Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

When I get flak from the left it's *almost always* preceded with "he says his channel is a civil rights channel but..." which simply shows they don't understand civil rights. The 2nd Amendment is a lot of things: a natural right, a Constitutionally protected right, a God given right,...

Mrgunsngear's profile picture

Mrgunsngear

373,294 subscribers

31,017 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce •via X (Twitter)

Haberler & PolitikaEğitim
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

DOJ Assistant AG for Civil Rights, Harmeet Dhillon, is suing the city of Denver, Colorado over its "assault weapons" ban law. While I'm glad to see this type of lawsuit as the Denver "law" is prima facie unconstitutional, I'd much rather see those responsible for these types of laws be criminally charged and perp walked in chains as these "laws" aren't just unconstitutional, instituting them is a criminal offense. To that point, Denver's Mayor Johnson stated, "Denver will not be bullied by any administration, especially one that has shown so little regard for public safety or the rule of law." As you can see by that quote, he doesn't care about a civil lawsuit as it will be paid for with forcibly stolen taxpayer dollars and won't impact his life at all. He probably wouldn't be so smug if he was rightfully and justly looking at a prison sentence. TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242: "Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death." #CityLife #denver #CivilRights #crime #democrats #milehighcity #policestate #urban
2:13

DOJ Assistant AG for Civil Rights, Harmeet Dhillon, is suing the city of Denver, Colorado over its "assault weapons" ban law. While I'm glad to see this type of lawsuit as the Denver "law" is prima facie unconstitutional, I'd much rather see those responsible for these types of laws be criminally charged and perp walked in chains as these "laws" aren't just unconstitutional, instituting them is a criminal offense. To that point, Denver's Mayor Johnson stated, "Denver will not be bullied by any administration, especially one that has shown so little regard for public safety or the rule of law." As you can see by that quote, he doesn't care about a civil lawsuit as it will be paid for with forcibly stolen taxpayer dollars and won't impact his life at all. He probably wouldn't be so smug if he was rightfully and justly looking at a prison sentence. TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242: "Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death." #CityLife #denver #CivilRights #crime #democrats #milehighcity #policestate #urban

Mrgunsngear

12,049 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

EXCLUSIVE: Veteran DOJ Official Explains 18 USC 242(Deprivation Of Civil Rights Under Color of Law) As A Potential Key Statute In The Grand Conspiracy Case “It takes willful, intentional conduct by someone that’s designed to take away constitutionally protected rights of another person… You could couch that in terms of President Trump’s to kind of run unimposed or not face scurrilous impeachments, or you could view it as the voters as a victim of the conduct… Maybe it’s the right to a fair election.” LA Times Media Group LA Times Studios
0:58

EXCLUSIVE: Veteran DOJ Official Explains 18 USC 242(Deprivation Of Civil Rights Under Color of Law) As A Potential Key Statute In The Grand Conspiracy Case “It takes willful, intentional conduct by someone that’s designed to take away constitutionally protected rights of another person… You could couch that in terms of President Trump’s to kind of run unimposed or not face scurrilous impeachments, or you could view it as the voters as a victim of the conduct… Maybe it’s the right to a fair election.” LA Times Media Group LA Times Studios

Catherine Herridge

48,728 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

The right to demonstrate is constitutionally guaranteed in Zimbabwe under Sections 59 of the Constitution. It is not a privilege granted by any individual or political actor, including President Chamisa. Every Zimbabwean citizen has the lawful right to engage in peaceful demonstrations and to express their grievances, provided such actions remain within the bounds of the law.
1:00

The right to demonstrate is constitutionally guaranteed in Zimbabwe under Sections 59 of the Constitution. It is not a privilege granted by any individual or political actor, including President Chamisa. Every Zimbabwean citizen has the lawful right to engage in peaceful demonstrations and to express their grievances, provided such actions remain within the bounds of the law.

Presidential Spokesperson

11,673 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

He’s filming everyone at the market, but the police say there’s nothing they can do. Whose side are you on? A male videographer (the "auditor"), who is wearing a disguise for anonymity, is filming at an outdoor market. He is confronted by a market organizer (Kaylee Dolan) regarding his filming of vendors and attendees. A law enforcement officer arrives to mediate the dispute. ​The organizer expresses concern that the videographer is making vendors and patrons uncomfortable and asks him to stop or leave. The videographer asserts his right to film in a public area, refusing to comply with her request. ​The responding officer confirms that the videographer is in a public space where he has a legal right to record. The officer acknowledges the organizer's frustration but explains that, as no crime is being committed, he cannot compel the man to stop filming or force him to leave. ​The tension arises from the intersection of constitutional rights and personal expectations of privacy. ​Under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, individuals generally have a protected right to film in public spaces (such as sidewalks, public parks, and plazas). This includes the right to film government officials and police officers performing their duties, as well as things that are plainly visible from those public areas. ​In general, there is no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in a public space. If something can be seen by the naked eye from a location where a person is legally permitted to be, it is typically legal to photograph or record it. ​While filming is a protected activity, it is not absolute. If filming crosses the line into harassment, stalking, or disorderly conduct—or if it is done to "clandestinely" capture private or intimate areas, it can become illegal. In this specific interaction, the officer determined that the videographer’s actions did not meet the legal threshold for a crime, which is why he could not intervene. ​If the market were held on private property rather than public land, the owners or organizers would have the right to set rules regarding photography or to ask people to leave. If someone refuses to leave private property after being asked, they can be cited for trespassing. The officer's inability to remove the videographer suggests that the location was either public property or that the organizer lacked the legal authority to exclude him from that specific area.
6:03

