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.

Why does Justice Thomas’s opinion in McDonald v. Chicago matter? Because he recognized the Second Amendment as a fundamental individual right—one that states and cities must respect. He reached that conclusion by looking to Reconstruction, when freedmen relied on firearms to defend themselves against Klan violence. Read more in... show more

Ted Cruz

7,084,196 subscribers

83,109 views • 15 days ago •via X (Twitter)

Education News & Politics

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

30 Comments

Shycollie15 days ago

I have no idea why you turned down that Supreme Court spot, that was your destiny, your passion, where you are best suited and would have been most powerful. Senator is just one of a 100 and you’ll never be president. You’re like Tim Tebow refusing to switch to tight end

Joe Stiles15 days ago

Thomas’s Reconstruction-era reasoning is one of the most important parts of McDonald. How much should the history surrounding the Fourteenth Amendment shape how we interpret constitutional rights today?

Jojo15 days ago

Hasbara. How much are they paying you through your podcast again?

Todd Em15 days ago

The 14th was enacted to incorporate all of the Bill of Rights into state constitutions after the horrible read in Barron v Baltimore. The fact that the law of the land has been treated as nothing more than a suggestion by so many in government is appalling.

Frank Amari15 days ago

Clarence Thomas is one of the worst justices in history.

Joel O’Bryan15 days ago

"... when freedmen relied on firearms to defend themselves against Democrat violence." There. Fixed it for ya. It wasn't always the Klan, but it was always a Democrat.

Irfan ali15 days ago

From “left wing radicalism” to MAGA right wing extremism. Are we supposed to be impressed?

BigDog901015 days ago

Thomas needs to be impeached.

Pete15 days ago

That story would seal the deal on the 2nd Amendment. It's not about hunting. Needs to be the central plot of a well done movie, as historically accurate as is practical. Icing on the cake would be identifying the political party of the klansmen.

Robert Sims15 days ago

Who paid for that nifty sportcoat? Israel

Susan Cook15 days ago

A potent reminder, though one wonders what those Reconstruction-era freedmen would make of today's arms race.

[email protected]15 days ago

TED You don't have a f****** chance you piece of s***Wanna ride on Trump that aint gonna work dude. U might as well pack it up

Dr.Olamide HephzibahMs.,-15 days ago

Huh 🤔

Bill Casey15 days ago

Hey Ted, Don’t you agree that US Supreme Court justices should have a statutorily required mandatory retirement age of 75 ? Let’s say on January 21st , 2029 , a bill was passed by House & Senate and signed by a newly elected US President that effectuated the above Wouldn’t that make a lot of sense , I mean 75 years old . At the State level, 37 of the 50 states have this requirement by the age of 75…including your home state of Texas and in Florida . Why not Ted ? Now don’t make up some BS against this idea Ted …because I know and most folks know ..that your Lying Ted

The Harbinger15 days ago

Why does yours?

ImpeachTrump15 days ago

Stupid fat cuck.

NH Mimi15 days ago

Robert’s will flip on a dime. HE is the leaker.

Ken Pasco15 days ago

Do you mind if Anita Hill has a word?

Bob Lee15 days ago

Fuck Israel

Billy15 days ago

Didn't Samuel Alito write the majority opinion in that ruling?

Deborah Anderson15 days ago

Go away. You will never be president. Pass the fvcking save act.

Grandpa Sith15 days ago

I would love to see you on the Supreme Court!

James Barry15 days ago

Rafael, you complain a lot about America. If you really don't like it here you can go back to your home country where you were born Canada

DukeofPaducah15 days ago

Raphael needs a butterfly net so he can sample for ticks while he’s out in the weeds

Timbitz15 days ago

And that's why the Left wants to take our guns. So we can't defend ourselves from them when they manage to grab ultimate power and try to subdue us.

Al15 days ago

What’s your angle here, Teddy? Clarence Thomas is no friend of the black man. His rulings make it harder for the black man to vote, and if running for office to get elected. Plus, he seems to be lacking in ethics and character. Are you going to get sued and need his help?

Caitlin15 days ago

The Reconstruction part is the part people always skip

RMN17215 days ago

A right to bear arms via the Privileges and Immunities Clause is not necessarily the same thing as the Second Amendment. In any event, even if a right to bear arms under the Second Amendment is “incorporated” via the Privileges and Immunites Clause or the Due Process Clause, the right should be subject to reasonable restrictions and there should be no reason why it protects, for example, bearing AR-15’s in public. Justice Thomas would do well to follow the lead of Professor Akhil Reed Amar on this subject.

