Somalis are in general, low IQ violent people.
They have no respect for other cultures.
Fraud in USA, violence in Europe, piracy and terrorism in Africa. This is their trade.
There's a reason their country is a lawless hell hole.
Somalis are in general, low IQ violent people.
They have no respect for other cultures.
Fraud in USA, violence in Europe, piracy and terrorism in Africa. This is their trade.
There's a reason their country is a lawless hell hole.
BREAKING: US President Donald Trump has said Iran shot down a US Apache helicopter that was patrolling the Strait of Hormuz overnight, adding that “the US must, of necessity, respond to this attack,” Reuters reports.
🔴 More on https://t.co/5H0QqpfIYw
I never imagined a Somalian migrant pinning down a helpless White man on Belfast streets, savagely sawing at his neck to behead him in cold blood, would be something we’d see in the West.
Brave White locals rushed to save him, striking the invader, but a terrified woman yelled, “There’s a cop! Back off!”
Because in the UK, the White victim is seen as the aggressor.
This is the deliberate genocide of our race in our own homelands.
Fight like hell for our children’s future.
Gachagua: I wish to confirm to my supporters across the country that I am eligible to vie as a presidential candidate and I'll be on the ballot on the 10th of August 2027 should the formula that will be agreed upon by the United Alternative Government favour me.
What do feminists preach;
Casual sex
Prostitution
Abortions
Drug use
Hatred of men and fathers
Singlehood
Rejection of traditional female roles
Rejection of femininity
Monetary selfishness
Feminists are a cancer that will destroy society and moral values.
What do feminists preach;
Casual sex
Prostitution
Abortions
Drug use
Hatred of men and fathers
Singlehood
Rejection of traditional female roles
Rejection of femininity
Monetary selfishness
Feminists are a cancer that will destroy society and moral values.
Yesterday's High Court judgment on the impeachment of H.E. Rigathi Gachagua raises serious and legitimate questions that our constitutional jurisprudence must grapple with honestly. The three-judge bench found that the Senate violated the former Deputy President's right to a fair hearing under Article 50 of the Constitution specifically by declining to grant an adjournment when he was unable to attend the proceedings. The court acknowledged that violation, issued a declaratory order and awarded Ksh.50 million in constitutional damages. Yet the bench ultimately upheld the impeachment itself. I respect the court and the constitutional role it plays. But I believe this outcome calls for serious reflection on the coherence of our remedial framework.
The tension in the judgment lies in this, if the Senate's refusal to adjourn was a constitutional infirmity serious enough to warrant a finding of violation and a Ksh.50 million award, then the question that naturally follows is whether that infirmity was capable of tainting the entire removal process. The right to a fair hearing is not procedural decoration. It is a substantive constitutional guarantee, particularly in proceedings that result in the removal of a person from high public office. Courts must therefore grapple carefully with what it means to vindicate a right while simultaneously affirming the outcome that flowed from its violation. It is a difficult balance and I appreciate that the bench was navigating complicated constitutional terrain.
It is instructive to recall the reasoning of the Supreme Court in the landmark 2017 presidential election petition delivered by the then Chief Justice David Maraga. The court, in a 4-2 majority, nullified the presidential election not on the basis that the outcome was necessarily wrong but on the basis that the process through which it was arrived at did not conform to the Constitution and the law. The court found that irregularities and illegalities in the transmission of results had compromised the integrity of the election and that the constitutional standard required more than a plausible result, it required a process that was itself constitutionally compliant. That principle that a flawed process cannot produce a constitutionally valid outcome remains a pillar of our public law.
When we place that 2017 reasoning alongside yesterday's judgment, a legitimate concern emerges. Both cases involved constitutional violations in the course of a high-stakes removal or electoral process. In 2017, the violation of constitutional standards was sufficient to nullify the result entirely. Yesterday, a violation of the right to a fair hearing was found, remedied in damages but the result was preserved. These are not necessarily irreconcilable positions, courts do have discretion in fashioning remedies but the distinction must be clearly reasoned and transparently justified because the precedent being set will govern how future impeachments are conducted and how future courts respond to violations within those processes.
My concern is about the precedent this decision may establish. If a constitutional violation during impeachment proceedings can be remedied by damages without disturbing the outcome, future Parliaments and Senates may not feel the full weight of their constitutional obligations when handling removal proceedings. The court itself noted the urgent need for Parliament to enact a dedicated statutory framework under Article 150 governing the removal of a Deputy President which is a legislative gap that should never have existed this long. That recommendation must not be ignored. A constitutional democracy is built on the integrity of its processes not merely its outcomes. We must ensure that the right to a fair hearing in Kenya remains substantive and not merely symbolic.
Women waste so much time putting on make-up when men generally prefer a clean, natural look.
African women in particular with their ugly stinking wigs, are in particular a great menace.
Women waste so much time putting on make-up when men generally prefer a clean, natural look.
African women in particular with their ugly stinking wigs, are in particular a great menace.
Kings,
The quality of marriageable women has drastically fallen since 1960.
Women today offer a man nothing but demand everything.
They can't cook, they can't clean, they abuse drugs and can't nurture children.
They then turn around and blame men for their uselessness.
Kings,
The quality of marriageable women has drastically fallen since 1960.
Women today offer a man nothing but demand everything.
They can't cook, they can't clean, they abuse drugs and can't nurture children.
They then turn around and blame men for their uselessness.