He’s filming everyone at the market, but the police say there’s nothing they can do. Whose side are you on? A male videographer (the "auditor"), who is wearing a disguise for anonymity, is filming at an outdoor market. He is confronted by a market organizer (Kaylee Dolan) regarding his filming of vendors and attendees. A law enforcement officer arrives to mediate the dispute. ​The organizer expresses concern that the videographer is making vendors and patrons uncomfortable and asks him to stop or leave. The videographer asserts his right to film in a public area, refusing to comply with her request. ​The responding officer confirms that the videographer is in a public space where he has a legal right to record. The officer acknowledges the organizer's frustration but explains that, as no crime is being committed, he cannot compel the man to stop filming or force him to leave. ​The tension arises from the intersection of constitutional rights and personal expectations of privacy. ​Under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, individuals generally have a protected right to film in public spaces (such as sidewalks, public parks, and plazas). This includes the right to film government officials and police officers performing their duties, as well as things that are plainly visible from those public areas. ​In general, there is no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in a public space. If something can be seen by the naked eye from a location where a person is legally permitted to be, it is typically legal to photograph or record it. ​While filming is a protected activity, it is not absolute. If filming crosses the line into harassment, stalking, or disorderly conduct—or if it is done to "clandestinely" capture private or intimate areas, it can become illegal. In this specific interaction, the officer determined that the videographer’s actions did not meet the legal threshold for a crime, which is why he could not intervene. ​If the market were held on private property rather than public land, the owners or organizers would have the right to set rules regarding photography or to ask people to leave. If someone refuses to leave private property after being asked, they can be cited for trespassing. The officer's inability to remove the videographer suggests that the location was either public property or that the organizer lacked the legal authority to exclude him from that specific area.

✨️Serenitee♡Sam✨️

42,923 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

NOTICE TO ALL SERVING MEMBERS OF AN GARDA SÍOCHÁNA AND THE IRISH DEFENCE FORCES Take notice that your oath of service binds you not to any political office, minister, or temporary government, but to the State and to Bunreacht na hÉireann, which is the supreme law of Ireland. Under the Constitution, sovereignty resides in the People. All powers of government are derived from the People and are held in trust. As a member of An Garda Síochána, you are bound to act with fairness, integrity, and respect for human rights, upholding the Constitution and the law. As a member of the Irish Defence Forces, you are bound to obey only lawful commands. Any order that conflicts with constitutional protections, fundamental rights, or the lawful authority of the People falls outside the scope of that oath. You are hereby reminded that allegiance to the Constitution takes precedence over all political direction. Failure to uphold this duty is a failure of oath. The people of Ireland are not the enemy. They are the source of all lawful authority. Stand accordingly.
0:35

NOTICE TO ALL SERVING MEMBERS OF AN GARDA SÍOCHÁNA AND THE IRISH DEFENCE FORCES Take notice that your oath of service binds you not to any political office, minister, or temporary government, but to the State and to Bunreacht na hÉireann, which is the supreme law of Ireland. Under the Constitution, sovereignty resides in the People. All powers of government are derived from the People and are held in trust. As a member of An Garda Síochána, you are bound to act with fairness, integrity, and respect for human rights, upholding the Constitution and the law. As a member of the Irish Defence Forces, you are bound to obey only lawful commands. Any order that conflicts with constitutional protections, fundamental rights, or the lawful authority of the People falls outside the scope of that oath. You are hereby reminded that allegiance to the Constitution takes precedence over all political direction. Failure to uphold this duty is a failure of oath. The people of Ireland are not the enemy. They are the source of all lawful authority. Stand accordingly.

Louise McKenna

66,233 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

The Singaporean has been arrested after he being defrauded? Why is the NDC Regional Chairman Ashie Moore still free? I know this turn of event follows For The Records exposé on this issue Let’s revisit what the law says from the Political Party Act 2000 (Act 574) PART III-FUNDING OF POLITICAL PARTIES Section 23: Contribution by Citizens. Only a citizen may contribute in cash or in kind to the funds of a political party. A firm, partnership, or enterprise owned by a citizen or a company registered under the laws of the Republic at least seventy-five percent of whose capital is owned by a citizen is for the purposes of this Act a citizen. Section 24: No Contribution by Non-Citizens. A non-citizen shall not directly or indirectly make a contribution or donation or loan whether in cash or in kind to the funds held by or for the benefit of a political party and no political party or person acting for or on behalf of a political party shall demand or accept a contribution donation or loan from a non-citizen. Section 25: Contraventions of this Part. Where any person contravenes section 23 or 24, in addition to any penalty that may be imposed under this Act, any amount whether in cash or in kind paid in contravention of the section shall be forfeited to the State and the amount shall be recovered from the political party as debt owed to the State. The political party or person in whose custody the amount is for the time being held shall pay it to the State. A non-citizen found guilty of contravention of section 24 shall be deemed to be a prohibited immigrant and liable to deportation under the Aliens Act, 1963 (Act 160). The provisions of sections 23 and 24 do not preclude a goverment of any country or a nongovernmental organization from providing assistance in cash or in kind to the Commission for use by the Commission for the collective benefit of registered political parties. The law is clear on this and we expect the NDC Chairman to refund the money sponsored by Toh You Kang into their campaign to the state. Total Abuse of Power! Scam Aban!
0:31