The Abuye Reprort15 days ago

Phgggg......the first thing you did after taking property away from me was threaten my life. You wouldn't have gone to the length you have to suppress and shadow ban this voice.

Richard Escareno15 days ago

You would make a great Chief Justice of the SCOTUS.

Related Videos

Justice Clarence Thomas on the importance of Reconstruction and what it means for America: “If you look at the debates in the 14th Amendment, the argument is these people have a right to defend themselves…. The radical Republicans felt that with these rights, privileges or immunities also brings the right to bear arms.”- Justice Thomas More on the incomparable Clarence Thomas in my new book:

Justice Clarence Thomas on the importance of Reconstruction and what it means for America: “If you look at the debates in the 14th Amendment, the argument is these people have a right to defend themselves…. The radical Republicans felt that with these rights, privileges or immunities also brings the right to bear arms.”- Justice Thomas More on the incomparable Clarence Thomas in my new book:

Ted Cruz

57,299 views • 25 days ago

Clarence Thomas explained the Second Amendment in one sentence. And every politician who talks about what gun rights they are willing to “let” you keep should hear it. The Second Amendment does not grant the right. It assumes the right already exists. That means the government does not give you the right to keep and bear arms. The amendment tells the government what it cannot do to a right you already had. Rights first. Government second. That is the order. And once you understand that, every gun law looks different. Because now the government is the one that has to explain itself. Not you. Then Thomas tells a story about Justice Breyer asking what he would do if a man with a machete walked up on his porch demanding money. Thomas’s answer? He would be cleaning his guns. That is why this clip hits different. He does not just rule on the Second Amendment. He understands it. He lives it. And he connects it to the history most gun control speeches leave out: The 14th Amendment. Freed slaves. The right to defend yourself from people trying to kill you. Because a citizen who cannot protect his own life does not stay a citizen for very long. Do you think most politicians understand the Second Amendment, or do they just talk around it? Shop the America Hat here:

Clarence Thomas explained the Second Amendment in one sentence. And every politician who talks about what gun rights they are willing to “let” you keep should hear it. The Second Amendment does not grant the right. It assumes the right already exists. That means the government does not give you the right to keep and bear arms. The amendment tells the government what it cannot do to a right you already had. Rights first. Government second. That is the order. And once you understand that, every gun law looks different. Because now the government is the one that has to explain itself. Not you. Then Thomas tells a story about Justice Breyer asking what he would do if a man with a machete walked up on his porch demanding money. Thomas’s answer? He would be cleaning his guns. That is why this clip hits different. He does not just rule on the Second Amendment. He understands it. He lives it. And he connects it to the history most gun control speeches leave out: The 14th Amendment. Freed slaves. The right to defend yourself from people trying to kill you. Because a citizen who cannot protect his own life does not stay a citizen for very long. Do you think most politicians understand the Second Amendment, or do they just talk around it? Shop the America Hat here:

Colion Noir

107,849 views • 7 days ago

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.

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 views • 8 months ago

Even liberals in New York City are starting to talk about arming themselves. Crime is climbing. Confidence in the police is collapsing. And people are realizing that when trouble comes, they may be on their own. Second Amendment groups are watching closely. If blue cities try to strip people of their right to defend themselves while the streets get more dangerous, they will be challenged. Self-defense is not a partisan issue. It’s a basic human right.

Even liberals in New York City are starting to talk about arming themselves. Crime is climbing. Confidence in the police is collapsing. And people are realizing that when trouble comes, they may be on their own. Second Amendment groups are watching closely. If blue cities try to strip people of their right to defend themselves while the streets get more dangerous, they will be challenged. Self-defense is not a partisan issue. It’s a basic human right.

Gunther Eagleman™

55,125 views • 29 days ago

Chicago told a 76 year old man he had no legal way to own a handgun after 5 burglaries in his own South Side house. After he sued, the Supreme Court struck the ban 5-4 in 2010 because the Second Amendment binds cities too. 16 years later, Illinois passed another “assault” weapons and magazine ban, but Chicago murders still rose about 8% in early 2026 under some of the strictest gun laws in the country. The right to defend your own home does not stop at the city line.

Chicago told a 76 year old man he had no legal way to own a handgun after 5 burglaries in his own South Side house. After he sued, the Supreme Court struck the ban 5-4 in 2010 because the Second Amendment binds cities too. 16 years later, Illinois passed another “assault” weapons and magazine ban, but Chicago murders still rose about 8% in early 2026 under some of the strictest gun laws in the country. The right to defend your own home does not stop at the city line.

