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.

The Venezuela Timeline that EXPLAINS it's collapse. - Chávez didn’t seize power overnight. - Terms started at 5 years, then became 6. He rewrote the constitution, abolished the Senate, extended term limits, and ruled by enabling acts. Daniel says the legal pathway looked disturbingly familiar — history doesn’t repeat,... show more

Julian Dorey

115,922 subscribers

22,394 views • 6 months 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

Venezuelan WARNS Mandami Winning is Identical to Chavez's 1st Election Venezuela didn’t collapse overnight. It started with a normal election, a charismatic leader, and promises people wanted to believe. Then the government took businesses. Foreign powers moved in. And leaving became impossible. This clip explains how it actually happens. Daniel Di Martino

Venezuelan WARNS Mandami Winning is Identical to Chavez's 1st Election Venezuela didn’t collapse overnight. It started with a normal election, a charismatic leader, and promises people wanted to believe. Then the government took businesses. Foreign powers moved in. And leaving became impossible. This clip explains how it actually happens. Daniel Di Martino

Julian Dorey

30,362 views • 6 months ago

Socialism doesn’t just destroy economies — it can cost lives. On the latest episode of The Truth with Lisa Boothe, Manhattan Institute's Daniel Di Martino explains how decades of socialist policies left #Venezuela vulnerable, turning a natural disaster into a far greater human tragedy. He breaks down how Venezuela’s collapse under Hugo Chávez’s legacy weakened infrastructure, devastated the economy, and left citizens relying on foreign aid while the regime stood in the way. A powerful warning about what happens when government control replaces freedom. Listen to the full conversation ⬇️

Socialism doesn’t just destroy economies — it can cost lives. On the latest episode of The Truth with Lisa Boothe, Manhattan Institute's Daniel Di Martino explains how decades of socialist policies left #Venezuela vulnerable, turning a natural disaster into a far greater human tragedy. He breaks down how Venezuela’s collapse under Hugo Chávez’s legacy weakened infrastructure, devastated the economy, and left citizens relying on foreign aid while the regime stood in the way. A powerful warning about what happens when government control replaces freedom. Listen to the full conversation ⬇️

Lisa Boothe

12,521 views • 13 days ago

.Daniel Di Martino 🇺🇸🇻🇪 joins The Truth with Lisa Boothe and breaks through the Left's denials about Venezuela... As he explains, the idea that Venezuela isn’t involved in drug trafficking or terrorism is a myth pushed by the political left. The reality is far darker: after destroying their economy, the Venezuelan regime turned to drugs as a source of revenue — with the military itself acting as the cartel. The government isn’t fighting traffickers. It is the traffickers. From collaborating with Hezbollah, Iran, Russia, and China to exporting oil on sanctioned vessels, the Maduro regime survives through criminal networks. Now, with President Trump targeting drug routes and oil tankers, those resources are being cut off — and the regime is running out of money. Check out my FULL episode with Daniel HERE |

.Daniel Di Martino 🇺🇸🇻🇪 joins The Truth with Lisa Boothe and breaks through the Left's denials about Venezuela... As he explains, the idea that Venezuela isn’t involved in drug trafficking or terrorism is a myth pushed by the political left. The reality is far darker: after destroying their economy, the Venezuelan regime turned to drugs as a source of revenue — with the military itself acting as the cartel. The government isn’t fighting traffickers. It is the traffickers. From collaborating with Hezbollah, Iran, Russia, and China to exporting oil on sanctioned vessels, the Maduro regime survives through criminal networks. Now, with President Trump targeting drug routes and oil tankers, those resources are being cut off — and the regime is running out of money. Check out my FULL episode with Daniel HERE |

Lisa Boothe 🇺🇸

13,891 views • 7 months ago

People chanting FOR communism haven’t lived under it. My Uber driver did. He’s Venezuelan 👇 10 years in U.S. 27 years waiting for freedom. He was stunned watching protests outside The White House — & other countries. He doesn’t know who I work for but He knows Freedom. Those who lived it, warn us. Those who didn’t, romanticize it. *LISTEN to who he thanks at the END! #ThankYouTrump #Venezuela #madurocaptured Marco Rubio María Corina Machado Daniel Di Martino New York Post Daily Wire Rep. María Elvira Salazar Martha MacCallum City of Doral Puerto Rico Young Republican Federation Kevin Romero-Díaz Sara A. Carter Rich Valdés 🇺🇸 Joseph Z

People chanting FOR communism haven’t lived under it. My Uber driver did. He’s Venezuelan 👇 10 years in U.S. 27 years waiting for freedom. He was stunned watching protests outside The White House — & other countries. He doesn’t know who I work for but He knows Freedom. Those who lived it, warn us. Those who didn’t, romanticize it. *LISTEN to who he thanks at the END! #ThankYouTrump #Venezuela #madurocaptured Marco Rubio María Corina Machado Daniel Di Martino New York Post Daily Wire Rep. María Elvira Salazar Martha MacCallum City of Doral Puerto Rico Young Republican Federation Kevin Romero-Díaz Sara A. Carter Rich Valdés 🇺🇸 Joseph Z

Jenny Korn

53,873 views • 6 months ago

🔴 Drop Site’s Jeremy Scahill speaks to Lt. Col. Daniel Davis about the “morality cost” of a U.S. foreign policy of impunity. Davis warns that talk in Washington increasingly shrugs off the “rule of law,” the “Constitution,” and “separation of powers” in favor of a brutal calculus of killing and force, calling it a degradation of even “the pretend morals of the country.” Scahill responds that the U.S. is now represented by “some of the most dangerous lunatics” in its history, arguing unmatched American force turns it into “a hammer constantly looking for a nail.” He compares the long-term effect of U.S. actions to a boxer absorbing a “kidney blow” that seems survivable in the moment — the fighter keeps swinging — but ultimately causes collapse once the damage sets in. jeremy scahill | Daniel Davis Deep Dive