The Singaporean has been arrested after he being defrauded? Why is the NDC Regional Chairman Ashie Moore still free? I know this turn of event follows For The Records exposé on this issue Let’s revisit what the law says from the Political Party Act 2000 (Act 574) PART III-FUNDING OF POLITICAL PARTIES Section 23: Contribution by Citizens. Only a citizen may contribute in cash or in kind to the funds of a political party. A firm, partnership, or enterprise owned by a citizen or a company registered under the laws of the Republic at least seventy-five percent of whose capital is owned by a citizen is for the purposes of this Act a citizen. Section 24: No Contribution by Non-Citizens. A non-citizen shall not directly or indirectly make a contribution or donation or loan whether in cash or in kind to the funds held by or for the benefit of a political party and no political party or person acting for or on behalf of a political party shall demand or accept a contribution donation or loan from a non-citizen. Section 25: Contraventions of this Part. Where any person contravenes section 23 or 24, in addition to any penalty that may be imposed under this Act, any amount whether in cash or in kind paid in contravention of the section shall be forfeited to the State and the amount shall be recovered from the political party as debt owed to the State. The political party or person in whose custody the amount is for the time being held shall pay it to the State. A non-citizen found guilty of contravention of section 24 shall be deemed to be a prohibited immigrant and liable to deportation under the Aliens Act, 1963 (Act 160). The provisions of sections 23 and 24 do not preclude a goverment of any country or a nongovernmental organization from providing assistance in cash or in kind to the Commission for use by the Commission for the collective benefit of registered political parties. The law is clear on this and we expect the NDC Chairman to refund the money sponsored by Toh You Kang into their campaign to the state. Total Abuse of Power! Scam Aban!

For The Records

58,832 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

NOTICE TO ALL SERVING MEMBERS OF AN GARDA SÍOCHÁNA AND THE IRISH DEFENCE FORCES Take notice that your oath of service binds you not to any political office, minister, or temporary government, but to the State and to Bunreacht na hÉireann, which is the supreme law of Ireland. Under the Constitution, sovereignty resides in the People. All powers of government are derived from the People and are held in trust. As a member of An Garda Síochána, you are bound to act with fairness, integrity, and respect for human rights, upholding the Constitution and the law. As a member of the Irish Defence Forces, you are bound to obey only lawful commands. Any order that conflicts with constitutional protections, fundamental rights, or the lawful authority of the People falls outside the scope of that oath. You are hereby reminded that allegiance to the Constitution takes precedence over all political direction. Failure to uphold this duty is a failure of oath. The people of Ireland are not the enemy. They are the source of all lawful authority. Stand accordingly.
0:23

NOTICE TO ALL SERVING MEMBERS OF AN GARDA SÍOCHÁNA AND THE IRISH DEFENCE FORCES Take notice that your oath of service binds you not to any political office, minister, or temporary government, but to the State and to Bunreacht na hÉireann, which is the supreme law of Ireland. Under the Constitution, sovereignty resides in the People. All powers of government are derived from the People and are held in trust. As a member of An Garda Síochána, you are bound to act with fairness, integrity, and respect for human rights, upholding the Constitution and the law. As a member of the Irish Defence Forces, you are bound to obey only lawful commands. Any order that conflicts with constitutional protections, fundamental rights, or the lawful authority of the People falls outside the scope of that oath. You are hereby reminded that allegiance to the Constitution takes precedence over all political direction. Failure to uphold this duty is a failure of oath. The people of Ireland are not the enemy. They are the source of all lawful authority. Stand accordingly.