Rothmus 🏴

57,327 views • 7 days ago

.Sarah Longwell: “My most fervent hope is that Donald Trump loses this election and that he does it because women turn out in droves to vote against him, including center-right women. Because that is just the kind of justice that Donald Trump deserves.”

.Sarah Longwell: “My most fervent hope is that Donald Trump loses this election and that he does it because women turn out in droves to vote against him, including center-right women. Because that is just the kind of justice that Donald Trump deserves.”

Republican Accountability

400,208 views • 2 years ago

"As a devout Christian, I would say it’s one of the most anti-Christian things and anti-American things that you could do," says Vice President JD Vance on religious violence. "One of the fundamental American rights that I think came from our Christian heritage as a civilization is the idea that we respect people’s religious freedom, in part, because we respect them as human beings, but also, because we respect their right to find their own pathway to God. You can’t force anybody to a pathway to God. They have to, through their own free will, find God themselves."

"As a devout Christian, I would say it’s one of the most anti-Christian things and anti-American things that you could do," says Vice President JD Vance on religious violence. "One of the fundamental American rights that I think came from our Christian heritage as a civilization is the idea that we respect people’s religious freedom, in part, because we respect them as human beings, but also, because we respect their right to find their own pathway to God. You can’t force anybody to a pathway to God. They have to, through their own free will, find God themselves."

Rapid Response 47

140,707 views • 4 months ago

Trump says he’s working on national reciprocity. Carry in all 50 states. And this is about to expose a lot of people. Because if your driver’s license works when you cross state lines… Why shouldn’t your carry permit? If you’re trusted to protect your life in Texas, why does that right disappear the second you land in New York, California, or New Jersey? An imaginary line on a map should not erase your right to defend yourself. And this is where the “I support the Second Amendment, but…” crowd always tells on themselves. Because national reciprocity is the easy one. This isn’t even the AR-15 fight. This isn’t the magazine fight. This is just saying: If you went through the process, got licensed, and followed the law, your permit should be recognized nationwide. That is actual common sense. So watch who fights this. Because the people who oppose national reciprocity were never defending the Second Amendment. They were defending control. Now be honest: Should your carry permit work in all 50 states like your driver’s license? Or should every state get to decide whether your right to protect yourself disappears at the border? Drop your answer below — and send this to the person who still says, “I support the 2A, but…”

Trump says he’s working on national reciprocity. Carry in all 50 states. And this is about to expose a lot of people. Because if your driver’s license works when you cross state lines… Why shouldn’t your carry permit? If you’re trusted to protect your life in Texas, why does that right disappear the second you land in New York, California, or New Jersey? An imaginary line on a map should not erase your right to defend yourself. And this is where the “I support the Second Amendment, but…” crowd always tells on themselves. Because national reciprocity is the easy one. This isn’t even the AR-15 fight. This isn’t the magazine fight. This is just saying: If you went through the process, got licensed, and followed the law, your permit should be recognized nationwide. That is actual common sense. So watch who fights this. Because the people who oppose national reciprocity were never defending the Second Amendment. They were defending control. Now be honest: Should your carry permit work in all 50 states like your driver’s license? Or should every state get to decide whether your right to protect yourself disappears at the border? Drop your answer below — and send this to the person who still says, “I support the 2A, but…”

Colion Noir

62,398 views • 2 months ago

Weijia: Is it still the president's assessment that it would be very hard for Ms. Machado to lead Venezuela because he says she lacks the respect and support in that country? Leavitt: At this moment in time his opinion on that matter has not changed.

Weijia: Is it still the president's assessment that it would be very hard for Ms. Machado to lead Venezuela because he says she lacks the respect and support in that country? Leavitt: At this moment in time his opinion on that matter has not changed.

Acyn

35,912 views • 8 months ago

"By now I am sure you guys know what happened in Australia." "This is exactly why I will never stop fighting for having a 2nd Amendment right here in the United States." "Do you think a ban on firearms effects criminals?" "The only thing you did by those bans is take away the ability for law abiding citizens to be able to defend themselves." "More places should allow people to carry and defend themselves." Nothing stops a bad guy with a gun better than good guys with guns.

"By now I am sure you guys know what happened in Australia." "This is exactly why I will never stop fighting for having a 2nd Amendment right here in the United States." "Do you think a ban on firearms effects criminals?" "The only thing you did by those bans is take away the ability for law abiding citizens to be able to defend themselves." "More places should allow people to carry and defend themselves." Nothing stops a bad guy with a gun better than good guys with guns.