🔴 Drop Site’s Jeremy Scahill speaks to Lt. Col. Daniel Davis about the “morality cost” of a U.S. foreign policy of impunity. Davis warns that talk in Washington increasingly shrugs off the “rule of law,” the “Constitution,” and “separation of powers” in favor of a brutal calculus of killing and force, calling it a degradation of even “the pretend morals of the country.” Scahill responds that the U.S. is now represented by “some of the most dangerous lunatics” in its history, arguing unmatched American force turns it into “a hammer constantly looking for a nail.” He compares the long-term effect of U.S. actions to a boxer absorbing a “kidney blow” that seems survivable in the moment — the fighter keeps swinging — but ultimately causes collapse once the damage sets in. jeremy scahill | Daniel Davis Deep Dive

Drop Site

19,276 views • 4 months ago

Official Hearing: Federal Judges are violating the US Constitution with universal injunctions against Donald Trump’s orders “There is clearly a potential constitutional crisis involving the judicial branch's effort to fully override the legislative and executive branches. 15 district judges effectively seize control of various executive branch duties in the first 6 weeks of the current presidency through nationwide injunctions. This is potentially a judicial coup d'etat. It clearly violates the constitution and more than 200 years of American history.” “President Thomas Jefferson's agenda: President Jefferson concluded that impeaching the judges would take too much time. He and the Congress simply abolished the courts in which they served via the Judiciary Act of 1802. This is a constitutional balance of power. The legislative and executive branches can reshape the judiciary branch. It is a useful reminder in considering the current situation unelected lower court judges have been steadily grabbing power for years.”

Official Hearing: Federal Judges are violating the US Constitution with universal injunctions against Donald Trump’s orders “There is clearly a potential constitutional crisis involving the judicial branch's effort to fully override the legislative and executive branches. 15 district judges effectively seize control of various executive branch duties in the first 6 weeks of the current presidency through nationwide injunctions. This is potentially a judicial coup d'etat. It clearly violates the constitution and more than 200 years of American history.” “President Thomas Jefferson's agenda: President Jefferson concluded that impeaching the judges would take too much time. He and the Congress simply abolished the courts in which they served via the Judiciary Act of 1802. This is a constitutional balance of power. The legislative and executive branches can reshape the judiciary branch. It is a useful reminder in considering the current situation unelected lower court judges have been steadily grabbing power for years.”

Wall Street Apes

134,535 views • 1 year ago

QUESTION: What is the relationship between section 91(2)—the term limit provision—and section 95(2)—the term length provision in the Constitution of Zimbabwe (2013)? ANSWER: Section 91(2) is the term-limit provision. It regulates the President’s tenure by limiting the length of time that he or she may hold or occupy the Presidency as a public officer to a maximum of two terms—whether consecutive or not—where three or more years’ service is deemed a full term. By contrast, section 95(2) is the term-length provision. It regulates the electoral cycle of the Presidency as an office or institution by defining a single term as five years (now proposed to be seven years under Clause 4 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe (Amendment No. 3) H.B. 1 Bill, 2026). The relationship between sections 91(2) and 95(2) is therefore as clear and straightforward as that between a truck driver and a 500 km highway: section 91(2) limits the driver, while section 95(2) defines the length of the highway. Section 91(2) caps the time any individual may occupy the Presidency; section 95(2) sets the institutional length or duration of each presidential term or electoral cycle. This distinction matters because a persistent misconception claims that section 91(2) is not the presidential term-limit provision but merely a qualification rule for election as President, asserts that section 95(2) is the actual term-limit clause. Many who advance this incorrect view rely on one sentence in the obiter dictum by Patel JCC at paragraph 50 of the precedent-setting judgment in Marx Mupungu v Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs & 6 Ors (CCZ 7/21, 2021) [see: which includes section 95(2) among examples of term-limit provisions. That misconception overlooks a fundamental constitutional imperative: a presidential term-limit provision is, by definition, a disqualifier for election as President. Term limits on presidents are necessarily about elections. They limit qualification for election. Where there is no presidential term limit, re-election is unlimited. In a recent discussion with D. Tinashé Hofisi on 23 April 2026 [ on the Constitution of Zimbabwe (Amendment No. 3) Bill hosted by The Southern African Times, I explained the relationship between the two sections. Below is the verbatim text of the attached clip extracted from the discussion addressing the import of section 91(2) and its relationship with section 95(2): ME: “It’s a clear term limit provision; is similar to term limit provisions in other jurisdictions that are comparable to Zimbabwe. And when you say it doesn’t have time, it doesn’t make reference to time, I’m at a loss as to what that means, and where that is coming from, with respect to Dr Hofisi, because it says a person is disqualified for election as President or appointment as Vice President if he or she has already held office as President under this constitution for two terms. This is the only section which tells us how many terms a President is limited to. Section 95 doesn’t even tell us that he’s limited to one term. There’s no limit. This one limits the President to two terms. And the two terms, the last time I checked, was a reference to time. And in this case, the section doesn’t leave us doubting or not knowing what a term is or what sort of time a term is. Because it continues to say these two terms are counted whether they follow each other or not. But most significantly, for the purpose of the limit on the President, the term limit on the President, which is provided in this section: three or more years. That’s time. You said there’s no time here. Three years is time. The length of time is three years minimum, and the maximum is more. It’s not defined here. It’s three or more years. It’s more because that is subject to what the relevant law about electoral cycles says is the electoral cycle of the institution that the President occupies”. [verbatim text of clip from The 500 km Highway Metaphor: Distinguishing Sections 91(2) and 95(2) of the Constitution To clearly understand the relationship between sections 91(2) and 95(2), imagine the Presidency as a magnificent 500-kilometre highway built and maintained by section 95(2) of the Constitution. This provision creates the presidential highway itself: it defines the office of the President as a permanent public institution and sets the exact length of each single term — currently five years, now proposed under the Bill to be seven years. It establishes a structured, recurring electoral cycle that belongs to the people of Zimbabwe, ensuring regular, orderly renewal of leadership. Without section 95(2), there would be no defined road — only an open plain of indefinite power. Section 91(2) governs the individual truck driver on that highway. It imposes an absolute lifetime limit: no person may complete more than two full trips along this 500 km highway, whether those trips are taken back-to-back or years apart. Any segment of 300 kilometres or more — that is, three or more years in office — counts as one complete trip. There are no partial credits or exceptions. After two full trips, the driver is permanently disqualified from driving on that highway, again. The distinction is sharp and deliberate: Section 95(2) builds the highway and determines the length of each journey. Section 91(2) limits how many times any single individual is permitted to travel it. One structures the office; the other limits the person who occupies it. Together, they form the Constitution’s twin safeguards — working in perfect harmony to keep power temporary, accountable, and subordinate to the will of the people. To conflate their distinct roles is to weaken these vital safeguards and to invite the very tyranny the Constitution was written to prevent. The Profound and Protective Meaning of “Three or More Years” in Section 91(2) of the Constitution At the heart of section 91(2) lies one of the Constitution’s most brilliant safeguards: “for the purpose of this subsection, three or more years’ service is deemed to be a full term.” The word “more” is no mere drafting flourish—it is deliberate constitutional genius. It declares that section 91(2), as the personal lifetime term-limit provision, imposes no rigid numerical ceiling. Subject to what is reasonable and justifiable in a constitutional democracy under section 95(2), service of four years, five years, six years, seven years, or even longer—once it exceeds the three-year threshold—is unequivocally deemed a complete term for the purpose of lifetime disqualification. This flexibility is not a loophole; it is a wise design that refuses to let the term-limit clause under section 91(2) become brittle or easily evaded. This open-ended “more” is anchored in section 91(2)’s harmonious relationship with section 95(2)(b), which defines the official electoral cycle of the Presidency as a permanent public institution whose five-year lifespan is inextricably intertwined with that of Parliament. Section 91(2) places an iron-clad personal disqualification on the individual; section 95(2) defines the dimensions of the highway itself. Crucially, section 95(2) is not a term-limit provision under subsections (1) and (7) of section 328. Unlike the referendum-protected personal term limit in section 91(2), it may be amended by Parliament under section 328(5) without a national referendum. This distinction is no accident; it is constitutional wisdom. It allows the institutional framework of the Presidency to evolve with the nation’s needs while the unbreakable personal lifetime bar on any single individual remains forever sacrosanct. All told, sections 91(2) and 95(2) differ in character and purpose—one limits the President, the other structures the public office or institution of the Presidency—yet they stand together as the Constitution’s twin guardians. This elegant complementarity keeps presidential power temporary, accountable, and forever subordinate to the sovereign will of the people through the institution or office of the Presidency. To respect and defend this relationship is to honour the very soul of the Constitution: ensuring that no individual can ever turn the highway into their driveway—turning the public office into a personal fiefdom—and that the highway of governance remains open, regularly renewed, and eternally in faithful service to the people of Zimbabwe. This is the promise the Constitution makes!