Louise McKenna

26,997 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

THE CONDUCT OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE AGAINST HONOURABLE TUNDU A. LISSU IS THE LAW BEING DISREGARDED? The Tanganyika Law Society (TLS) raises its voice regarding the troubling conduct in the criminal case against Honourable Tundu Antipas Lissu — a lawyer, former Member of Parliament, and one of the nation’s prominent advocates for human rights, good governance, and constitutionalism. Since his arrest, there has been a disturbing pattern undermining the principles of justice, violating legal procedures, and casting a heavy shadow over our criminal justice system. This is evident in the following: His arrest was conducted without adherence to lawful procedures, signaling an abuse of power; The charges appear to be politically motivated, raising serious concerns about the use of judicial processes as tools for political ends; Denial of even the basic right to greet and meet with fellow citizens before the official hearing of the case; Repeated adjournments of the case on legally unsubstantial grounds, indicating a deviation from legal focus; Interference with or denial of the accused’s right to private consultations with his lawyers, which violates the right to equal legal representation; Indications of breaches of the attorney-client privilege, which is protected under the Constitution and legal framework, and is a cornerstone of the right to an effective legal defense. The right of a client to consult privately with their lawyer is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania, the Evidence Act, and the Code of Ethics for Advocates. To restrict or interfere with this right is to undermine the foundation of the justice process and impair the accused’s ability to defend themselves adequately before the court. TLS emphasizes the following: The law must not be used as a weapon against justice; State authorities must not place themselves above the Constitution or the laws enacted by Parliament; The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) must reflect deeply on the significant constitutional powers he holds in criminal justice and whether there is sufficient accountability to protect citizens' rights and ensure adherence to the law at all times; The right to legal assistance is not a privilege — it is a right of every citizen. Any criminal case, especially those involving individuals with political or social stature, must be conducted with transparency, fairness, and with respect for human dignity. The Tanganyika Law Society (TLS) continues to closely monitor the progress of this case. We reiterate that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. We call upon the Judiciary and all state organs to uphold and protect the rights of the accused in accordance with the law and the Constitution. Furthermore, we urge all lawyers in the country, the media, and human rights stakeholders to continue championing the protection of justice, freedom of expression, and the rule of law — without fear or favour. BAK MWABUKUSI President, Tanganyika Law Society (TLS)
1:29

THE CONDUCT OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE AGAINST HONOURABLE TUNDU A. LISSU IS THE LAW BEING DISREGARDED? The Tanganyika Law Society (TLS) raises its voice regarding the troubling conduct in the criminal case against Honourable Tundu Antipas Lissu — a lawyer, former Member of Parliament, and one of the nation’s prominent advocates for human rights, good governance, and constitutionalism. Since his arrest, there has been a disturbing pattern undermining the principles of justice, violating legal procedures, and casting a heavy shadow over our criminal justice system. This is evident in the following: His arrest was conducted without adherence to lawful procedures, signaling an abuse of power; The charges appear to be politically motivated, raising serious concerns about the use of judicial processes as tools for political ends; Denial of even the basic right to greet and meet with fellow citizens before the official hearing of the case; Repeated adjournments of the case on legally unsubstantial grounds, indicating a deviation from legal focus; Interference with or denial of the accused’s right to private consultations with his lawyers, which violates the right to equal legal representation; Indications of breaches of the attorney-client privilege, which is protected under the Constitution and legal framework, and is a cornerstone of the right to an effective legal defense. The right of a client to consult privately with their lawyer is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania, the Evidence Act, and the Code of Ethics for Advocates. To restrict or interfere with this right is to undermine the foundation of the justice process and impair the accused’s ability to defend themselves adequately before the court. TLS emphasizes the following: The law must not be used as a weapon against justice; State authorities must not place themselves above the Constitution or the laws enacted by Parliament; The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) must reflect deeply on the significant constitutional powers he holds in criminal justice and whether there is sufficient accountability to protect citizens' rights and ensure adherence to the law at all times; The right to legal assistance is not a privilege — it is a right of every citizen. Any criminal case, especially those involving individuals with political or social stature, must be conducted with transparency, fairness, and with respect for human dignity. The Tanganyika Law Society (TLS) continues to closely monitor the progress of this case. We reiterate that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. We call upon the Judiciary and all state organs to uphold and protect the rights of the accused in accordance with the law and the Constitution. Furthermore, we urge all lawyers in the country, the media, and human rights stakeholders to continue championing the protection of justice, freedom of expression, and the rule of law — without fear or favour. BAK MWABUKUSI President, Tanganyika Law Society (TLS)

Boniface Mwabukusi

15,212 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

"Today, we can see the futility of the political route and the bankruptcy of the political system writ large." "Scotland is annexed, a dominion under the English crown. And it is the English crown, not the fictional UK crown, that we're all told about. "Not a partner, not of any kind. In fact, the whole partnership story is a concoction fashioned to convince the world that Scots are part of a joint state and to disguise the fact that Scotland is, in reality, nothing other than a colony. "It's not a partner in a marriage, but a kidnap victim. And you do not escape from a kidnapper by filing for divorce from a fictional marriage. "Second, even if it were possible to break free through a referendum or an election, or to propose any other route that would be approved as lawful by the kidnapping state, the political system in Scotland would not guarantee any of the things that sing in our bones as Scots. We dream of justice, compassion, equality, prosperity and care for all without preference or privilege. "But what we have is an english system of concentrated power and privilege, which those Scots who enjoy it will not give up easily. Where the government sits in authority over the people, and the people surrender their hopes, their ambitions and their human and civil rights to the whims of their elected representatives. Where all that we hold dear, all that we depend on for decency, fairness and security, depends on the honor, honesty and good faith of those elected. "Because once it is elected, we have no means of curbing, challenging or preventing anything a government may choose to do, whether or not that's lawful, just, rational or humane. "Today, we can see the futility of the political route and the bankruptcy of the political system writ large. Our helplessness in the face of the state marching side by side with destitution and despair. "This is why liberation was born. Because the route to the Scotland we dream of neither can nor will come through the present political system, but through the restoration of the political, territorial and judicial rights, the constitutional provisions that belong to the people of this nation, in law and in justice, even under the terms of this fraudulent union, and certainly under international law. "They mean that we, the people, are sovereign, in fact, not in sound bite, the ultimate authority of this nation of Scotland. "They mean that the interests of the people, collectively known as the common good, are not only the primary purpose of government, but the only condition on which it's permitted to exist. "They mean that we are entitled to overrule, remove or replace a government that violates that condition of its existence, that fails to honour its promises, to consult the people or to act according to their wishes and welfare. "And in the modern world, that means the right to all the mechanisms that we see in a nation like Switzerland, which will make that sovereign power a reality. "All this is part of what we call decolonization, true Scottish self determination. And it is the soul and purpose of liberation Scotland. "Impossible? Other nations have trodden the path to decolonisation. Not one has bowed to the kidnapper and asked for permission. "We know now that we can gain our independence as a state by first gaining independence from a colonizing power. So that instead of waiting to reclaim real sovereignty of the people after independence, we gain our independence by first reclaiming our sovereign Scottish rights. "The next step on this road is establishing the committee of the Scottish Liberation Movement. This committee will be elected from the membership of Liberation and will operate under a ratified constitution. "And it will register Scotland's Liberation Movement with the United Nations." Sara Salyers @TheScotCongress Iain.lawson27 Salvo.Scot Colette Walker
4:19