AmericanPapaBear™

58,731 views • 9 months ago

Josh Brolin shares how he was from failing school to becoming one of the most self educated people he knows "I like that aspect of it, don't judge a book by its cover aspect of it" "Told my kids this morning, I said I didn't do well in school but I learned and I'm one of the more educated people that I know because I was self propelled" "At some point I didn't wanna be dumb and I just started learning everything math, science, English, grammar" "I read insatiably" "I would go to bookstores and get a pile of books and put it to my right and I couldn't even afford furniture when I was in New York" "And I would read then that was read and I'd read another one and then that was read, I'd read another one"

Josh Brolin shares how he was from failing school to becoming one of the most self educated people he knows "I like that aspect of it, don't judge a book by its cover aspect of it" "Told my kids this morning, I said I didn't do well in school but I learned and I'm one of the more educated people that I know because I was self propelled" "At some point I didn't wanna be dumb and I just started learning everything math, science, English, grammar" "I read insatiably" "I would go to bookstores and get a pile of books and put it to my right and I couldn't even afford furniture when I was in New York" "And I would read then that was read and I'd read another one and then that was read, I'd read another one"

le.hl

14,952 views • 2 months ago

🗣️ Mikel Arteta on Eze's impact: "We knew that he could create an action. He created three actions that he put people almost looking at the goalkeeper one-against-one, but as well I have to trust him. "When they make the rotation, especially on the right-hand side, and Cash’s goal last year he lost him, we conceded the goal - and this year, I think he learned a lesson because every time something was happening he was at it, and I think he helped the team in a great way."

🗣️ Mikel Arteta on Eze's impact: "We knew that he could create an action. He created three actions that he put people almost looking at the goalkeeper one-against-one, but as well I have to trust him. "When they make the rotation, especially on the right-hand side, and Cash’s goal last year he lost him, we conceded the goal - and this year, I think he learned a lesson because every time something was happening he was at it, and I think he helped the team in a great way."

Connor Humm

1,082,603 views • 20 days ago

NEW: George Conway compares Donald Trump to Hitler and says he is a “cancer on American public life that must be removed, once and for all” "The words that came to mind when I read about this controversy today is the große Lüge. That’s German. I don’t speak German, so forgive my pronunciation ...But Donald Trump does that as a matter of course. He’s a pathological liar and a sociopath ...He is a cancer on American public life that must be removed, once and for all”

NEW: George Conway compares Donald Trump to Hitler and says he is a “cancer on American public life that must be removed, once and for all” "The words that came to mind when I read about this controversy today is the große Lüge. That’s German. I don’t speak German, so forgive my pronunciation ...But Donald Trump does that as a matter of course. He’s a pathological liar and a sociopath ...He is a cancer on American public life that must be removed, once and for all”

Unlimited L's

21,541 views • 1 year ago

NEW: Vice President Vance condemns religious violence, calling it "one of the most anti-Christian things and anti-American things that you could do." "A fundamental principle of all the great faiths is we are all children of God. And because of that, we are endowed by certain rights that are unique to our status as human beings." "You violate those rights, most importantly, when you commit violence against another person, you can violate them in other ways as well, but the most profound way to violate the fundamental right of human dignity is to commit violence."

NEW: Vice President Vance condemns religious violence, calling it "one of the most anti-Christian things and anti-American things that you could do." "A fundamental principle of all the great faiths is we are all children of God. And because of that, we are endowed by certain rights that are unique to our status as human beings." "You violate those rights, most importantly, when you commit violence against another person, you can violate them in other ways as well, but the most profound way to violate the fundamental right of human dignity is to commit violence."

Fox News

49,437 views • 4 months ago

When he was cast as 007, Daniel Craig had his own ideas on playing the role and in an interview with Jonathan Ross on the set of this movie, he stated that he wanted to be faithful to the book and show the character's raw vulnerability by having him make a few mistakes and that the drama would be there when he gets it right and make the audience think that it's all going to go wrong and that when it all goes right, the audience would get more excited. 🎬Casino Royale (2006)

When he was cast as 007, Daniel Craig had his own ideas on playing the role and in an interview with Jonathan Ross on the set of this movie, he stated that he wanted to be faithful to the book and show the character's raw vulnerability by having him make a few mistakes and that the drama would be there when he gets it right and make the audience think that it's all going to go wrong and that when it all goes right, the audience would get more excited. 🎬Casino Royale (2006)

Love Classical Music and Movies 🎺🎻💖🎥🎬

219,376 views • 8 months ago

Chief justice John Roberts will go down in history as one of the worst racist chief judge of the Supreme Court we have had in 150 years since the dreaded Scott case of 1857. Every civil rights protection that come to the court he voted against it.. he’s basically given the right to thewhite supremacist, and Confederate states to take us back to the reconstruction.