QUESTION: What is the relationship between section 91(2)—the term limit provision—and section 95(2)—the term length provision in the Constitution of Zimbabwe (2013)? ANSWER: Section 91(2) is the term-limit provision. It regulates the President’s tenure by limiting the length of time that he or she may hold or occupy the Presidency as a public officer to a maximum of two terms—whether consecutive or not—where three or more years’ service is deemed a full term. By contrast, section 95(2) is the term-length provision. It regulates the electoral cycle of the Presidency as an office or institution by defining a single term as five years (now proposed to be seven years under Clause 4 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe (Amendment No. 3) H.B. 1 Bill, 2026). The relationship between sections 91(2) and 95(2) is therefore as clear and straightforward as that between a truck driver and a 500 km highway: section 91(2) limits the driver, while section 95(2) defines the length of the highway. Section 91(2) caps the time any individual may occupy the Presidency; section 95(2) sets the institutional length or duration of each presidential term or electoral cycle. This distinction matters because a persistent misconception claims that section 91(2) is not the presidential term-limit provision but merely a qualification rule for election as President, asserts that section 95(2) is the actual term-limit clause. Many who advance this incorrect view rely on one sentence in the obiter dictum by Patel JCC at paragraph 50 of the precedent-setting judgment in Marx Mupungu v Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs & 6 Ors (CCZ 7/21, 2021) [see: which includes section 95(2) among examples of term-limit provisions. That misconception overlooks a fundamental constitutional imperative: a presidential term-limit provision is, by definition, a disqualifier for election as President. Term limits on presidents are necessarily about elections. They limit qualification for election. Where there is no presidential term limit, re-election is unlimited. In a recent discussion with D. Tinashé Hofisi on 23 April 2026 [ on the Constitution of Zimbabwe (Amendment No. 3) Bill hosted by The Southern African Times, I explained the relationship between the two sections. Below is the verbatim text of the attached clip extracted from the discussion addressing the import of section 91(2) and its relationship with section 95(2): ME: “It’s a clear term limit provision; is similar to term limit provisions in other jurisdictions that are comparable to Zimbabwe. And when you say it doesn’t have time, it doesn’t make reference to time, I’m at a loss as to what that means, and where that is coming from, with respect to Dr Hofisi, because it says a person is disqualified for election as President or appointment as Vice President if he or she has already held office as President under this constitution for two terms. This is the only section which tells us how many terms a President is limited to. Section 95 doesn’t even tell us that he’s limited to one term. There’s no limit. This one limits the President to two terms. And the two terms, the last time I checked, was a reference to time. And in this case, the section doesn’t leave us doubting or not knowing what a term is or what sort of time a term is. Because it continues to say these two terms are counted whether they follow each other or not. But most significantly, for the purpose of the limit on the President, the term limit on the President, which is provided in this section: three or more years. That’s time. You said there’s no time here. Three years is time. The length of time is three years minimum, and the maximum is more. It’s not defined here. It’s three or more years. It’s more because that is subject to what the relevant law about electoral cycles says is the electoral cycle of the institution that the President occupies”. [verbatim text of clip from The 500 km Highway Metaphor: Distinguishing Sections 91(2) and 95(2) of the Constitution To clearly understand the relationship between sections 91(2) and 95(2), imagine the Presidency as a magnificent 500-kilometre highway built and maintained by section 95(2) of the Constitution. This provision creates the presidential highway itself: it defines the office of the President as a permanent public institution and sets the exact length of each single term — currently five years, now proposed under the Bill to be seven years. It establishes a structured, recurring electoral cycle that belongs to the people of Zimbabwe, ensuring regular, orderly renewal of leadership. Without section 95(2), there would be no defined road — only an open plain of indefinite power. Section 91(2) governs the individual truck driver on that highway. It imposes an absolute lifetime limit: no person may complete more than two full trips along this 500 km highway, whether those trips are taken back-to-back or years apart. Any segment of 300 kilometres or more — that is, three or more years in office — counts as one complete trip. There are no partial credits or exceptions. After two full trips, the driver is permanently disqualified from driving on that highway, again. The distinction is sharp and deliberate: Section 95(2) builds the highway and determines the length of each journey. Section 91(2) limits how many times any single individual is permitted to travel it. One structures the office; the other limits the person who occupies it. Together, they form the Constitution’s twin safeguards — working in perfect harmony to keep power temporary, accountable, and subordinate to the will of the people. To conflate their distinct roles is to weaken these vital safeguards and to invite the very tyranny the Constitution was written to prevent. The Profound and Protective Meaning of “Three or More Years” in Section 91(2) of the Constitution At the heart of section 91(2) lies one of the Constitution’s most brilliant safeguards: “for the purpose of this subsection, three or more years’ service is deemed to be a full term.” The word “more” is no mere drafting flourish—it is deliberate constitutional genius. It declares that section 91(2), as the personal lifetime term-limit provision, imposes no rigid numerical ceiling. Subject to what is reasonable and justifiable in a constitutional democracy under section 95(2), service of four years, five years, six years, seven years, or even longer—once it exceeds the three-year threshold—is unequivocally deemed a complete term for the purpose of lifetime disqualification. This flexibility is not a loophole; it is a wise design that refuses to let the term-limit clause under section 91(2) become brittle or easily evaded. This open-ended “more” is anchored in section 91(2)’s harmonious relationship with section 95(2)(b), which defines the official electoral cycle of the Presidency as a permanent public institution whose five-year lifespan is inextricably intertwined with that of Parliament. Section 91(2) places an iron-clad personal disqualification on the individual; section 95(2) defines the dimensions of the highway itself. Crucially, section 95(2) is not a term-limit provision under subsections (1) and (7) of section 328. Unlike the referendum-protected personal term limit in section 91(2), it may be amended by Parliament under section 328(5) without a national referendum. This distinction is no accident; it is constitutional wisdom. It allows the institutional framework of the Presidency to evolve with the nation’s needs while the unbreakable personal lifetime bar on any single individual remains forever sacrosanct. All told, sections 91(2) and 95(2) differ in character and purpose—one limits the President, the other structures the public office or institution of the Presidency—yet they stand together as the Constitution’s twin guardians. This elegant complementarity keeps presidential power temporary, accountable, and forever subordinate to the sovereign will of the people through the institution or office of the Presidency. To respect and defend this relationship is to honour the very soul of the Constitution: ensuring that no individual can ever turn the highway into their driveway—turning the public office into a personal fiefdom—and that the highway of governance remains open, regularly renewed, and eternally in faithful service to the people of Zimbabwe. This is the promise the Constitution makes!

Prof Jonathan Moyo

12,781 views • 2 months ago

🚨DISCOVERY BATTLE ERUPTS: “TURN IT OVER” VS “THIS IS EVIDENCE OF CRIMES” A legal fight is exploding in the case tied to Patrick Byrne and it centers on what’s inside sealed discovery files tied to Dominion and Smartmatic. Attorney Stefanie Lambert is refusing a judge’s order to return the documents. Why? In a legal filing, she says what’s inside goes far beyond a civil case: “The Dominion discovery documents contain… evidence of the most serious crimes committed in the history of the United States.” The judge overseeing the case previously represented Venezuela and Nicolás Maduro and declined to recuse herself, arguing there is “no connection” between Venezuela and Smartmatic. Smartmatic was founded by Venezuelan engineers and became a major provider of voting technology in Venezuela’s elections, including during the Chávez era. Critics argue that history raises serious questions about: • Smartmatic’s origins inside Venezuela’s election system • Its role during Chávez and Maduro-era elections • Whether those ties matter in U.S. election-related cases Meanwhile, the court has ruled Venezuela’s elections are not relevant in a case centered on Smartmatic’s role in U.S. elections. A judge with alleged Maduro ties. An attorney who won't comply. Sealed documents she says could change everything. At the center of it all: Smartmatic, Venezuela, Dominion, and election ties.

🚨DISCOVERY BATTLE ERUPTS: “TURN IT OVER” VS “THIS IS EVIDENCE OF CRIMES” A legal fight is exploding in the case tied to Patrick Byrne and it centers on what’s inside sealed discovery files tied to Dominion and Smartmatic. Attorney Stefanie Lambert is refusing a judge’s order to return the documents. Why? In a legal filing, she says what’s inside goes far beyond a civil case: “The Dominion discovery documents contain… evidence of the most serious crimes committed in the history of the United States.” The judge overseeing the case previously represented Venezuela and Nicolás Maduro and declined to recuse herself, arguing there is “no connection” between Venezuela and Smartmatic. Smartmatic was founded by Venezuelan engineers and became a major provider of voting technology in Venezuela’s elections, including during the Chávez era. Critics argue that history raises serious questions about: • Smartmatic’s origins inside Venezuela’s election system • Its role during Chávez and Maduro-era elections • Whether those ties matter in U.S. election-related cases Meanwhile, the court has ruled Venezuela’s elections are not relevant in a case centered on Smartmatic’s role in U.S. elections. A judge with alleged Maduro ties. An attorney who won't comply. Sealed documents she says could change everything. At the center of it all: Smartmatic, Venezuela, Dominion, and election ties.