"Today, we can see the futility of the political route and the bankruptcy of the political system writ large." "Scotland is annexed, a dominion under the English crown. And it is the English crown, not the fictional UK crown, that we're all told about. "Not a partner, not of any kind. In fact, the whole partnership story is a concoction fashioned to convince the world that Scots are part of a joint state and to disguise the fact that Scotland is, in reality, nothing other than a colony. "It's not a partner in a marriage, but a kidnap victim. And you do not escape from a kidnapper by filing for divorce from a fictional marriage. "Second, even if it were possible to break free through a referendum or an election, or to propose any other route that would be approved as lawful by the kidnapping state, the political system in Scotland would not guarantee any of the things that sing in our bones as Scots. We dream of justice, compassion, equality, prosperity and care for all without preference or privilege. "But what we have is an english system of concentrated power and privilege, which those Scots who enjoy it will not give up easily. Where the government sits in authority over the people, and the people surrender their hopes, their ambitions and their human and civil rights to the whims of their elected representatives. Where all that we hold dear, all that we depend on for decency, fairness and security, depends on the honor, honesty and good faith of those elected. "Because once it is elected, we have no means of curbing, challenging or preventing anything a government may choose to do, whether or not that's lawful, just, rational or humane. "Today, we can see the futility of the political route and the bankruptcy of the political system writ large. Our helplessness in the face of the state marching side by side with destitution and despair. "This is why liberation was born. Because the route to the Scotland we dream of neither can nor will come through the present political system, but through the restoration of the political, territorial and judicial rights, the constitutional provisions that belong to the people of this nation, in law and in justice, even under the terms of this fraudulent union, and certainly under international law. "They mean that we, the people, are sovereign, in fact, not in sound bite, the ultimate authority of this nation of Scotland. "They mean that the interests of the people, collectively known as the common good, are not only the primary purpose of government, but the only condition on which it's permitted to exist. "They mean that we are entitled to overrule, remove or replace a government that violates that condition of its existence, that fails to honour its promises, to consult the people or to act according to their wishes and welfare. "And in the modern world, that means the right to all the mechanisms that we see in a nation like Switzerland, which will make that sovereign power a reality. "All this is part of what we call decolonization, true Scottish self determination. And it is the soul and purpose of liberation Scotland. "Impossible? Other nations have trodden the path to decolonisation. Not one has bowed to the kidnapper and asked for permission. "We know now that we can gain our independence as a state by first gaining independence from a colonizing power. So that instead of waiting to reclaim real sovereignty of the people after independence, we gain our independence by first reclaiming our sovereign Scottish rights. "The next step on this road is establishing the committee of the Scottish Liberation Movement. This committee will be elected from the membership of Liberation and will operate under a ratified constitution. "And it will register Scotland's Liberation Movement with the United Nations." Sara Salyers @TheScotCongress Iain.lawson27 Salvo.Scot Colette Walker

ScotNews

20,333 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

Asmongold proposes a "New Civil Rights Act" to strip voting rights from almost everyone "If it was up to me, this would be called the New Civil Rights Act. And it would be taking away the right to vote from almost everybody." "It is a violation of my civil rights that a person who thinks the earth is flat can vote. My civil rights are being violated because they're able to vote." "If I can't vote, what's the argument for paying taxes? Simple. Because if you don't, we put you in jail. And you can earn the right to vote, but you don't spawn in with it." "Dummies don't deserve to be represented. They only deserve to be taken care of and corralled into the places that make their lives as easy as possible."
1:37

Asmongold proposes a "New Civil Rights Act" to strip voting rights from almost everyone "If it was up to me, this would be called the New Civil Rights Act. And it would be taking away the right to vote from almost everybody." "It is a violation of my civil rights that a person who thinks the earth is flat can vote. My civil rights are being violated because they're able to vote." "If I can't vote, what's the argument for paying taxes? Simple. Because if you don't, we put you in jail. And you can earn the right to vote, but you don't spawn in with it." "Dummies don't deserve to be represented. They only deserve to be taken care of and corralled into the places that make their lives as easy as possible."

Asmongold Updates

16,385 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

As a firearms educator and a 2A absolutist, I believe the 2nd Amendment is both a human right and a civil right. The 2nd Amendment does not grant permission—it affirms a pre-existing, natural right of all people to keep and bear arms. The U.S. Supreme Court made this clear in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and reaffirmed in McDonald v. Chicago (2010): the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, fundamental to our system of ordered liberty, and incorporated against the states. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), the Court further held that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to carry firearms in public for lawful purposes, especially self-defense. But lawful purpose is the key distinction. I teach my students a foundational principle: the mind is the weapon; the gun is the tool. Firearms are carried to defend and protect life, not to impose our will on others—but to ensure that others cannot force their will upon us. We are peaceful, not harmless. We are at a dangerous point in our society where radical leftists are openly taking up arms and encouraging others to do the same, not for self-defense, but to seek out violence against their fellow countrymen. That conduct is not protected by the 2nd Amendment, because the Constitution does not protect violent intent, criminal conspiracy, or political terror. The Supreme Court has been clear across constitutional law that rights do not extend to violent misuse. The 2nd Amendment protects keeping and bearing arms for lawful purposes—it does not protect threats, incitement, or plans to harm others. Just as the First Amendment does not protect true threats or incitement to violence, the Second Amendment does not shield those who seek to abuse it. As a firearms instructor, I am not the government. I am not issuing permits; I am certifying training and competency. Instructors have long-recognized professional discretion and duty of care—especially when credible threats or statements of violent intent are expressed. Is refusing to certify someone who demonstrates dangerous intent gun control, disarmament, and a constitutional violation? Or, is it a private professional judgment, grounded in safety, ethics, and responsibility? When credible threats of violence are made, is alerting law enforcement a betrayal of liberty? The Supreme Court has never held that the 2nd Amendment creates a right to anonymity in violent plotting or shields criminal intent from lawful investigation. So here’s the question I’m wrestling with—and I want your thoughts: As a firearms instructor, should I be able—or obligated—to deny concealed carry certification to individuals who express violent or extremist intent? Should instructors alert law enforcement when credible threats are made? Am I violating my principles by refusing to arm those who seek chaos—or am I upholding the true purpose of the 2nd Amendment? Let me know in the comments.
2:43

As a firearms educator and a 2A absolutist, I believe the 2nd Amendment is both a human right and a civil right. The 2nd Amendment does not grant permission—it affirms a pre-existing, natural right of all people to keep and bear arms. The U.S. Supreme Court made this clear in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and reaffirmed in McDonald v. Chicago (2010): the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, fundamental to our system of ordered liberty, and incorporated against the states. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), the Court further held that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to carry firearms in public for lawful purposes, especially self-defense. But lawful purpose is the key distinction. I teach my students a foundational principle: the mind is the weapon; the gun is the tool. Firearms are carried to defend and protect life, not to impose our will on others—but to ensure that others cannot force their will upon us. We are peaceful, not harmless. We are at a dangerous point in our society where radical leftists are openly taking up arms and encouraging others to do the same, not for self-defense, but to seek out violence against their fellow countrymen. That conduct is not protected by the 2nd Amendment, because the Constitution does not protect violent intent, criminal conspiracy, or political terror. The Supreme Court has been clear across constitutional law that rights do not extend to violent misuse. The 2nd Amendment protects keeping and bearing arms for lawful purposes—it does not protect threats, incitement, or plans to harm others. Just as the First Amendment does not protect true threats or incitement to violence, the Second Amendment does not shield those who seek to abuse it. As a firearms instructor, I am not the government. I am not issuing permits; I am certifying training and competency. Instructors have long-recognized professional discretion and duty of care—especially when credible threats or statements of violent intent are expressed. Is refusing to certify someone who demonstrates dangerous intent gun control, disarmament, and a constitutional violation? Or, is it a private professional judgment, grounded in safety, ethics, and responsibility? When credible threats of violence are made, is alerting law enforcement a betrayal of liberty? The Supreme Court has never held that the 2nd Amendment creates a right to anonymity in violent plotting or shields criminal intent from lawful investigation. So here’s the question I’m wrestling with—and I want your thoughts: As a firearms instructor, should I be able—or obligated—to deny concealed carry certification to individuals who express violent or extremist intent? Should instructors alert law enforcement when credible threats are made? Am I violating my principles by refusing to arm those who seek chaos—or am I upholding the true purpose of the 2nd Amendment? Let me know in the comments.

Alicia Garcia

33,744 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce

Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa: I said: “Mazloum, if you are fighting for the rights of the Kurdish people, you don't need to shed a single drop of blood because the rights of the Kurdish people are guaranteed. They will be guaranteed by the constitution. I believe in all the rights of the Kurds in Syria, and this is not a favor from any head of state. They are given this as a right and a duty, guaranteed by the constitution, and I am pushing with all my might in this direction so that their rights are protected, because they are part of Syrian society.”
0:33

Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa: I said: “Mazloum, if you are fighting for the rights of the Kurdish people, you don't need to shed a single drop of blood because the rights of the Kurdish people are guaranteed. They will be guaranteed by the constitution. I believe in all the rights of the Kurds in Syria, and this is not a favor from any head of state. They are given this as a right and a duty, guaranteed by the constitution, and I am pushing with all my might in this direction so that their rights are protected, because they are part of Syrian society.”

Clash Report

242,637 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce

Look at this asshole Greg Abbott Governor Abbott Press Office trying to delay justice to a criminal U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent. Let me help you out with your so called "investigation" into determining whether GestapICE agent Christian Castro meets the legal definition of "fugitive," and meets the LEGAL requirements for extradition to Minnesota. In the U.S. Supreme Court case Biddinger v. Commissioner of Police of City of New York it states: "A person charged by indictment or by affidavit before a magistrate with the commission within a state of a crime covered by its laws, and who, after the date of the commission of such crime leaves the state—no matter for what purpose or with what motive, nor under what belief—becomes, from the time of such leaving, and within the meaning of the Constitution and the laws of the United States, a fugitive from justice, and if found in another state must be delivered up by the Governor of such state to the state whose laws are alleged to have been violated, on the production of such indictment or affidavit, certified as authentic by the Governor of the state from which the accused departed." This is pretty much cut and dry Greg Abbott — Christian Castro is indeed a fugitive. And it is YOUR legal obligation under the U.S. Constitution, under federal law, and by Supreme Court precedent to extradite Castro to Minnesota. Puerto Rico v. Branstad (1987) states: "We reaffirm the conclusion that the commands of the Extradition Clause are mandatory, and afford no discretion to the executive officers or courts of the asylum State." IT IS *MANDATORY* Governor Abbott Press Office 👇👇👇👇
0:44

Look at this asshole Greg Abbott Governor Abbott Press Office trying to delay justice to a criminal U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent. Let me help you out with your so called "investigation" into determining whether GestapICE agent Christian Castro meets the legal definition of "fugitive," and meets the LEGAL requirements for extradition to Minnesota. In the U.S. Supreme Court case Biddinger v. Commissioner of Police of City of New York it states: "A person charged by indictment or by affidavit before a magistrate with the commission within a state of a crime covered by its laws, and who, after the date of the commission of such crime leaves the state—no matter for what purpose or with what motive, nor under what belief—becomes, from the time of such leaving, and within the meaning of the Constitution and the laws of the United States, a fugitive from justice, and if found in another state must be delivered up by the Governor of such state to the state whose laws are alleged to have been violated, on the production of such indictment or affidavit, certified as authentic by the Governor of the state from which the accused departed." This is pretty much cut and dry Greg Abbott — Christian Castro is indeed a fugitive. And it is YOUR legal obligation under the U.S. Constitution, under federal law, and by Supreme Court precedent to extradite Castro to Minnesota. Puerto Rico v. Branstad (1987) states: "We reaffirm the conclusion that the commands of the Extradition Clause are mandatory, and afford no discretion to the executive officers or courts of the asylum State." IT IS *MANDATORY* Governor Abbott Press Office 👇👇👇👇

Gene Trevino

11,184 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

.Matt Gorman: "There's a very simple remedy to [the unrest in Minneapolis]. Let state and local law enforcement let ICE into the jails to get the worst of the worst out. This is happening because they aren't cooperating and we're seeing this in Virginia as well. One of the first things Abigail Spanberger did was revoke a Youngkin executive order so state and local are not compelled to enforced immigration law. The goal of Democrats is to make all this enforcement as messy and as complicated as possible so you get a lot of these scenes. And, look, for the last couple years Democrats have preached that we're a nation of laws, we're a nation of laws except when it comes to enforcing immigration laws or, in the Clintons, the need to comply with a subpoena. Then, the law is merely a suggestion. If you wanna comply with it, it's up to you." Marie Harf: "So, you're okay with these videos?"
0:43

.Matt Gorman: "There's a very simple remedy to [the unrest in Minneapolis]. Let state and local law enforcement let ICE into the jails to get the worst of the worst out. This is happening because they aren't cooperating and we're seeing this in Virginia as well. One of the first things Abigail Spanberger did was revoke a Youngkin executive order so state and local are not compelled to enforced immigration law. The goal of Democrats is to make all this enforcement as messy and as complicated as possible so you get a lot of these scenes. And, look, for the last couple years Democrats have preached that we're a nation of laws, we're a nation of laws except when it comes to enforcing immigration laws or, in the Clintons, the need to comply with a subpoena. Then, the law is merely a suggestion. If you wanna comply with it, it's up to you." Marie Harf: "So, you're okay with these videos?"

Curtis Houck

27,575 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce

AOC: President Trump—I want to be clear—not only threatened genocide, he is continuing to threaten genocide against the Iranian people. That is his main point of “leverage” in this situation. It is a war crime. It is abhorrent, and it is also illegal. Our presence right now is a crime. I personally believe it’s impeachable. But putting all of that aside, it’s a crime. No president is authorized by the Constitution of the United States to go to war without the authorization of Congress. Period. And acting on any of these threats would also be a crime.
0:55

AOC: President Trump—I want to be clear—not only threatened genocide, he is continuing to threaten genocide against the Iranian people. That is his main point of “leverage” in this situation. It is a war crime. It is abhorrent, and it is also illegal. Our presence right now is a crime. I personally believe it’s impeachable. But putting all of that aside, it’s a crime. No president is authorized by the Constitution of the United States to go to war without the authorization of Congress. Period. And acting on any of these threats would also be a crime.

Acyn

98,384 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

T.I. expressed his confusion to Deante Kyle about people serving prison time for possessing a firearm as a felon, He claims he learnt that federal laws are based off the guidelines of the Constitution, and the Second Amendment states that people have the right to bear arms and that those rights are inalienable👀🫩 “Now in my research and my studies i have found that federal laws are based off of the guidelines of the constitution, constitution second amendment says we have the right to bear arms, those rights or that right is inalienable, inalienable means it can’t be taken away or given away, so if the right to bear arms is an inalienable right, how are there so many people doing time because they had a firearm as a felon”
2:28

T.I. expressed his confusion to Deante Kyle about people serving prison time for possessing a firearm as a felon, He claims he learnt that federal laws are based off the guidelines of the Constitution, and the Second Amendment states that people have the right to bear arms and that those rights are inalienable👀🫩 “Now in my research and my studies i have found that federal laws are based off of the guidelines of the constitution, constitution second amendment says we have the right to bear arms, those rights or that right is inalienable, inalienable means it can’t be taken away or given away, so if the right to bear arms is an inalienable right, how are there so many people doing time because they had a firearm as a felon”

flame⛧

159,794 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

THE CONVERSATION BEGINS HERE: What does the law provide about demonstrations? 1. Article 37 of the Constitution provides that every person has the right to PEACEBLY and UNARMED to assemble, to demonstrate, to picket, and to present petitions to public authorities. 2. The right to assemble demonstrate, picket and present petitions to public authorities is hence exercisable under Article 37 of the Constitution under two conditional precedents which must be met: PEACEBLY and UNARMED. Have the maandamano we have witnessed being done PEACEBLY and by UNARMED persons? 3. Suffice it to note that the right to assemble, demonstrate and to picket is not an absolute right. 4. Article 24 of the Constitution provides that the right to assemble, demonstrate and to picket is one of the rights that can be limited vide legislation to ensure that the enjoyment of rights and fundamental freedoms by any individuals does not prejudice the rights and freedoms of others. Have the maandamano not taken away the right to property of Kenyans with the mass destruction not only of private property but public property? 5. Article 259(1)(b) of the Constitution provides that the Constitution shall be interpreted in a manner that advances the rule of law, and the human rights and fundamental freedoms in the Bill of rights. To what extent do the maandamano fall within the defined parameters of the Constitution in particular the Bill of Rights? Is looting, destruction of property, anarchy and hooliganism the definition of demonstrations? Certainly not. These are purely criminal acts that have no constitutional basis! The conversation should begin here.
2:23

THE CONVERSATION BEGINS HERE: What does the law provide about demonstrations? 1. Article 37 of the Constitution provides that every person has the right to PEACEBLY and UNARMED to assemble, to demonstrate, to picket, and to present petitions to public authorities. 2. The right to assemble demonstrate, picket and present petitions to public authorities is hence exercisable under Article 37 of the Constitution under two conditional precedents which must be met: PEACEBLY and UNARMED. Have the maandamano we have witnessed being done PEACEBLY and by UNARMED persons? 3. Suffice it to note that the right to assemble, demonstrate and to picket is not an absolute right. 4. Article 24 of the Constitution provides that the right to assemble, demonstrate and to picket is one of the rights that can be limited vide legislation to ensure that the enjoyment of rights and fundamental freedoms by any individuals does not prejudice the rights and freedoms of others. Have the maandamano not taken away the right to property of Kenyans with the mass destruction not only of private property but public property? 5. Article 259(1)(b) of the Constitution provides that the Constitution shall be interpreted in a manner that advances the rule of law, and the human rights and fundamental freedoms in the Bill of rights. To what extent do the maandamano fall within the defined parameters of the Constitution in particular the Bill of Rights? Is looting, destruction of property, anarchy and hooliganism the definition of demonstrations? Certainly not. These are purely criminal acts that have no constitutional basis! The conversation should begin here.

Hon. Aden Duale, EGH

101,334 görüntüleme • 3 yıl önce

What is the Crime for unlawfully seizing the Seat and Office of the Presidency of the United States, while having the status of a Constitutionally-barred Individual? Insurrection? What is the Crime for killing American citizens with militarized drones, while unlawfully occupying the Seat and Office of the Presidency of the United States, and waging Perpetual Insurrection against the Lawful Authority of the United States? Treason? “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.” Barack Obama
2:27

What is the Crime for unlawfully seizing the Seat and Office of the Presidency of the United States, while having the status of a Constitutionally-barred Individual? Insurrection? What is the Crime for killing American citizens with militarized drones, while unlawfully occupying the Seat and Office of the Presidency of the United States, and waging Perpetual Insurrection against the Lawful Authority of the United States? Treason? “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.” Barack Obama

SGAnon

16,118 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce