeria. We should not allow those who exercised their right to criticize previous governments to deny others that same right today. A healthy democracy thrives on accountability, constructive criticism, and the freedom of citizens to express their views without fear. The journey toward a better Nigeria must continue.

JusticeCrack

18,063 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

ELON: WE MUST PUT AN END TO THE TYRANNY OF THE BUREAUCRACY “In order for us to be a true democracy, a functioning democracy, the government must be responsive to the people. That's literally what democracy means. However, when you have a vast unelected bureaucracy that is not answerable to the public, and if the elected officials, the President, the people in Congress and the Senate, if they don't have the power to affect the bureaucracy — and it's actually extremely difficult to affect the bureaucracy — then you do not have rule of the people. Then, you do not have democracy, but you have rule of the bureau — bureaucracy. And this is obviously wrong. It is unconstitutional, and it is imperative, therefore, that we return power to the people of the country and not have tyranny of the bureaucracy, which we most definitely have had to a degree that is absurd. It's not just that there's an unconstitutional fourth branch of the government, but it is arguably the most powerful branch of the government.” Source: DOGE update on 𝕏 Spaces, February 2025
0:58

ELON: WE MUST PUT AN END TO THE TYRANNY OF THE BUREAUCRACY “In order for us to be a true democracy, a functioning democracy, the government must be responsive to the people. That's literally what democracy means. However, when you have a vast unelected bureaucracy that is not answerable to the public, and if the elected officials, the President, the people in Congress and the Senate, if they don't have the power to affect the bureaucracy — and it's actually extremely difficult to affect the bureaucracy — then you do not have rule of the people. Then, you do not have democracy, but you have rule of the bureau — bureaucracy. And this is obviously wrong. It is unconstitutional, and it is imperative, therefore, that we return power to the people of the country and not have tyranny of the bureaucracy, which we most definitely have had to a degree that is absurd. It's not just that there's an unconstitutional fourth branch of the government, but it is arguably the most powerful branch of the government.” Source: DOGE update on 𝕏 Spaces, February 2025

Mario Nawfal

1,738,823 просмотров • 1 год назад

For those who foolishly convince themselves that every criticism of Peter Obi is proof of his relevance, they fundamentally misunderstand the issue. Peter Obi is not constantly criticized because he is indispensable to Nigeria's political future; he is criticized because he repeatedly says and does things that attract legitimate criticism. Politics is not a sanctuary from scrutiny. Anyone seeking to lead over 200 million people must be prepared to face tough questions, intense examination, and public accountability. No politician deserves endless applause, and no presidential aspirant should be placed on a pedestal beyond criticism. One of the primary reasons Peter Obi continues to attract criticism is his reckless relationship with facts. Time and again, he makes claims that collapse under the weight of verification. His recent story about spending days at the University of Southern California with a faculty supposedly dominated by ex-convicts including a dean who allegedly spent 28 years in prison and a registrar who also served a lengthy jail term was exposed as false amongst several others. When a man seeking the highest office in the country repeatedly circulates questionable stories and unverified claims, criticism is not persecution; it is a necessary response. Beyond that, Peter Obi has perfected the art of complaining without convincing solutions. He is quick to identify problems, quick to blame others and quick to paint gloomy pictures, yet consistently struggles to present comprehensive, practical and realistic alternatives. Anybody can diagnose problems; leadership is measured by the ability to solve them. Endless lamentation is not a development agenda. What is even more troubling is the obsession with negativity that defines much of his political messaging. No matter the progress recorded, no matter the achievements delivered, no matter the improvements made, everything must be dismissed, ridiculed, or deliberately ignored. Every success becomes a failure in his narrative. Every effort becomes worthless. Every development must be blackened to sustain a predetermined political storyline. Peter Obi's politics often gives the impression of a man who believes that because he failed, everyone else must fail as well. Rather than inspiring hope, encouraging confidence, or presenting superior alternatives, he appears more invested in forecasting doom, exaggerating setbacks, and undermining achievements. His political capital is built less on solutions and more on pessimism. Equally disturbing is the conduct of many of his supporters, whose devotion frequently resembles fanaticism rather than rational political engagement. A significant number seem incapable of separating facts from emotions or objective analysis from blind loyalty. Any criticism, no matter how valid, is automatically branded an attack. Any inconvenient fact is rejected. Any opposing viewpoint is demonized. For many of them, political loyalty has replaced critical thinking. The reality is straightforward: Peter Obi is criticized because his statements, conduct,inconsistencies and political approach invite criticism. He is not a victim of scrutiny; he is a beneficiary of the same democratic accountability that every public figure faces. If Peter Obi wants to lead Nigeria, he must learn to defend his claims with facts, answer difficult questions without excuses, and subject himself to the same standards he demands of others. Leadership is not about perpetual complaints, endless blame or cultivating a personality cult. It is about competence, credibility, responsibility and results. No politician is above accountability, and Peter Obi deserves no special exemption from it. #hallelujah
0:58