Chief justice John Roberts will go down in history as one of the worst racist chief judge of the Supreme Court we have had in 150 years since the dreaded Scott case of 1857. Every civil rights protection that come to the court he voted against it.. he’s basically given the right to thewhite supremacist, and Confederate states to take us back to the reconstruction.

Don Salmon

24,605 views • 4 months ago

Seven charges against Nigel Farage are made in my book - the book he doesn't want you to read. One, that he was a Nazi at school. 34 witnesses say he said things like "SSSSS!" and "Hitler was right!" to a Jewish classmate. He denies it. Two, that he is serially irresponsible about safeguarding public money. For example, two of his UKIP MEPs went to prison for stealing money. They were not properly vetted. He denies it. Three, that he has been cruel to his lovers. He denies it. Four, that he wrongly demonised a Pole, Arek Jozwik, killed in the wake of the Brexit vote. He denies it. Five, that when a rich man gives him a lot of money, he takes it and not enough questions are asked. He denies it. Six, that his Reform UK party leader in Wales took bribes from a Russian spy - and this erodes trust in democracy. He denies it. Seven, that in denying being a Nazi at school he is lying and that is why he should never be PM or anywhere near power. He denies it. Farage has said of me that I "caused him more misery than any other in 25 years in politics." This evening I'm at Chorleywood Library at 7pm. On Friday I am at the Frontline Club with Peter Ettedgui and Yinka Bankole, two boys at school Farage bullied. He denies it and doesn't want you to read this book.

Seven charges against Nigel Farage are made in my book - the book he doesn't want you to read. One, that he was a Nazi at school. 34 witnesses say he said things like "SSSSS!" and "Hitler was right!" to a Jewish classmate. He denies it. Two, that he is serially irresponsible about safeguarding public money. For example, two of his UKIP MEPs went to prison for stealing money. They were not properly vetted. He denies it. Three, that he has been cruel to his lovers. He denies it. Four, that he wrongly demonised a Pole, Arek Jozwik, killed in the wake of the Brexit vote. He denies it. Five, that when a rich man gives him a lot of money, he takes it and not enough questions are asked. He denies it. Six, that his Reform UK party leader in Wales took bribes from a Russian spy - and this erodes trust in democracy. He denies it. Seven, that in denying being a Nazi at school he is lying and that is why he should never be PM or anywhere near power. He denies it. Farage has said of me that I "caused him more misery than any other in 25 years in politics." This evening I'm at Chorleywood Library at 7pm. On Friday I am at the Frontline Club with Peter Ettedgui and Yinka Bankole, two boys at school Farage bullied. He denies it and doesn't want you to read this book.

John Sweeney

128,932 views • 6 days ago

Charles Owino: The IG relied on the report submitted by the OCS, which states that the individual was alone in his police cell. This raises a critical question: if he was indeed alone, how did the police determine that he banged his head, especially when there were no witnesses to the incident?#CitizenDayBreak Ayub Sh Abdikadir

Charles Owino: The IG relied on the report submitted by the OCS, which states that the individual was alone in his police cell. This raises a critical question: if he was indeed alone, how did the police determine that he banged his head, especially when there were no witnesses to the incident?#CitizenDayBreak Ayub Sh Abdikadir

Citizen TV Kenya

175,055 views • 1 year ago

REAL DICTATORS that are supported by Uncle Sam talk free, fair, and credible elections for their neighbours; while they walk the dictatorship path for themselves in their backyard. Why on earth does President Hakainde Hichilema think he does former President Edgar Chagwa Lungu's PF a favour when he does not lock them up; and why does he think that PF have no freedom of assembly to "regroup" as a political party in Zambia? Is "regrouping" [read: assembling] a crime in Zambia? Maybe SADC Secretariat should send SEOM to Lusaka to give the people of Zambia real democracy in accordance with the Sadc Treaty!

REAL DICTATORS that are supported by Uncle Sam talk free, fair, and credible elections for their neighbours; while they walk the dictatorship path for themselves in their backyard. Why on earth does President Hakainde Hichilema think he does former President Edgar Chagwa Lungu's PF a favour when he does not lock them up; and why does he think that PF have no freedom of assembly to "regroup" as a political party in Zambia? Is "regrouping" [read: assembling] a crime in Zambia? Maybe SADC Secretariat should send SEOM to Lusaka to give the people of Zambia real democracy in accordance with the Sadc Treaty!

Prof Jonathan Moyo

96,321 views • 3 years ago