As the first light touches the earth we invoke Lord Ganesha to clear every shadow from our path. May His wisdom bring you clarity and His grace bring you ease today. Jaya Shree Ganesha.

Hello Hindus Want to see peak sangee hypocrisy? When in problem. When questioned Invoke Hindu dharma. about failing to Protect Hindus “Rss has not taken ‘Theka of Hindus”

#Bangladeshi PM's adviser purposely used #SAARC visa to rake up controversy. They are trying to invoke SAARC to needle India. He provoked India. He was rightly served. #India already stopped use of that VISA for Pakistani nationals. It is time to impose some more restrictions on that VISA to send a clear message that SAARC is dead unless it serves our purpose.

I sat and watched Viktor and Wyndham on the range post round on Saturday for about 20 minutes. He’s dialed in. Although he did invoke shades of Patrick Swayze in Roadhouse, cuz I thought he’d be bigger.

The Telegram block in India in itself is problematic. But the bureaucratic instinct that produced it is even more so. Unless you sit in the top 1% of the 1%, this babudom is bound to wreck you at some or other point in life. It's the thing that should worry you regardless of which side of the Telegram question you're on. Nobody outside government has actually seen the order The 2009 Blocking Rules that govern Section 69A require confidentiality around blocking orders. The law was built so that it never has to be in public view. You can't challenge in court what you're not allowed to see. So an agency now can switch off a communication platform used by 150 million people using its own recommendation under a process nobody outside government can verify. And the law's own design ensures it stays that way. It doesn't touch the actual problem A two-minute VPN install routes around the entire block. The rackets running an organized operation sophisticated enough to use the timestamp exploit are not the people who'll be turned away by a national firewall. The uncomfortable possibility nobody in government seems to be entertaining publicly is that it might even help the real operators. Shut down the platform broadly enough, clear out the noisy, low-effort scammers and amateur copycats who were competing for the same scared, money-paying parents. What's left, on whatever channel survives or migrates, is a thinner field with less competition for the real perpetrators. There's no accountability mechanism for proportionality Once "platform-wide block plus forced feature removal" is accepted as a legitimate tool for protecting exam integrity, it's now available for the next "public order" situation, whether it is a protest or an election cycle, a market panic or a communal flashpoint. NEET is about as sympathetic a justification as the state will ever get to invoke power like this. Bureaucracies reach for the cause everyone agrees with, use that to make it a precedent quietly, to be reused whenever it's needed for something far less sympathetic. The specific policy is debatable and you and I can disagree on it in good faith. The psyche that produced it isn't. We know best, we don't need to show you why, and the loudest possible action is the responsible one is not a position anyone should have to debate.

They can invoke the provisions of Section 68(1)(g) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 against National Assembly members so far they can maintain a decent level of decorum in the affairs of the party. Once fight or problem no dey for party, they’re Good!

🚨 Scott Bessent just HUMILIATED the New York Times on live TV. Straight to their faces. He basically said: you clowns screamed about Trump’s health while Biden went TEN MONTHS without a single cabinet meeting. How do you invoke the 25th Amendment when the cabinet never even SAW the guy? Bessent didn’t stop there. He called it what it was: one of the biggest media coverups in American history. Biden’s decline. The silence. The protection racket. And the finishing blow? He says he sees President Trump more in ONE DAY than his predecessor saw Biden in SIX MONTHS. That’s the difference between a real president and a ghost. Want more moments like this? x.com/_Qstormrider/status/20…

What you are doing is irresponsible as members of the executive branch! You have a duty and obligation to invoke the 25th Amendment right now! Do not lie to us, and stop lying to yourselves! Your elected POTUS is deteriorating in front of your eyes. Invoke the 25th NOW.

Somebody in the @WhiteHouse needs to pay the fuck attention to what Im going to say: Donald Trump is sick. He looks and sounds on the verge of his health failing him. You NEED to invoke the 25th Amendment RIGHT NOW. He doesn't belong in the Oval, he belongs in a home!

So trump was about to invoke the insurrection act during Minnesota ICE reign of terror, according to NY Times. He shelved it then. But he was ready to do it. He’ll invoke the instruction act at midterms. Mark my words. Our constitution is toilet paper to trump.

This summer, refresh your space with Japanese homeware items that invoke the spirit of a gentle island breeze 🌊 Subscribe to a Sakuraco multi-month plan to receive FREE items worth up to $65! 🔗 sakura.co/promo/okinawa-summ…

You forget France fought a 20 yr war for the United States after 9/11? Their citizens paid the extra tax, they lost soldiers. America is the only country to invoke article 5 if NATO.

Chanakya is not a mask for cheap power games and those who invoke him while chasing control only insult his name. The Arthashastra links good rule with duty, order and public welfare. Amit Shah and Narendra Modi should read it before preaching wisdom.

Hello Brian, I have read your petition. I see the work you put into. This is not the work of a spectator. It is the work of a citizen who believes he has found something - a constitutional key that others have missed. Unfortunately you have not, and because the moment is perilous, I owe you honesty, not applause. 1. Section 117(1) Does Not Do What You Think It Does: You argue that Section 117(1) - "legislative authority is derived from the people" requires Parly to obtain a separate, express grant of authority before amending the Constitution. You say the consultation report revealed two contesting views, and therefore the people have not given permission. Parly must stop. A referendum must be held first. Mari, Section 117(1) is a foundational clause. It declares the source of legislative authority. It does not require a fresh grant of permission for every Act. The Constitution, in S. 117(2), already confers on Parly the power "to amend this Constitution in accordance with section 328." That is the grant. Parliament already has it. The question is not whether Parliament has authority. It does. The question is whether it is exercising that authority in accordance with S. 328. Your reading would require a referendum on every constitutional amendment - because the people's authority is always the source. But Section 328 distinguishes between amendments that require a referendum and those that do not. Your argument collapses that distinction. It is not what the Constitution provides. 2. Consultation Is Not Permission: You argue that because the consultation revealed two contesting views, Parliament's authority is incomplete. No. Consultation is a procedural step under S. 328(4). It ensures the public's views are heard. It does not transfer the power of decision from Parliament to the public. The fact that some citizens - many citizens - oppose the Bill does not, by itself, strip Parliament of its constitutional authority to proceed. If it did, no controversial legislation could ever be passed. And on the consultation report - you attach it as annexure BBTM3. The same report records 67,688 written submissions from 54,231 attendees. That is a mathematical impossibility. The email submissions went against the Bill by nearly two to one. If you are going to rest your argument on the committee's report, you must reckon with the fact that the report itself is evidence of fraud. Your petition treats it as a neutral document. It is not!!! 3. The Electoral Act Does Not Govern Constitutional Amendments: You invoke Section 3(a) of the Electoral Act - "the authority to govern derives from the will of the people demonstrated through elections." You argue this requires a secret ballot - a referendum. But the Electoral Act governs elections. It does not govern constitutional amendments. The Constitution governs constitutional amendments. And the Constitution, in Section 328, specifies exactly when a referendum is required. You cannot import the Electoral Act into S. 328 to create a requirement the Constitution does not contain!!! 4. Your Petition Omits the Strongest Argument - Section 328(7): This is the most critical point, Brian, and I need you to hear it. The strongest legal argument against #CAB3 is Section 328(7) - the incumbent-protection clause. Madhuku has already argued it before the ConCourt. The 210 applications are built on it. It is the firewall. Your petition does not mention it. Not once!!! You have constructed an entirely separate constitutional theory - one that is novel, untested, and unlikely to succeed - while the strongest argument is already before the courts. This does not strengthen the resistance. It fragments it!!! 5. Your Petition Will Not Stop #CAB3, and It May Do Damage: Parly is not bound by a citizen's petition under Section 149. It must consider it. It will table it. It will note it. And given the current composition of that House - captured, whipped & bribed - it will dismiss it!!! When it does, the Cabal will cite that dismissal as proof that the constitutional arguments against #CAB3 are without merit. They will conflate your Section 117 theory with the Section 328(7) argument and claim both have been rejected. Your petition, however sincere, hands the Cabal a propaganda victory without extracting any legal cost. Let me frankly with you,Brian I do not question your sincerity, You have exercised your rights. You have done more than most citizens ever do. You have engaged the law, and that is commendable. But sincerity is not strategy. And this petition, whatever its intentions, does not advance the cause of stopping #CAB3. It muddies the legal waters at a moment when clarity is everything. The fight is in the ConCourt. It is in the High Court. It is in the 210 applications. It is in the parliamentary resistance. That is where the Constitution will be upheld. Not by a petition that misreads Section 117, ignores Section 328(7), and hands the enemy a stick to beat us with. The Constitution will be upheld. But not by this. Not today!!! Not this way!!!

Chanakya is not a mask for cheap power games and those who invoke him while chasing control only insult his name. The Arthashastra links good rule with duty, order and public welfare. Amit Shah and Narendra Modi should read it before preaching wisdom.

He did the right thing under tremendous pressure. He could just as well have gone along and overthrown the election. They had the votes and there wouldn’t have been anything we could do but protest. We know Trump had planned to invoke the Insurrection Act if that had happened.

i did? if you are going to invoke socialist commentary about classism but then balk at nonharming, nonexclusive, practically unenforceable trespass of the laws that enable that, then the appeal to classism is vacuous. you are choosing your chains so you can complain about then

how abt we kill ur ex... u need to invoke this energy tate