LindellTV

61,496 views • 3 months ago

President Emmerson Mnangagwa's spokesman George Charamba, who is also the Deputy Chief Secretary, Presidential Communications in the Office of the President and Cabinet, has provoked a storm of controversy by claiming that parliament trumps a national referendum on constitutional amendment issues currently being debated through a legislative public consultation process. Mnangagwa and his party are using parliament to amend the constitution to extend his rule to 2030 and introduce a raft of other significant changes without going through a referendum, which civil society and opposition activists insist is a requirement in terms of the constitution. The 2013 constitution mandates that any extension of presidential term limits or removal of two five-year term limits must be approved by voters through a referendum. Critics say extending terms from five to seven years, or changing the electoral system constitutes a major subversion of this clause, requiring a referendum. However, Mnangagwa and his allies say a referendum is not needed as they are not removing term limits, but elongating the term lengths and changing the electoral cycle. Zanu PF says the amendment is not a change to the limit of two terms, but rather the length of each term (five to seven years), meaning a referendum is not constitutionally mandated. They say the amendments are meant to ensure political stability and remove "election mode toxicity," disrupting peace, governance and development. The debate centres over holding a referendum on the proposed amendments, specifically Constitution Amendment Bill No.3, which proposes extending Mnangagwa's tenure by two years andpresidential and parliamentary terms from five to seven years as well as changing the presidential election system from direct voting through popular franchise to indirect selection via parliament. The ruling Zanu PF party controls parliament, leading to calls for a popular referendum to approve these significant changes, which critics argue violate the 2013 constitution's democratic intent. Charamba said: “Those who were old enough to participate and follow proceedings of 2013 will know that even after the referendum, that outcome of the referendum still had to be processed through Parliament. What that means is that, a referendum does not usurp the power of Parliament. It simply provides a popular basis for legislative action. Otherwise, at law, the body which is recognized as responsible for any changes, be they at the level of the primary law or at the level of subsidiary laws, is Parliament. Right? So, really, you can't place the referendum in apposition to Parliament. You can't. You just cannot because the referendum does not give you a result that writes the constitution. It is parliament which is mandated to do so in terms of our law. So, really, there shouldn't be any argument at all in respect of that matter. Right?.”

President Emmerson Mnangagwa's spokesman George Charamba, who is also the Deputy Chief Secretary, Presidential Communications in the Office of the President and Cabinet, has provoked a storm of controversy by claiming that parliament trumps a national referendum on constitutional amendment issues currently being debated through a legislative public consultation process. Mnangagwa and his party are using parliament to amend the constitution to extend his rule to 2030 and introduce a raft of other significant changes without going through a referendum, which civil society and opposition activists insist is a requirement in terms of the constitution. The 2013 constitution mandates that any extension of presidential term limits or removal of two five-year term limits must be approved by voters through a referendum. Critics say extending terms from five to seven years, or changing the electoral system constitutes a major subversion of this clause, requiring a referendum. However, Mnangagwa and his allies say a referendum is not needed as they are not removing term limits, but elongating the term lengths and changing the electoral cycle. Zanu PF says the amendment is not a change to the limit of two terms, but rather the length of each term (five to seven years), meaning a referendum is not constitutionally mandated. They say the amendments are meant to ensure political stability and remove "election mode toxicity," disrupting peace, governance and development. The debate centres over holding a referendum on the proposed amendments, specifically Constitution Amendment Bill No.3, which proposes extending Mnangagwa's tenure by two years andpresidential and parliamentary terms from five to seven years as well as changing the presidential election system from direct voting through popular franchise to indirect selection via parliament. The ruling Zanu PF party controls parliament, leading to calls for a popular referendum to approve these significant changes, which critics argue violate the 2013 constitution's democratic intent. Charamba said: “Those who were old enough to participate and follow proceedings of 2013 will know that even after the referendum, that outcome of the referendum still had to be processed through Parliament. What that means is that, a referendum does not usurp the power of Parliament. It simply provides a popular basis for legislative action. Otherwise, at law, the body which is recognized as responsible for any changes, be they at the level of the primary law or at the level of subsidiary laws, is Parliament. Right? So, really, you can't place the referendum in apposition to Parliament. You can't. You just cannot because the referendum does not give you a result that writes the constitution. It is parliament which is mandated to do so in terms of our law. So, really, there shouldn't be any argument at all in respect of that matter. Right?.”

TheNewsHawks

16,579 views • 3 months ago

NEW LONG FORM VIDEO: The rise and fall of Groupon: Their $6 billion mistake In December 2010, Google offered $6 billion to buy a two year old coupon website run by a 30 year old college dropout. At the time, it would have been the most expensive acquisition in Google’s history by a wide margin. That founder, Andrew Mason, turned the offer down. He said he wanted to control the company’s destiny. Early on, it looked like he made the right call. The company went public at a $13 billion valuation and became one of the hottest tech stocks on the market. But the success didn’t last. Over the following years, the stock fell more than 80%. The company went into a tailspin and eventually had to do a one for 20 reverse stock split just to keep its share price above $1 and remain listed on the Nasdaq. So what went wrong? This is the rise and fall of Groupon.

NEW LONG FORM VIDEO: The rise and fall of Groupon: Their $6 billion mistake In December 2010, Google offered $6 billion to buy a two year old coupon website run by a 30 year old college dropout. At the time, it would have been the most expensive acquisition in Google’s history by a wide margin. That founder, Andrew Mason, turned the offer down. He said he wanted to control the company’s destiny. Early on, it looked like he made the right call. The company went public at a $13 billion valuation and became one of the hottest tech stocks on the market. But the success didn’t last. Over the following years, the stock fell more than 80%. The company went into a tailspin and eventually had to do a one for 20 reverse stock split just to keep its share price above $1 and remain listed on the Nasdaq. So what went wrong? This is the rise and fall of Groupon.

Michael Girdley

234,645 views • 2 months ago

With the recent defamation lawsuit filed by members of the McCabe/Albert group, there’s now a lot of focus on what people have said publicly. But to understand why people have been asking questions over the past 3 years… you have to go back to the testimony and the timeline itself. Colin says he was at Mike Leonetti’s house and admits he doesn’t remember how he got there but remembers he was drinking Bud Lights So right off the bat we have memory gaps about how his night even started. He testifies that Allie McCabe picked him up and brought him to Fairview between 10:30–11:00 PM From the actual texts when Colin wanted a ride home at 11:54 Colin texts Allie “U can get me now. If easier”, At 11:55 PM She responds and at 12:10 AM She texts “here” Now from Allie’s testimony, She says she had Avery and Danielle in the car, dropped them off, Then went to another friend’s house, Then came back to pick Colin up. All between 11:54 PM and 12:10 AM. Where exactly was she when she got the text? She says she doesn’t really remember What route did she take to Fairview? She doesn’t remember Where did she park? “I believe the driveway… not entirely sure” How long between “here” and Colin coming out? “A few minutes” Meanwhile, Colin’s Version of That Same Moment He Says after getting the “here” text, he came out in about 30 seconds to a minute,Says he exited through the side door near the garage, Says he saw uncle Brian Albert and Auntie Nicole Albert but Nicole Albert Says she came in the front door and bumped into Colin and that He told her he was leaving because his ride was coming. Meanwhile, Brian Albert Says he came in the side door and that Colin was the kitchen no more than 5 minutes and that he went to the bathroom and when he came out, Colin was gone Allie says She drove him straight home, No stops, About a 5-minute drive, BUT, She can’t recall the route Colin says His parents were already in bed, He went upstairs to say goodnight But We know his father didn’t leave the bar until 12:14 AM The only hard evidence presented for this timeline is A screenshot of text messages Everything else? Testimony, Memory, Recollection When you have a witness who doesn’t remember how the night started, a tight timeline with multiple stops compressed into minutes, conflicting recollections about movements and timing, and limited physical evidence to anchor it all, is it unreasonable for people to ask questions? This isn’t about claiming what happened. It’s about acknowledging what doesn’t clearly make sense yet.

With the recent defamation lawsuit filed by members of the McCabe/Albert group, there’s now a lot of focus on what people have said publicly. But to understand why people have been asking questions over the past 3 years… you have to go back to the testimony and the timeline itself. Colin says he was at Mike Leonetti’s house and admits he doesn’t remember how he got there but remembers he was drinking Bud Lights So right off the bat we have memory gaps about how his night even started. He testifies that Allie McCabe picked him up and brought him to Fairview between 10:30–11:00 PM From the actual texts when Colin wanted a ride home at 11:54 Colin texts Allie “U can get me now. If easier”, At 11:55 PM She responds and at 12:10 AM She texts “here” Now from Allie’s testimony, She says she had Avery and Danielle in the car, dropped them off, Then went to another friend’s house, Then came back to pick Colin up. All between 11:54 PM and 12:10 AM. Where exactly was she when she got the text? She says she doesn’t really remember What route did she take to Fairview? She doesn’t remember Where did she park? “I believe the driveway… not entirely sure” How long between “here” and Colin coming out? “A few minutes” Meanwhile, Colin’s Version of That Same Moment He Says after getting the “here” text, he came out in about 30 seconds to a minute,Says he exited through the side door near the garage, Says he saw uncle Brian Albert and Auntie Nicole Albert but Nicole Albert Says she came in the front door and bumped into Colin and that He told her he was leaving because his ride was coming. Meanwhile, Brian Albert Says he came in the side door and that Colin was the kitchen no more than 5 minutes and that he went to the bathroom and when he came out, Colin was gone Allie says She drove him straight home, No stops, About a 5-minute drive, BUT, She can’t recall the route Colin says His parents were already in bed, He went upstairs to say goodnight But We know his father didn’t leave the bar until 12:14 AM The only hard evidence presented for this timeline is A screenshot of text messages Everything else? Testimony, Memory, Recollection When you have a witness who doesn’t remember how the night started, a tight timeline with multiple stops compressed into minutes, conflicting recollections about movements and timing, and limited physical evidence to anchor it all, is it unreasonable for people to ask questions? This isn’t about claiming what happened. It’s about acknowledging what doesn’t clearly make sense yet.

Dixie Normus

30,553 views • 2 months ago

🚨WOW!!!! A Vietnam vet gave up his dream car, a '69 Mustang Mach 1, to raise his 6 sons. He never let them see what it cost him. 50 years later, his youngest traded away his OWN Mustang to track down the exact car... and handed his dad the keys on Father's Day. His name is Daniel Allen and he came home from the Vietnam war and bought his dream car. It was a white 1969 Mustang Mach 1. Black hood, red stripes, four-speed. And then he gave it up. Because one baby became two. Then three. Then six sons. And a two-door muscle car can't raise a family. So Daniel traded away his dream, the way good fathers do. He never made his boys feel the cost of it. But his youngest son, Shane, was always listening. Every time his dad told the story of "the one that got away," it stuck. The two of them even made a tradition of it, going to Father's Day car shows together, hunting for Mustangs, reminiscing. So this year, Shane found it. A white '69 Mach 1, exactly like the one his father described for decades. He traded away his OWN restored Mustang GT to get it, then had it repainted and reupholstered to match his dad's memory down to the detail. And to get it, he traded away his OWN restored Mustang. On Father's Day, at their car show, Daniel walked past a Mach 1 and noticed a name tag hanging from the mirror that read "Daniel." He figured it was a coincidence. Half-joking, he said, "Where are my keys?" His son reached out and put the keys in his hand and told him to fire it up. This grown man. This veteran. He climbed out of that car, asked his son how on earth he'd pulled it off, and when Shane told him he'd traded his own custom Mustang to do it... ...Daniel broke down and wrapped his boy in his arms. Fifty years later, the dream he laid down for his kids... his kid handed right back to him. God bless the Allen family. That's what it's all about.

🚨WOW!!!! A Vietnam vet gave up his dream car, a '69 Mustang Mach 1, to raise his 6 sons. He never let them see what it cost him. 50 years later, his youngest traded away his OWN Mustang to track down the exact car... and handed his dad the keys on Father's Day. His name is Daniel Allen and he came home from the Vietnam war and bought his dream car. It was a white 1969 Mustang Mach 1. Black hood, red stripes, four-speed. And then he gave it up. Because one baby became two. Then three. Then six sons. And a two-door muscle car can't raise a family. So Daniel traded away his dream, the way good fathers do. He never made his boys feel the cost of it. But his youngest son, Shane, was always listening. Every time his dad told the story of "the one that got away," it stuck. The two of them even made a tradition of it, going to Father's Day car shows together, hunting for Mustangs, reminiscing. So this year, Shane found it. A white '69 Mach 1, exactly like the one his father described for decades. He traded away his OWN restored Mustang GT to get it, then had it repainted and reupholstered to match his dad's memory down to the detail. And to get it, he traded away his OWN restored Mustang. On Father's Day, at their car show, Daniel walked past a Mach 1 and noticed a name tag hanging from the mirror that read "Daniel." He figured it was a coincidence. Half-joking, he said, "Where are my keys?" His son reached out and put the keys in his hand and told him to fire it up. This grown man. This veteran. He climbed out of that car, asked his son how on earth he'd pulled it off, and when Shane told him he'd traded his own custom Mustang to do it... ...Daniel broke down and wrapped his boy in his arms. Fifty years later, the dream he laid down for his kids... his kid handed right back to him. God bless the Allen family. That's what it's all about.

Matt Van Swol

708,381 views • 13 days 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.

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

62,293 views • 5 months ago

ALEX NEWMAN: “THIS MAY BE THE BIGGEST SCANDAL IN HUMAN HISTORY” 🚨 Alex Newman just put it bluntly: He believes the Epstein files could become the biggest scandal in the history of humanity — not because evil wasn’t suspected… but because the evidence is now publicly examinable by anyone with a computer. And he warns: the people implicated won’t roll over. When powerful networks are cornered, they don’t surrender — they lash out. Expect diversions, narrative warfare, and increasingly dangerous tactics as the net tightens. Because this doesn’t stop at a few “bad apples”…Alex says it reaches to the highest levels of power — beyond presidents and prime ministers. Watch this clip. Then ask yourself: If this goes where the evidence leads… how many pillars of the old system collapse? Alex Newman

ALEX NEWMAN: “THIS MAY BE THE BIGGEST SCANDAL IN HUMAN HISTORY” 🚨 Alex Newman just put it bluntly: He believes the Epstein files could become the biggest scandal in the history of humanity — not because evil wasn’t suspected… but because the evidence is now publicly examinable by anyone with a computer. And he warns: the people implicated won’t roll over. When powerful networks are cornered, they don’t surrender — they lash out. Expect diversions, narrative warfare, and increasingly dangerous tactics as the net tightens. Because this doesn’t stop at a few “bad apples”…Alex says it reaches to the highest levels of power — beyond presidents and prime ministers. Watch this clip. Then ask yourself: If this goes where the evidence leads… how many pillars of the old system collapse? Alex Newman

Jim Ferguson

150,023 views • 4 months ago

Today, a group of Zimbabwean youths kickstarted the resistance campaign against President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s plan to remove term limits and allow him to stay in office until he dies. Mnangagwa, who is 86 years old, has three and a half more years left on his current second term, which he wants to extend to 2030 and beyond. At least half of his party, ZANUPF, is also opposed to the idea, which aims to prevent Mnangagwa’s deputy, General Constantino Chiwenga, from ascending to power if ZANUPF wins the 2028 elections—a likely outcome given the collapse of Zimbabwe’s opposition. Chiwenga helped Mnangagwa remove Robert Mugabe in a military coup in 2017 when he was the Commander of the Defence Forces. Mnangagwa has destroyed what little was left by Mugabe, with Zimbabwe now experiencing the highest inflation in the world and 95% unemployment coupled with astonishing state corruption. Mnangagwa’s legacy as president will be defined by how Zimbabwe became the most corrupt nation in Southern Africa under his watch, with a thoroughly incompetent government filled with his relatives, clansmen, and friends. The few companies left are shutting down and the government is broke! The youths were singing, “2030 taramba,” meaning, “We have rejected the 2030 project.” Zimbabwe’s constitution, which came into effect in 2013, limits a president to two five-year terms.

Today, a group of Zimbabwean youths kickstarted the resistance campaign against President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s plan to remove term limits and allow him to stay in office until he dies. Mnangagwa, who is 86 years old, has three and a half more years left on his current second term, which he wants to extend to 2030 and beyond. At least half of his party, ZANUPF, is also opposed to the idea, which aims to prevent Mnangagwa’s deputy, General Constantino Chiwenga, from ascending to power if ZANUPF wins the 2028 elections—a likely outcome given the collapse of Zimbabwe’s opposition. Chiwenga helped Mnangagwa remove Robert Mugabe in a military coup in 2017 when he was the Commander of the Defence Forces. Mnangagwa has destroyed what little was left by Mugabe, with Zimbabwe now experiencing the highest inflation in the world and 95% unemployment coupled with astonishing state corruption. Mnangagwa’s legacy as president will be defined by how Zimbabwe became the most corrupt nation in Southern Africa under his watch, with a thoroughly incompetent government filled with his relatives, clansmen, and friends. The few companies left are shutting down and the government is broke! The youths were singing, “2030 taramba,” meaning, “We have rejected the 2030 project.” Zimbabwe’s constitution, which came into effect in 2013, limits a president to two five-year terms.

Hopewell Chin’ono

177,776 views • 1 year ago

Former St. Cloud City Councilman Jeff Johnson exposes how Minnesota's decline has been ignored for years He says Minnesota is becoming so much like Somalia he actually created a Resolution to stop refugee resettlement. He was the sole supporter and it failed “It's becoming more like Somalia. Within maybe a year or so after I proposed that resolution and I was the only one standing in favor of it, I was facing hurricane force winds. A gentleman by the name of Dr. John Palmer who's a retired professor now did a study and he took data from the state demographer. He looked at education, looked at health care, looked at housing, and every one of those metrics it was in the red. And he found clearly that the data suggests that in terms of a better community, we're going down. We were not improving at all. There's a great book out there called the Stealth Invasion, and we're seeing this. It's becoming more brazen, where you have folks, for example, Dearborn, Michigan, where you have Islamic folks that take over the city council. And I'll tell you straight out, you know this, that the Constitution is not compatible with Sharia law or Islamic faith. It's just not. They're two different entities. It's like oil and water. We're seeing changes there. We're looking at Minneapolis, it's the same thing. Ran into a gentleman that he said that, you, go down here, there's so much empty space now, the violence is through the roof, the carjackings, people are leaving Minnesota. — We're going from bad to worse. Some of the tax increases, 20% and higher. The evidence is overwhelming. We're not improving our quality of life. Getting worse.”

Former St. Cloud City Councilman Jeff Johnson exposes how Minnesota's decline has been ignored for years He says Minnesota is becoming so much like Somalia he actually created a Resolution to stop refugee resettlement. He was the sole supporter and it failed “It's becoming more like Somalia. Within maybe a year or so after I proposed that resolution and I was the only one standing in favor of it, I was facing hurricane force winds. A gentleman by the name of Dr. John Palmer who's a retired professor now did a study and he took data from the state demographer. He looked at education, looked at health care, looked at housing, and every one of those metrics it was in the red. And he found clearly that the data suggests that in terms of a better community, we're going down. We were not improving at all. There's a great book out there called the Stealth Invasion, and we're seeing this. It's becoming more brazen, where you have folks, for example, Dearborn, Michigan, where you have Islamic folks that take over the city council. And I'll tell you straight out, you know this, that the Constitution is not compatible with Sharia law or Islamic faith. It's just not. They're two different entities. It's like oil and water. We're seeing changes there. We're looking at Minneapolis, it's the same thing. Ran into a gentleman that he said that, you, go down here, there's so much empty space now, the violence is through the roof, the carjackings, people are leaving Minnesota. — We're going from bad to worse. Some of the tax increases, 20% and higher. The evidence is overwhelming. We're not improving our quality of life. Getting worse.”

Wall Street Apes

70,042 views • 6 months ago

🚨 HOLLYWOOD EXEC ADMITS QUAALUDES WERE THE “GREATEST DRUG EVER INVENTED” — CALLS THEM “THE DRUG OF LIFE” In a new interview, longtime Hollywood power broker Barry Diller reflected on the late-1970s Studio 54 era and openly talked about the culture surrounding it. He says Quaaludes were his drug of choice, describing them as something that made people feel “completely well and safe,” insisting they had no addictive nature and calling them “the drug of life.” Diller then described what life looked like at the time while he was running Paramount. He says he would work all day, meet friends around midnight, head to Studio 54 around 1:30 AM, stay out until 4 or 5 in the morning, and then show up back at work again by 8. According to him, this wasn’t rare, it was happening three or four nights a week during those years. Looking back now, Diller says the thing that shocks him most isn’t the partying. It’s the fact they survived it. “The fact that I’m alive is the miracle.” If executives in the 70s were running companies on Quaaludes… what are executives running companies on today?

Sensitive content

🚨 HOLLYWOOD EXEC ADMITS QUAALUDES WERE THE “GREATEST DRUG EVER INVENTED” — CALLS THEM “THE DRUG OF LIFE” In a new interview, longtime Hollywood power broker Barry Diller reflected on the late-1970s Studio 54 era and openly talked about the culture surrounding it. He says Quaaludes were his drug of choice, describing them as something that made people feel “completely well and safe,” insisting they had no addictive nature and calling them “the drug of life.” Diller then described what life looked like at the time while he was running Paramount. He says he would work all day, meet friends around midnight, head to Studio 54 around 1:30 AM, stay out until 4 or 5 in the morning, and then show up back at work again by 8. According to him, this wasn’t rare, it was happening three or four nights a week during those years. Looking back now, Diller says the thing that shocks him most isn’t the partying. It’s the fact they survived it. “The fact that I’m alive is the miracle.” If executives in the 70s were running companies on Quaaludes… what are executives running companies on today?

HustleBitch

217,879 views • 4 months ago

🚨 A young immigrant from Ecuador/Venezuela/Colombia just dropped the coldest warning Canada has heard yet. “Everything you are seeing now here in Canada is what happened in Venezuela twenty years ago… step by step. It’s a script from communism. Simple as that.” He looks straight into the camera and says: “We come from the future basically… this is messed up 100%.” Then drops the brutal timeline graphic right beside him — the full collapse from richest country in the hemisphere to food shortages, suspended elections, jailed opposition, and unarmed citizens massacred by their own government. And right in the middle? Red arrow: “Canada, you are here.” One generation of “progressive” leadership was all it took to destroy Venezuela. We’re watching the exact same playbook in real time. #cdnpoli #VenezuelaWarning #CanadaWakeUp #ManagedDecline #CarneyCarney #LiberalBetrayal #OneGeneration

🚨 A young immigrant from Ecuador/Venezuela/Colombia just dropped the coldest warning Canada has heard yet. “Everything you are seeing now here in Canada is what happened in Venezuela twenty years ago… step by step. It’s a script from communism. Simple as that.” He looks straight into the camera and says: “We come from the future basically… this is messed up 100%.” Then drops the brutal timeline graphic right beside him — the full collapse from richest country in the hemisphere to food shortages, suspended elections, jailed opposition, and unarmed citizens massacred by their own government. And right in the middle? Red arrow: “Canada, you are here.” One generation of “progressive” leadership was all it took to destroy Venezuela. We’re watching the exact same playbook in real time. #cdnpoli #VenezuelaWarning #CanadaWakeUp #ManagedDecline #CarneyCarney #LiberalBetrayal #OneGeneration

JayGen 𝕏 er🇨🇦

97,670 views • 2 months ago

Slavery existed for over 5,000 years. Every major civilisation accepted it. For most of history, nobody seriously tried to stop it at scale. Then Britain did something different. It didn’t just pass a law. 👇 In 1807, Britain abolished the slave trade. Then it enforced it. For 60 years, the Royal Navy hunted slave ships. 1,600 ships captured. Around 150,000 people freed. And it cost lives. Around 2,000 British sailors died doing it. Then in 1833: Britain abolished slavery across its empire. 800,000 people set free. It paid £20 million to do it. Around 40 percent of government spending. This wasn’t quick. This wasn’t easy. And it didn’t start with politicians. It started with ordinary people. Women boycotted sugar. Hundreds of thousands of them. Thomas Clarkson rode 35,000 miles to gather evidence. A movement that took decades. This is part of British history. Not perfect. But not what most people are told either. Almost no one explains it like this. Proud Of Us is funded entirely by our community. No sponsors. No advertisers. If you believe this history deserves to be told properly:👇 Be part of us. 👉 🙏 Be proud of us 🇬🇧

Slavery existed for over 5,000 years. Every major civilisation accepted it. For most of history, nobody seriously tried to stop it at scale. Then Britain did something different. It didn’t just pass a law. 👇 In 1807, Britain abolished the slave trade. Then it enforced it. For 60 years, the Royal Navy hunted slave ships. 1,600 ships captured. Around 150,000 people freed. And it cost lives. Around 2,000 British sailors died doing it. Then in 1833: Britain abolished slavery across its empire. 800,000 people set free. It paid £20 million to do it. Around 40 percent of government spending. This wasn’t quick. This wasn’t easy. And it didn’t start with politicians. It started with ordinary people. Women boycotted sugar. Hundreds of thousands of them. Thomas Clarkson rode 35,000 miles to gather evidence. A movement that took decades. This is part of British history. Not perfect. But not what most people are told either. Almost no one explains it like this. Proud Of Us is funded entirely by our community. No sponsors. No advertisers. If you believe this history deserves to be told properly:👇 Be part of us. 👉 🙏 Be proud of us 🇬🇧

Proudofus.uk

353,896 views • 3 months ago