For those who foolishly convince themselves that every criticism of Peter Obi is proof of his relevance, they fundamentally misunderstand the issue. Peter Obi is not constantly criticized because he is indispensable to Nigeria's political future; he is criticized because he repeatedly says and does things that attract legitimate criticism. Politics is not a sanctuary from scrutiny. Anyone seeking to lead over 200 million people must be prepared to face tough questions, intense examination, and public accountability. No politician deserves endless applause, and no presidential aspirant should be placed on a pedestal beyond criticism. One of the primary reasons Peter Obi continues to attract criticism is his reckless relationship with facts. Time and again, he makes claims that collapse under the weight of verification. His recent story about spending days at the University of Southern California with a faculty supposedly dominated by ex-convicts including a dean who allegedly spent 28 years in prison and a registrar who also served a lengthy jail term was exposed as false amongst several others. When a man seeking the highest office in the country repeatedly circulates questionable stories and unverified claims, criticism is not persecution; it is a necessary response. Beyond that, Peter Obi has perfected the art of complaining without convincing solutions. He is quick to identify problems, quick to blame others and quick to paint gloomy pictures, yet consistently struggles to present comprehensive, practical and realistic alternatives. Anybody can diagnose problems; leadership is measured by the ability to solve them. Endless lamentation is not a development agenda. What is even more troubling is the obsession with negativity that defines much of his political messaging. No matter the progress recorded, no matter the achievements delivered, no matter the improvements made, everything must be dismissed, ridiculed, or deliberately ignored. Every success becomes a failure in his narrative. Every effort becomes worthless. Every development must be blackened to sustain a predetermined political storyline. Peter Obi's politics often gives the impression of a man who believes that because he failed, everyone else must fail as well. Rather than inspiring hope, encouraging confidence, or presenting superior alternatives, he appears more invested in forecasting doom, exaggerating setbacks, and undermining achievements. His political capital is built less on solutions and more on pessimism. Equally disturbing is the conduct of many of his supporters, whose devotion frequently resembles fanaticism rather than rational political engagement. A significant number seem incapable of separating facts from emotions or objective analysis from blind loyalty. Any criticism, no matter how valid, is automatically branded an attack. Any inconvenient fact is rejected. Any opposing viewpoint is demonized. For many of them, political loyalty has replaced critical thinking. The reality is straightforward: Peter Obi is criticized because his statements, conduct,inconsistencies and political approach invite criticism. He is not a victim of scrutiny; he is a beneficiary of the same democratic accountability that every public figure faces. If Peter Obi wants to lead Nigeria, he must learn to defend his claims with facts, answer difficult questions without excuses, and subject himself to the same standards he demands of others. Leadership is not about perpetual complaints, endless blame or cultivating a personality cult. It is about competence, credibility, responsibility and results. No politician is above accountability, and Peter Obi deserves no special exemption from it. #hallelujah

Àlúbàríkà 🇳🇬

13,283 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

If you’re a veteran take a listen to this. The reason I’m posting it is because it’s genuine, it comes from the heart and deserves to be heard. He doesn’t understand some of the nuance of politics and the limited ability Democrats have to hold Trump account, but it represents an unfiltered moment that I do feel reflects the feelings of many.
5:30

If you’re a veteran take a listen to this. The reason I’m posting it is because it’s genuine, it comes from the heart and deserves to be heard. He doesn’t understand some of the nuance of politics and the limited ability Democrats have to hold Trump account, but it represents an unfiltered moment that I do feel reflects the feelings of many.

𝔗𝔯𝔲𝔱𝔥 𝔐𝔞𝔱𝔱𝔢𝔯𝔰

144,066 просмотров • 1 год назад

Propaganda can shape perceptions—but it cannot rewrite history. For years, a relentless political campaign has sought to portray the Gandhi family as the embodiment of corruption and anti-nationalism. Repetition of allegations, however, is not the same as proof. In this clip, Priyanka Gandhi does not respond with personal attacks. She asks a simple democratic question: Where is the evidence? She urges Parliament to debate unemployment, inflation, paper leaks, and the everyday struggles of ordinary Indians instead of recycling political propaganda. Every political family in India has faced criticism, and the Emergency imposed by Indira Gandhi remains a serious and legitimate subject of historical debate. But beyond that chapter, the contributions of the Nehru-Gandhi family to India's freedom movement and nation-building are substantial and well documented. Jawaharlal Nehru spent years in British prisons during the freedom struggle, and under his leadership institutions such as the IITs, AIIMS, DRDO, and major public sector enterprises were established—institutions that continue to serve the nation today. Democracy demands that citizens distinguish between verified facts and sustained political messaging. Patriotism is not determined by slogans or propaganda; it is measured by sacrifice, public service, and commitment to the Republic. A mature democracy deserves debates based on evidence—not narratives repeated until they are mistaken for truth.
5:33

Propaganda can shape perceptions—but it cannot rewrite history. For years, a relentless political campaign has sought to portray the Gandhi family as the embodiment of corruption and anti-nationalism. Repetition of allegations, however, is not the same as proof. In this clip, Priyanka Gandhi does not respond with personal attacks. She asks a simple democratic question: Where is the evidence? She urges Parliament to debate unemployment, inflation, paper leaks, and the everyday struggles of ordinary Indians instead of recycling political propaganda. Every political family in India has faced criticism, and the Emergency imposed by Indira Gandhi remains a serious and legitimate subject of historical debate. But beyond that chapter, the contributions of the Nehru-Gandhi family to India's freedom movement and nation-building are substantial and well documented. Jawaharlal Nehru spent years in British prisons during the freedom struggle, and under his leadership institutions such as the IITs, AIIMS, DRDO, and major public sector enterprises were established—institutions that continue to serve the nation today. Democracy demands that citizens distinguish between verified facts and sustained political messaging. Patriotism is not determined by slogans or propaganda; it is measured by sacrifice, public service, and commitment to the Republic. A mature democracy deserves debates based on evidence—not narratives repeated until they are mistaken for truth.

Ashok Dadhwal

53,494 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Bookmark this. This may be one of the strongest endorsements of President Donald J. Trump's leadership you'll hear from a world leader. Former Australian Prime Minister Hon. Scott Morrison AC: "One of the criticisms made by President Trump’s hecklers, whether here in Australia or elsewhere, is that he’s so transactionally driven and that it’s all about politics. Well, frankly, doing this in Iran was not in his political interests. And staying there now is not in his political interests. He has taken a big hit on this and continues to domestically and politically. You would only do that if it is something you know is deeply important to the national interest. I admire this. He has been prepared to take the heat. I’m sure there have been many advising him to do something very different from a political point of view, and I’m sure they have his best interests from that perspective at heart. But I think it disproves this idea that he is some political automaton, transactionally motivated by self-interest. What he has done here—and how he has supported Israel at this moment—is quite extraordinary. And I think, of the many things that will be remembered about Donald Trump—and there will be a lot— His strength on the question of Iran has been quite extraordinary and very commendable.” 👇
2:46

Bookmark this. This may be one of the strongest endorsements of President Donald J. Trump's leadership you'll hear from a world leader. Former Australian Prime Minister Hon. Scott Morrison AC: "One of the criticisms made by President Trump’s hecklers, whether here in Australia or elsewhere, is that he’s so transactionally driven and that it’s all about politics. Well, frankly, doing this in Iran was not in his political interests. And staying there now is not in his political interests. He has taken a big hit on this and continues to domestically and politically. You would only do that if it is something you know is deeply important to the national interest. I admire this. He has been prepared to take the heat. I’m sure there have been many advising him to do something very different from a political point of view, and I’m sure they have his best interests from that perspective at heart. But I think it disproves this idea that he is some political automaton, transactionally motivated by self-interest. What he has done here—and how he has supported Israel at this moment—is quite extraordinary. And I think, of the many things that will be remembered about Donald Trump—and there will be a lot— His strength on the question of Iran has been quite extraordinary and very commendable.” 👇

Erin Molan

147,257 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

🚨 THE CLOCK IS TICKING Governments can contain a riot. They can deploy police. They can make arrests. What becomes far harder to contain is a growing belief among millions of people that nobody in power is listening. From Belfast to Glasgow and beyond, the question is no longer whether there is public anger. The question is how much further it spreads. If the unrest fades, the government will claim victory. If it continues to grow, this stops being a law-and-order issue and becomes a crisis of political legitimacy. History shows that when governments lose the trust of the people, events can move very quickly. The next few days may prove decisive.
0:31

🚨 THE CLOCK IS TICKING Governments can contain a riot. They can deploy police. They can make arrests. What becomes far harder to contain is a growing belief among millions of people that nobody in power is listening. From Belfast to Glasgow and beyond, the question is no longer whether there is public anger. The question is how much further it spreads. If the unrest fades, the government will claim victory. If it continues to grow, this stops being a law-and-order issue and becomes a crisis of political legitimacy. History shows that when governments lose the trust of the people, events can move very quickly. The next few days may prove decisive.

Jim Ferguson

187,329 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

When a national address feels like a political speech, it raises serious questions. In the last 24 hours, Narendra Modi’s national address has drawn significant attention and criticism. Many viewers felt that instead of focusing on key national issues like delimitation, the speech leaned more toward political messaging, with repeated references to the opposition and women’s reservation. A national address is not a party rally. It is a moment meant to speak to the entire country. That is why such platforms are expected to remain balanced, focused, and above political lines. This is the same platform that has previously been used during critical moments, such as the COVID period or major national security updates, where the messaging was clear and unified. The concern here is about perception and timing. When expectations are high, any mismatch in tone or content becomes noticeable and can lead to public dissatisfaction. Constructive criticism plays an important role in a democracy. Support does not mean silence. In fact, honest feedback helps leadership stay grounded and effective. The larger point is simple. National platforms should remain national in spirit, not political in tone. Jai Hind. Jai Bharat. 🇮🇳
2:58

When a national address feels like a political speech, it raises serious questions. In the last 24 hours, Narendra Modi’s national address has drawn significant attention and criticism. Many viewers felt that instead of focusing on key national issues like delimitation, the speech leaned more toward political messaging, with repeated references to the opposition and women’s reservation. A national address is not a party rally. It is a moment meant to speak to the entire country. That is why such platforms are expected to remain balanced, focused, and above political lines. This is the same platform that has previously been used during critical moments, such as the COVID period or major national security updates, where the messaging was clear and unified. The concern here is about perception and timing. When expectations are high, any mismatch in tone or content becomes noticeable and can lead to public dissatisfaction. Constructive criticism plays an important role in a democracy. Support does not mean silence. In fact, honest feedback helps leadership stay grounded and effective. The larger point is simple. National platforms should remain national in spirit, not political in tone. Jai Hind. Jai Bharat. 🇮🇳

Praffulgarg

23,212 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

The clearest evidence that Nelson Chamisa learnt nothing and forgot everything during his two-year hiatus, after he unceremoniously ran away from the leadership of his party in January 2024, is that he says he’s back in active politics to form and lead yet another “new” movement which he "shockingly claims will be similar to the 'liberation movement, that had no president and no constitution': Journalist: "And is this an announcement of the coming in of a new political party, or it's going to be a general movement; exactly what is this?" Nelson Chamisa: "I think I must help you. I said it's not a political party. It's a movement. It is, and a movement is like the liberation movement. Who was the president of the liberation movement? What was the constitution of the liberation movement?" [full video:
0:24

The clearest evidence that Nelson Chamisa learnt nothing and forgot everything during his two-year hiatus, after he unceremoniously ran away from the leadership of his party in January 2024, is that he says he’s back in active politics to form and lead yet another “new” movement which he "shockingly claims will be similar to the 'liberation movement, that had no president and no constitution': Journalist: "And is this an announcement of the coming in of a new political party, or it's going to be a general movement; exactly what is this?" Nelson Chamisa: "I think I must help you. I said it's not a political party. It's a movement. It is, and a movement is like the liberation movement. Who was the president of the liberation movement? What was the constitution of the liberation movement?" [full video:

Prof Jonathan Moyo

61,143 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

In recent years, a misleading and dangerous narrative has gained traction in Somali political discourse, one that reduces Puntland to a tribal entity while positioning Somalia as the only legitimate national framework. This notion is not only inaccurate but also undermines the political reality on the ground. Puntland is not a tribe, it is a functioning government. And the people of Puntland are justified in putting Puntland first because it is the only government that has consistently provided them with services, stability, and a sense of civic belonging. A government, by definition, is an institution that delivers essential services such as security, education, healthcare, infrastructure, and public administration. It operates under a legal framework, often anchored in a constitution, and is staffed by institutions that enforce laws, collect revenue, and govern society. Puntland has fulfilled all of these functions. Since its founding in 1998, Puntland has operated with a constitution, a regional parliament, executive leadership, and a judiciary. It has established police forces, intelligence services, and military units that maintain peace in its territories. Puntland has built and operated public schools, hospitals, and administrative offices across its regions. These are the markers of a functioning government, not the features of a tribe. There is no tribe called Puntland. Rather, Puntland is a coalition of diverse communities and clans who voluntarily came together to build a regional authority in response to the collapse of Somalia’s central government. To describe Puntland as a tribe is to fundamentally misunderstand or deliberately distort the nature of its political structure. Tribes are kinship-based social formations; they do not have constitutions, flags, or formal governments that deliver public goods. Puntland is a political entity, a state government within the federal system of Somalia, that exists because it filled a vacuum created by the central state’s failure. That failure is not theoretical, it is lived and real. For decades, the Federal Government of Somalia has been unable to provide basic services to its citizens. Many regions of the country have been mired in conflict, neglect, and administrative collapse. In contrast, Puntland emerged as a self-reliant response to this vacuum. It did not wait for Mogadishu to bring security, law, and order. Instead, it built those systems on its own, using local capacity, leadership, and popular support. While the international community debated Somalia’s future, Puntland created one for its people. This is why many Puntlanders identify with Puntland first. It is not out of tribalism or secessionist ambition but because Puntland is the government that has served them. Loyalty is earned through service and protection. National identity cannot be forced from above; it must emerge from the legitimacy and performance of institutions. For Puntlanders, Puntland is not only a region but also a source of security, education, opportunity, and governance. In this context, putting Puntland first is a rational, even patriotic, act. Critics who attempt to diminish Puntland’s role by labeling it a tribal entity are engaging in a harmful narrative. Not only does this view ignore the facts, but it also disrespects the hard work of those who built Puntland’s institutions and continue to uphold them. Reducing Puntland to a tribe is a political distortion designed to strip its people of their agency and undermine their political achievements. It is both factually wrong and morally irresponsible.
2:00

In recent years, a misleading and dangerous narrative has gained traction in Somali political discourse, one that reduces Puntland to a tribal entity while positioning Somalia as the only legitimate national framework. This notion is not only inaccurate but also undermines the political reality on the ground. Puntland is not a tribe, it is a functioning government. And the people of Puntland are justified in putting Puntland first because it is the only government that has consistently provided them with services, stability, and a sense of civic belonging. A government, by definition, is an institution that delivers essential services such as security, education, healthcare, infrastructure, and public administration. It operates under a legal framework, often anchored in a constitution, and is staffed by institutions that enforce laws, collect revenue, and govern society. Puntland has fulfilled all of these functions. Since its founding in 1998, Puntland has operated with a constitution, a regional parliament, executive leadership, and a judiciary. It has established police forces, intelligence services, and military units that maintain peace in its territories. Puntland has built and operated public schools, hospitals, and administrative offices across its regions. These are the markers of a functioning government, not the features of a tribe. There is no tribe called Puntland. Rather, Puntland is a coalition of diverse communities and clans who voluntarily came together to build a regional authority in response to the collapse of Somalia’s central government. To describe Puntland as a tribe is to fundamentally misunderstand or deliberately distort the nature of its political structure. Tribes are kinship-based social formations; they do not have constitutions, flags, or formal governments that deliver public goods. Puntland is a political entity, a state government within the federal system of Somalia, that exists because it filled a vacuum created by the central state’s failure. That failure is not theoretical, it is lived and real. For decades, the Federal Government of Somalia has been unable to provide basic services to its citizens. Many regions of the country have been mired in conflict, neglect, and administrative collapse. In contrast, Puntland emerged as a self-reliant response to this vacuum. It did not wait for Mogadishu to bring security, law, and order. Instead, it built those systems on its own, using local capacity, leadership, and popular support. While the international community debated Somalia’s future, Puntland created one for its people. This is why many Puntlanders identify with Puntland first. It is not out of tribalism or secessionist ambition but because Puntland is the government that has served them. Loyalty is earned through service and protection. National identity cannot be forced from above; it must emerge from the legitimacy and performance of institutions. For Puntlanders, Puntland is not only a region but also a source of security, education, opportunity, and governance. In this context, putting Puntland first is a rational, even patriotic, act. Critics who attempt to diminish Puntland’s role by labeling it a tribal entity are engaging in a harmful narrative. Not only does this view ignore the facts, but it also disrespects the hard work of those who built Puntland’s institutions and continue to uphold them. Reducing Puntland to a tribe is a political distortion designed to strip its people of their agency and undermine their political achievements. It is both factually wrong and morally irresponsible.

Mustafe G Guufe

23,395 просмотров • 1 год назад

Elon Musk: We must end the tyranny of the bureaucracy. “In order for us to be a true democracy, a functioning democracy, the government must be responsive to the people. That's literally what democracy means. However, when you have a vast unelected bureaucracy that is not answerable to the public, and if the elected officials, the President, the people in Congress and the Senate, if they don't have the power to affect the bureaucracy — and it's actually extremely difficult to affect the bureaucracy — then you do not have rule of the people, you do not have democracy, you have rule of the bureau, bureaucracy. And this is obviously wrong. It is unconstitutional, and it is imperative, therefore, that we return power to the people of the country and not have tyranny of the bureaucracy, which we most definitely have had to follow to a degree that is absurd. It's not just that there's an unconstitutional fourth branch of the government, but it is arguably the most powerful branch of the government.” DOGE update on 𝕏 Spaces, February 3, 2025
0:58

Elon Musk: We must end the tyranny of the bureaucracy. “In order for us to be a true democracy, a functioning democracy, the government must be responsive to the people. That's literally what democracy means. However, when you have a vast unelected bureaucracy that is not answerable to the public, and if the elected officials, the President, the people in Congress and the Senate, if they don't have the power to affect the bureaucracy — and it's actually extremely difficult to affect the bureaucracy — then you do not have rule of the people, you do not have democracy, you have rule of the bureau, bureaucracy. And this is obviously wrong. It is unconstitutional, and it is imperative, therefore, that we return power to the people of the country and not have tyranny of the bureaucracy, which we most definitely have had to follow to a degree that is absurd. It's not just that there's an unconstitutional fourth branch of the government, but it is arguably the most powerful branch of the government.” DOGE update on 𝕏 Spaces, February 3, 2025

ELON CLIPS

14,738 просмотров • 1 год назад

Who controls the narrative? The DSA treats speech as a form of commodity to be regulated, yet we know that freedom of expression is a fundamental right in any free society. It is not the role of government to determine which opinions are acceptable or permissible. If Croatia adopts such a model of governing the public sphere, we risk granting institutions; including fact-checkers, such as Faktograf, and political leadership, excessive power and influence to decide what is true and what is not. Video: ECR Group
1:07

Who controls the narrative? The DSA treats speech as a form of commodity to be regulated, yet we know that freedom of expression is a fundamental right in any free society. It is not the role of government to determine which opinions are acceptable or permissible. If Croatia adopts such a model of governing the public sphere, we risk granting institutions; including fact-checkers, such as Faktograf, and political leadership, excessive power and influence to decide what is true and what is not. Video: ECR Group

Stephen Nikola Bartulica

184,898 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Anne Neuberger says technology is now the arena of national power: "Technology moved from being a tool of diplomacy, of national power, to the arena of it." "The supply chain for chips was not a technology issue as much as a foundational economic and national security issue." "A software vulnerability is now not an IT issue. It can be a source of leverage, particularly if that vulnerability is in key parts of your power systems or your water systems." "Deterrence is no longer just the size of a military." "Those technologies today are not being built by governments, they're being built by the private sector, whether that's AI systems, whether that's autonomous systems, whether that's cyber defense systems." Anne Neuberger
2:00

Anne Neuberger says technology is now the arena of national power: "Technology moved from being a tool of diplomacy, of national power, to the arena of it." "The supply chain for chips was not a technology issue as much as a foundational economic and national security issue." "A software vulnerability is now not an IT issue. It can be a source of leverage, particularly if that vulnerability is in key parts of your power systems or your water systems." "Deterrence is no longer just the size of a military." "Those technologies today are not being built by governments, they're being built by the private sector, whether that's AI systems, whether that's autonomous systems, whether that's cyber defense systems." Anne Neuberger

a16z

28,571 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

This inquiry was initiated to address one of the most pressing issues of our time: the federal and state governments’ responses to COVID-19. The challenges we faced over the past few years highlighted severe shortcomings in our governments’ responses to COVID and weaknesses in our democracy. To ensure justice, accountability and financial compensation, it is imperative that a comprehensive Judicial Inquiry into the government’s handling of COVID-19 is called. This could take the form of a Senate Commission of Inquiry or a Royal Commission. Investigations that must be robust, independent and based on data and facts, with the power to subpoena witnesses and documentation. The handling of COVID affected us all in profound ways. To fully understand the scope of these effects and to prevent this happening again in the future, we need to establish an accurate and detailed timeline of events and associated facts. Placing the most up-to-date information on the record will uncover the truth behind the decisions made and their consequences. These are essential for restoring accountability and trust in governments, and health services and departments. We must make this issue a federal election matter, with the goal being to awaken the public with clear, understandable facts. The public needs to become aware of the magnitude of the problems we faced. The mishandling of this crisis is not a matter of minor errors. It involved significant failures that demand accountability and serious repercussions. That is the only way to restore trust in our medical systems and in our government systems and processes. This issue is far from over. We owe it to ourselves and to future generations—especially our children and grandchildren—to address these failings directly, clearly and bluntly. We must hold those responsible accountable and ensure that such lapses are never repeated.
9:10

This inquiry was initiated to address one of the most pressing issues of our time: the federal and state governments’ responses to COVID-19. The challenges we faced over the past few years highlighted severe shortcomings in our governments’ responses to COVID and weaknesses in our democracy. To ensure justice, accountability and financial compensation, it is imperative that a comprehensive Judicial Inquiry into the government’s handling of COVID-19 is called. This could take the form of a Senate Commission of Inquiry or a Royal Commission. Investigations that must be robust, independent and based on data and facts, with the power to subpoena witnesses and documentation. The handling of COVID affected us all in profound ways. To fully understand the scope of these effects and to prevent this happening again in the future, we need to establish an accurate and detailed timeline of events and associated facts. Placing the most up-to-date information on the record will uncover the truth behind the decisions made and their consequences. These are essential for restoring accountability and trust in governments, and health services and departments. We must make this issue a federal election matter, with the goal being to awaken the public with clear, understandable facts. The public needs to become aware of the magnitude of the problems we faced. The mishandling of this crisis is not a matter of minor errors. It involved significant failures that demand accountability and serious repercussions. That is the only way to restore trust in our medical systems and in our government systems and processes. This issue is far from over. We owe it to ourselves and to future generations—especially our children and grandchildren—to address these failings directly, clearly and bluntly. We must hold those responsible accountable and ensure that such lapses are never repeated.

Malcolm Roberts 🇦🇺

21,129 просмотров • 1 год назад

Oga Bash, the issue here is not about having an opinion, it is about telling the truth. When he and many northerners supported Osama back then, and later changed their stance after understanding what is terrorism during Boko Haram insurgency, that was a shift in opinion driven by exposure, growth, and new knowledge. That is understandable. But what we have here is something different. In a 2006 video, Malam clearly said he had never joined politics and that he was not the kind of Sheikh who meddles in politics. If in 2026 he says he now wants to join politics, that too is understandable. The problem is that he did not say that. He claimed he has been in politics since 2001. That is not a change of opinion, that is a direct contradiction. So the question here is, did the Sheikh lie in 2006 or is he lying now in 2026? It has to be one of the two or both but certainly there is a lie!
1:16

Oga Bash, the issue here is not about having an opinion, it is about telling the truth. When he and many northerners supported Osama back then, and later changed their stance after understanding what is terrorism during Boko Haram insurgency, that was a shift in opinion driven by exposure, growth, and new knowledge. That is understandable. But what we have here is something different. In a 2006 video, Malam clearly said he had never joined politics and that he was not the kind of Sheikh who meddles in politics. If in 2026 he says he now wants to join politics, that too is understandable. The problem is that he did not say that. He claimed he has been in politics since 2001. That is not a change of opinion, that is a direct contradiction. So the question here is, did the Sheikh lie in 2006 or is he lying now in 2026? It has to be one of the two or both but certainly there is a lie!

Mal. Imran U. Wakili (PULLO) 👑 #iSTANDWITHELRUFAI

76,198 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад