ทีมงานSBOBETรายงานว่า คาริอุส สุดเศร้าแฟนสาวที่เพิ่งคบขอแยกทาง

ข่าวฟุตบอลSBOBET

คาริอุส สุดเศร้าแฟนสาวที่เพิ่งคบขอแยกทาง เรียกได้ว่าซวยซ้ำซวยซ้อนของจริงสำหรับ ลอริส คาริอุส นายด่านของหงส์แดง ลิเวอร์พูล ทีมสโมสรชือดังแห่งเวที พรีเมียร์ ลีก อังกฤษ  ที่ตอนนี้เรียกได้ว่าเจอมรสุมกับชีวิตอย่างหนัก หลังเจ้าตัวโดนแฟนบอลกระหน่ำด่า และข่มขู่ต่างๆนานา หลังเกมที่เจ้าตัวพ่ายแพ้ในศึกยูฟ่า แชมเปี้ยน ลีก จนทำให้ทีมแชมป์ถ้วยยุโรป ทั้งที่อุตส่าห์เข้าไปสู่รอบชิงชนะเลิศได้เป็นครั้งแรก  แต่เจ้าตัวก็พลาดท่าเป็นส่วนให้ทีมชวดแชมป์

หลังจากจบเกมการแข่งขันในเกมยูฟ่า แชมเปี้ยนส์ ลีก ที่เป็นการพบกันระหว่างทีมราชันชุดขาว เรอัล มาดริด ทีมแชมป์เก่า กับทีมม้ามืดอย่าง หงส์แดง ลิเวอร์พูล เกมนี้ป็นครั้งแรกที่ลิเวอร์พูลได้เข้าส๔่รอบชิงชนะเลิศในเกมถ้วยยุโรป แฟนบอลจึงคาดหวังกันอย่างมากมาย แต่เมื่อไม่สามารถต้านทานแชมป์เก่าได้ คนที่เล่นได้ดูแย่ที่สุดก็มักโดนด่าทอและถูกตำหนิไป เหมือนกับคาริอุส ที่หลังจบเกมนั้นเรียกได้ว่าเป็นมรสุมของชีวิตแบบที่หลีกเลี่ยงไม่ได้เลย

หลังจบเกมโดนทั้งข้อความข่มขู่ ที่ขู่ไปถึงครอบครั้วและลูกสาวของเขา งานนี้ถึงขั้นที่แฟนสาวขอขั้นเลิกเพราะไม่อยากโดนขู่ฆ่านั่นเอง ซวยซ้ำซวยซ้อนแบบนี้น่าสงสารมากๆ

สนับสนุนโดยทีมงานเว็บไซด์แทงบอลออนไลน์สุดยอดเว็บไซด์พนันกีฬาต่าง ๆ ที่สนุกที่สุดในโลก เเถมรวยง่ายด้วย ใครอยากสนุกกับเราติดต่อทีมงาน sbobet ทางเข้า ได้เลยตอนนี้

วงการSBOBETบอก นักเตะ เบอร์ 21 คนใหม่ของลิเวอร์พูล

ข่าวฟุตบอลSBOBET

วงการSBOBETบอก ประกาศเบอร์เสื้อเป็นที่เรียบร้อยแล้วจ้า จากที่รับลงเล่นในทีมหงส์แดงอย่างเป็นทางการ หลังจากที่ ปืนใหญ่ ตกลงขายให้กับทางสโมสรลิเวอร์พูล เมื่อวันที่ 31 สิงหาคมที่ผ่านมา ถือว่าเป็นข่าวใหญ่ของโลกเลยก็ว่าได้ ก่อนหน้านี้ซึ่งเจ้าตัวได้ออกมา ยิ้มกว้างๆให้กับชาวโลก ด้วยการใส่เสื้อของทีมใหม่ได้ไม่นาน ข่าวล่าสุด ทางสโมสรได้ออกมาแจงรายละเอียดบนเสื้อที่ อ็อกซ์เลด-แชมเบอร์เลน  ว่าจะได้ใส่ลงเล่นในทีมใหม่ ไฉไลด้วยเบอร์ 21 ของทีมหงส์แดง และพร้อมย้ายลง ในของลูคัส เลว่า กองกลางบราซิเลียน ย้ายไปอยู่กับ ลาซิโอ                

สำหรับสัญญาในการลงเล่นในทีม หงส์แดง ลิเวอร์พูลนั้น เจ้าตัวได้ทำสัญญากับทางสโมสรลิเวอร์พูลด้วยกัน ทั้งหมด 5 ปี ด้วยค่าตัว 35 ล้านปอนด์ หรือประมาณ 1,575 ล้านบาท จากทางลิเวอร์พูล พร้อมรับค่าเหนื่อยสัปดาห์ละ 120,000 ปอนด์ ประมาณ 5.4 ล้านบาท กันเลยทีเดียว                                                                                 

สำหรับนักเตะใหม่ รายที่ 4 อย่าง อ็อกซ์เลด-แชมเบอร์เลน นั้นออกมายอมรับว่าดีใจ ที่ได้เข้ามาร่วมทีม พร้อมกับมาออกขอบคุณทุกๆคนที่คอยให้กำลังใจ และรู้สึกตื่นเต้นที่จะได้รวมแข่ง ในเร็วๆนี้ พร้อมจะทำผลงานให้เต็มที่ แม้จะได้รับค่าเหนื่อยกับ ลิเวอร์พูล สัปดาห์ละ 120,000 ปอนด์ น้อยกว่า เชลซี เสนอให้ 220,000 ปอนด์ ก็ตาม

สนับสนุนข่าวโดยเว็บไซต์แทงบอลออนไลน์  ที่จะคอยนำทีเด็ด ตัวเจ๋ง ตัวเต็ง จากสำนักต่างๆมาอัพเดตให้สมาชิก sboibc888 ทุกท่านได้ทราบเพื่อนำไปเป็นแนวทางในการตัดสินใจตลอด 24 ชั่วโมงทุกวัน สนใจติดต่อรับทีเด็ดได้ที่นี่

เจ้าหน้าที่SBOBETบอก เรือใบผงาด คว้าแชมป์ คาราบาวคัพ

ข่าวฟุตบอลSBOBET

เจ้าหน้าที่SBOBETบอก เรือใบผงาด คว้าแชมป์ คาราบาวคัพ เรียกได้ว่าเป็นทีมที่ฟอร์มร้อนแรงแบบสุดๆ สำหรับเรือใบสีฟ้า แมนเชสเตอร์ ซิตี้ ทีมสโมสรชั้นนำ ในเวที พรีเมียร์ ลีก อังกฤษ ที่ล่าสุด เพิ่งโชว์ฟอร์มได้อย่างยอดเยี่ยม ในการคว้าแชมป์ คาราบาว คัพ ได้สำเร็จ จากการเข้าชิงแชมป์กับทีมไอ้ปืนใหญ่ อาร์เซนอล คู่แข่งร่วมเวที พรีเมียร์ ลีก อังกฤษ เมื่อคืนวันอาทิตย์ที่ผ่านมา

เป๊ป โจเซฟ กวาดิโอล่า เทรนเนอร์มากประสบการณ์ของทีมเรือใบสีฟ้า แมนเชสเตอร์ ซิตี้ ออกมากล่าวให้สัมภาษณ์เมื่อวันที่ 1 มีนาคมที่ผ่านมา ด้วยอาการยิ้มแย้มแจ่มใส หลังจากพาลูกทีมคว้าแชมป์คาราบาว คัพ มาได้สำเร็จเป็นฤดูกาลแรก และเป็นแชมป์แรกนับตั้งแต่ที่ โจเซฟ กวาร์ดิโอล่า ย้ายเข้ามาคุมทัพให้กับเรือใบสีฟ้า โดยในเกมนี้ แมนเชสเตอร์ ซิตี้ ได้ลงนัดชิงชนะเลิศแข่งกับ ไอ้ปืนใหญ่ อาร์เซนอล ที่แม้ว่าในเกมพรีเมียร์ ลีก อาร์เซน่อล จะมีผลงานไม่ดีนัก แต่เกมนี้กลับทำได้อย่างยอดเยี่ยม จนสุดท้ายก็ได้รอง แชมป์คาราบาว คัพ ไปครอง

ทั้งนี้ ทางด้านผลงานพรีเมียร์ลีก ยังคงเดินหน้าไปอย่างต่อเนื่อง  แมนเชสเตอร์ ซิตี้ ก็คาดหวังว่า จะคว้าแชมป์รายการนี้มาครองได้อย่างแน่นอน เพราะผลงานที่ผ่านมาแสดงให้เห็นแล้วว่าเรือใบฟ้าเป็นทีมอันดับ 1 ที่มาแรงที่สุดในตอนนี้

สนับสนุนข่าวโดย เว็บแทงบอลออนไลน์ชื่อดัง ได้รับการยอมรับจากทั่วโลกอย่างเว็บแทงบอล sbothai สมัครสมาชิกขั้นต่ำเพียง 500 บาทไม่เพียงเท่านี้ท่านจะได้รับโบนัสแทงบอลฟรีเพิ่มทันที 50% ไปแทงบอลฟรีทุกวัน

เป็ป กวาดิโอร่า ชี้ผ่านสื่อ SBOBET แชมป์ลีกคือเป้าหมายของเรือใบ

ข่าวฟุตบอลSBOBET

เป็ป กวาดิโอร่า ชี้ผ่านสื่อ SBOBET แชมป์ลีกคือเป้าหมายของเรือใบ นายใหญ่ของเรือใบสีฟ้า กวาร์ดิโอล่า ผู้จัดการทีมหน้าประสบการณ์ของทีม เรือใบสีฟ้า แมนเชสเตอร์ ซิตี้ ทีมสโมสรจ่าฝูง ในเวทีพรีเมียร์ ลีก อังกฤษได้ออกมากล่าวถึงเป้าหมายหลักของเรือใบฟ้า ในฤดูกาลนี้ คือการเล่นคว้าแชมป์เกมลีกเท่านั้น พวกเขามีเป้าหมายเดียวกันและมุ่งมั่นอย่างเต็มที่สำหรับฤดูกาลนี้

โจเซป กวาร์ดิโอล่า ผู้จัดการทีมเรือใบสีฟ้า ออกมากล่าวให้สัมภาษณ์เมื่อวันที่ 1 มีนาคมที่ผ่านมา เกี่ยวกับการออกล่าแชมป์ในฤดูกาลนี้ของพวกเขา โดยตอนนี้มีหลายเกมที่พวกเขาต้องออกศึก ไม่ว่าจะเป็นศึก เอฟเอ คัพ หรือ คาราบาวคัพ ที่เพิ่งคว้าแชมป์รายการแรกในฤดูกาลนี้ ภายใต้การดูแลทีมของ โจเซฟ กวาดิโอล่า ในเกมที่สามารถเอาชนะไอ้ปืนใหญ่ อาร์เซนอล  เมื่อคืนวันอาทิตย์ที่ผ่านมา โดยเจ้าตัวได้กล่าว อย่างชัดเจนว่าเจตนา และเป้าหมายที่แท้จริงก็คือการคว้าแชมป์พรีเมียร์ลีกอังกฤษ ซึ่งตอนนี้การแข่งขันก็ยังไม่ได้จบลงเพราะฉะนั้นตอนนี้ จึงต้องเล่นอย่างเต็มที่

แต่อย่างไรก็ตาม สำหรับการคว้าแชมป์พรีเมียร์ลีก ในฤดูกาลนี้ ของเรือใบสีฟ้านั้น เป็นที่แน่นอนอยู่แล้วว่าจะต้องเป็นทีมที่ได้เข้าไปสู่รอบชิงแชมป์อย่างแน่นอน เพราะตอนนี้มีคะแนนขึ้นเป็นจ่าฝูงนำห่างทีมรองจ่าฝูงอันดับ 2 ถึง 13 คะแนนเลยทีเดียว

Can a Legistor Cross Carpet and Still Keep His Seat Under Nigerian Law?

[ad_1]

Our chief concern here is to discuss the legal consequences of the current spate of party defection by members of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to the All Progressive Congress (APC). We shall leave the task of recounting Nigeria's history on carpet crossing to historians and shall not be bordered by it. We shall also not allow ourselves to be drawn into arguments as to the morality / propriety of carpet crossing.

The media is awash with the news of the defection of 37 PDP members of the House of Representatives to the APC. Already, five PDP governors have dumped the party for the APC. The collapse of the PDP as the ruling party in Nigeria and as Africa's biggest political party seems imminent as unconfirmed reports say that twenty-two senators are planning to also dump the party for the APC.

Nigerian law on carpet crossing begins and ends with the provisions of Sections 68 (1) (g) and 109 (1) (g) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. These sections provide that:

"A member of the Senate or House of Representatives or State House of Assembly shall not vacate his seat in the House of which he is a member if being a person whose election into the House was sponsored by a political party, he becomes a member of another political party before the expiration of the period for which the House was elected.

Provided that his membership of the latter political party is not as a result of a division in the political party of which he was previously a member of a merger of two or more political parties by one of which he was previously sponsored. "

It is interesting to note that unlike the purport of above provisions, Sections 135 and 180 of the said Constitution which provides for circumstances under which the President or his Vice, and a Governor or his Deputy could cease to hold office does not mention party defection as a ground for vacating or ceasing to hold office.

From the above provisions therefore, Nigerian law on carpet crossing could be summarized as follows:

1. A Legislator in Nigeria could lose or vacate his seat in parliament if he defects from the party that sponsored him into the Legislative House to another party.

2. A Nigerian Governor, Deputy Governor, President or Vice President can not vacate or cease to hold office for defecting from the political party that sponsored him into office to another.

3. Before a Legislator in Nigeria could be made to lose his seat in parliament for defecting to a party other than the one that sponsored him into the House, the principal officer of that Legislative House (the Senate President, the Speaker of the House of Representatives or the Speaker of the State House of Assembly as the case may be) or a member of that Legislative House must first present evidence satisfactory to the Legislative House concerned that a member has defected from the political party that sponsored him into the House to another political party and has by operation of law vacated his seat in Parliament.

4. It follows from the above that if there is no satisfactory evidence presented to the Legislative House on a member's defection, the member who is alleged to have defected can still retain his seat. He will however continue to be known and addressed as a member of the party that sponsored him into the House.

5. A Legislator in Nigerian can cross carpet to a party other than the one that sponsored him into the House and still keep his seat if he can prove that his defection was as a result of a division within his former party.

6. Also, a Legislator in Nigeria will not lose / vacate his seat even though he has defected from the party sponsored him to another party if he can prove that his membership of a new party is as a result of a merger of two or more political parties or factions by one of which he was previously sponsored.

The position that while a Legislator in Nigeria is liable to lose his seat in parliament for cross carpeting to another party, the President, Vice President, Governor or Deputy Governor is not liable and can not be forced to vacate or cease to hold office for the same reason was endorsed by the Nigerian Supreme Court in the case of AGF V. Atiku Abubarkar (2007) 4 SC (pt.11) 62 where the issue before the court was whether the Vice President's defection from the PDP (on whose platform he was elected into office) to the Action Congress of Nigeria (aCN) meant that he had automatically vacated and ceased to hold that office.

The Supreme Court held that it is only Legislators that are liable to vacate their seats in parliament for defection to a different party from the one that sponsored them into office. The supreme held that the constitution does not envisage or provide for the vacation / cessation of the office of the President, Vice President, Governor or Deputy Governor for defection from the party that sponsored them into office to another party. The Apex court held therefore that Vice-President Atiku Abubarkar was entitled to keep and / or in office even though he had effected from the PDP to the ACN.

Again, the position that a legislator may lose his seat in parliament for cross carpeting to another political party has been affirmed by the court in some decisions. For instance, the Federal High Court of Nigeria sitting in Akure in the case of Hon. Ifedayo Sunday Abegunde v. The Ondo State House of Assembly & Ors. sacked Mr. Abegunde, a House of Representatives member representing Akure North and South, Ondo State for defecting from the Labour Party to the ACN. Mr Abegunde had been elected into the House under the auspices of the Labour Party in the April 2011 General Elections. He however, defected to the ACN during the currency of the tenure of the House. The court held that Mr Abegunde had vacated his seat and ceased to be a member of the House by operation of law. This decision was affirmed and upheld by the Court of Appea in Re Hon. Ifedayo Sunday Abegunde v. The Ondo State House of Assembly & Ors. (2014) LPELR-23683 (CA), Appeal No.CA/AK/110/2012.

Again, in the case of Hon. Michael Dapialong v. Chief (Dr) Joseph Chibi Dariye, Appeal No. SC 39/2007 the Supreme Court took judicial notice of the fact that between 25th and 26th July, 2006, fourteen members of the twenty-four members of the Plateau State House of Assembly including the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker thereof defected from the PDP platform on whose they were elected to the House in 2009 to the Advanced Congress of d Democrats (ACD) as a result of which the said 14 members were held to have vacated their seats by operation of law.

Relying on the Supreme Court decision in AGF V. Atiku Aburbakar therefore, we can safely conclude that the five PDP Governors that had defected to the APC can validly do so without being liable to vacate or cease to hold their offices. This is because the Constitution simply does not penalize the President, Vice President, a Governor or Deputy Governor who dumps the party that sponsored him into office for another party. Also, unlike Legislators, these members of the executive arm of Government are not required to proffer explanations or reasons to justify defection.

However, some persons have argued that even though the Constitution does not penalize defection by Governors, the Supreme Court decision in Rotimi Amaechi v INEC Appeal No. SC 525/2007 could be relied upon to effect the vacation from office of Governors who defect from the parties that sponsored them into office to another political party before the expiration of their tenure. Acording Mr Dan Nwayanwu, Chairman of the Labour Party of Nigeria, the Supreme Court's dictum in Amaechi's Case to the effect that it is the political party and not the candidate for which the electorate cast their votes could be interpreted and applied to mean that Governors who get elected into office only to dump the party that sponsored them into office for another party should vacate or cease to hold office upon defection.

Mr Dan Nwamyawu in an interview granted to Sunday Trust Newspapers in 2007 advocated that Governors who defect to parties other than the ones that sponsored them into office should be kicked out of office on the basis of the decision in Amaechi v. INEC. We humbly disagree with this position. This is because the Constitution does not impose any penalty or legal disability on carpet crossing by Governors. Secondly, the Supreme Court in Amaechi's Case did not decide the issue of the consequence of a Governor's defection from his party. Rather, the question in Amaechi's case was whether a person who did not contest an election could be heard to challenge an election or be declared as Governor. The decision in AGF V. Atiku Abubarka for all intents and purposes remains the authoritative exposition of the law on party defection in Nigeria.

It is by now beyond doubt that the five PDP governors who had defected to the APC are entitled to do so without any attendant penalty or legal disability. But can the same be said of the 37 members of the House of Representatives members who have defected to the APC? Can they validly dump the PDP for the APC without losing their seat in parliament?

By a letter addressed to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, titled 'Communication of Change of Political Party' and dated the 18tth December, 2013, the 37 defecting Federal Lawmakers explained that their defection from the PDP to the APC was as a result of the internal crisis within the PDP. The Lawmakers also premised their defection from the PDP to the APC on the fact that the PDP has broken into two factions: the New PDP and the Old PDP. The so-called New PDP consisting of the dissatisfied and disgruntled members of the party, the majority of whom have defected to the APC.

It is to be recalled that in Agundade's case, he had argued that given the internal crisis, division and factionalization within the Labour Party, he was entitled by virtue of the proviso in Section 109 (1) (g) of the 1999 Constitution to defect from the Labour Party to the aCN without losing or having to vacate his seat in the House. The court however ruled that since he could not prove division or factionalization within the Labour Party, he was not entitled to keep or retain his seat after he decamped to the ACN. That he vacated his seat upon defection to the ACN by operation of law.

The proviso to the provisions of Section 68 (1) (g) and 109 (1) (g) of the 1999 Constitution are to the effect that although a Legislator would ordinarily lose his seat if he defects to a party different from the one that sponsored him into the Legislative House, he is entitled to keep his seat if he can prove that:

1. He defected to a new party as a result of division within the party that sponsored him into the house.

2. His membership of the new party is as a result of the merger of two or more political parties or factions by one of which he was previously sponsored.

Before we proceed to examine whether the internal crisis rocking the PDP falls within the proviso to Sections 68 (1) (g) and 109 (1) (g) of the Constitution, it is pertinent to determine what constitutes division in a political party. The constitution does not define word "division". The Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary of Current English, 6th Edition, defines division as a disagreement or difference in opinion or way of life etc especially between members of a society or an organization.

According to Professor Okey Okon of the South Central University, California, USA, division could arise from:

1. Ideological differences and
2. Organizational differences.

Organizational differences denote conflict, division, crisis etc arising as a result of the way and manner the party is run, operated or managed. In fact, all conflicts and crises arising from the management and operation of the organic structure of the political party fall under the category of organizational differences. Conflict, division or crises arising from organizational differences bordering on such issues as internal democracy mechanism of the party, conduct of primaries election, funding, election of principal officers of the party, adoption of candidates as party flag bearer for election, handling of party finances , planning and execution of election campaign strategies etc come under organizational differences.

It is a notorious fact that the PDP has from inception been bedeviled by internal crises caused by the occurrence of undemocratic practices within the party. The defecting 37 Federal Legislators have alleged that their defection from the PDP to APC was as a result of division and internal crises within the party and that they are entitled to keep their seats in parliament. We do not know the particulars of the alleged division or crises within the PDP but if their allegations are true then they are entitled to keep their seats in parliament.

We shall now turn our attention to the issue of whether ideological differences constitute division as to entitle a defecting legislator to retain his seat in parliament. Ideological differences relates to conflict, disagreement, crisis or division arising from a conflict between a party member's ideas, beliefs, conviction, principles, philosophy or policy with those of his political party. When a member disagrees with his party's ideas, policies, programs, philosophy or principles on socio- political or economic issues does this disenchantment or disagreement with his party entitle him to defect to another party without having to lose / vacate his seat in parliament? Does this conflict or disagreement with his party constitute division as envisaged by the proviso in Sections 68 (1) (g) and 109 (1) (g) of the 1999 Constitution?

Professor Okey Okon is of the opinion that ideological differences constitute division within the meaning of Sections 68 (1) (g) and 109 (1) (g) of the Constitution and at such empowers a Legislator to defect to another party without losing his seat whenever he disagrees with the policy and philosophy of his party. According to the learned Professor, ideological differences are a form of division which should justify a legislator to defect to another party without having to lose or vacate his seat. He opined that any interpretation of the law to exclude ideological difference as constituting division is erroneous. The learned Professor further posits that failure to treat ideological differences as division will deprive Legislators of the sense of safety and protection they need to stand up for what they believe in. He held that such a narrow reading of the law will provide perverse incentives for Legislators to emphasize compliance at the expense of principles and conviction to expediency.

We however beg to disagree with this position. With due respect to the learned professor, the proviso to Section 68 (1) (g) and 109 (1) (g) of the Constitution can not be objectively interpreted to mean that whenever a legislator disagrees with the policy or philosophy of his party on socio-economic political or other issues he can dump his party for another party and still retain his seat in parliament. Such an interpretation of the law can not be the intendment of the drafters of the Constitution. It is important to note that the relevant provision reads … "As a result of a division in the political party" … This shows clearly that what the law envisages is a situation where there is a conflict or disagreement within the party that leads to internal crisis or instability in the party. In other words, ideological differences alone can not justify defection.

However, for ideological differences to justify defection, they must be of such magnitude and intensity as to lead to crisis, instability, factionalization and conflict within the party. The Noscitur Associis rule of construction of statutes states that the company a word keeps suggests its meaning. The word "division" as used in Sections 68 (1) (g) and 109 (1) (g) of the 1999 Constitution are accompanied by the words "merger" and "factions" which words denotes a change or alteration in the organic structure of a political party. We therefore agree with Professor Okey to the extent that ideological differences can constitute division which can justify defection only when such differences are of such magnitude and intensity as to lead to instability or crises within the party. A mere difference in opinion or belief will not suffice to justify defection.

Indeed, legislators do not have to defect to a new party to express or hold opinions or views contrary to those favoured by their party unless of course doing so would result and actually results to instability and crisis / conflict within the party. It is submitted that to allow defection merely on the ground that a legislator disagrees with the policies or ideological position of his party on certain socio-economic cum political or moral issues would defeat the intention of the framers of the constitution. The constitution clearly intends to discourage and penalize legislators for defection except on rare and exceptional circumstances. Making mere differences in opinion and belief a ground for political defection would provide legislators an excuse for political prostitution.

It is interesting to note that the 37 defecting legislators have also sought to justify their defection on the ground that the PDP was divided into two political parties; the old PDP and the new PDP which consist of the defecting and disgruntled member. They alleged that the new PDP has formally merged with the APC. We are of the opinion that if these allegations are true then the 37 defecting legislators are entitled to so defect without having to lose their seats. It is pertinent to note that the PDP has obtained a court order declaring the so-called new PDP illegal and restraining its members from parading themselves as PDP members. The question that arises from this development is, what is the legal effect of this order on the rights of these defecting legislators to keep their seats. It is our humble opinion that the court order has no effect whatsoever on the rights of the defecting legislators to keep their seats. The order merely prohibits the use of the name PDP by the defecting faction. It does not mean that the defecting faction is an illegal group because they are not a group of criminals or bandit.

Indeed, Sections 39 and 40 of the 1999 Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of expression as well as the right to freedom of association. The court order therefore can not operate to deprive or in any way prejudice the defecting members' entitlement to keep their seats.

The PDP has reacted to the defection of its member, especially the 37 Federal lawmakers by saying that any member of the party that renounces its membership of PDP shall be made to vacate his seat. There are also reports in the media that the PDP has gone to court to obtain a declaration for the vacation of the seats and offices of the defecting legislators and five governors. Let's keep our fingers crossed as we watch the drama unfold.

[ad_2]

Source by Henry Medua Isiekwe

Scene at the Election Booths

[ad_1]

Election is a common feature in the continued governance of any state and any country. This is a moot point especially in democratic countries – where people elect their own government. For in a democracy, the government is supposed to be "of the people, for the people and by the people". So much so good. Everywhere we can guess that elections could be more or less on similar patterns. The country is divided into smaller units of constituencies and each constituency has scores or hundreds of booths.

An election booth is the place which is specified and notified by the government for people to come and cast their votes. The booth is manned by officers of the working government to see that all goes well. The workers of each political parties involved in the elections are also stationed at the both. There duty is to see the there is no cheating taking place at the elections both.
An election booth in India appears to be a site of mixed feelings and mixed occurrences. It is more of a miniature battlefield all set with guntoting police and army on the prowl. At the booth, the officers stationed appear to be like mice in a lion's den. No one knows when there may be a poaching crowd come to capture the booth, when there will be rigging at the booth and when there may be a firing spree to cap it all.

The serpentine queues at booths go to indicate quite a lot about the people. All types of people, old and young, men and women, interested and disinterested, pour in at the booth. Some seem to have come with first and one time curiosity to see what it is like at the booth, some coming with a vengeance to rout the reigning government, while a lot others coming just because others are coming.

In India the election booths provide a colourful scenario, in keeping with the variety that exists in the country itself.

At the polling booth, behind the closed door where the boxes are kept is a scene of utter disgust and shabby lethargic performance. It appears that on the one hand officers inside are too lethargic to be true to their task, while on the other hand one can smell the air of fear within the four walls of the room. Officers on duty appear to be on tenterhooks, for they do not know when there will be an emergence of nonsense. They do not know when a person who comes in to cast his / her vote may try to exploit the situation and create hullabaloo.

Elections are conducted in every country and electorate and election booths also must be existing everywhere, but the scene at an election booth in India is unmatched. Outside, the booth there appears to be an area as if earmarked to become a battle arena, and inside the booth, it is both the calm of eternity and silence of a graveyard.

When the booth gives this appearance, there could be little to expect from the results. The results coming out of so much gloom and danger can not be indicative of anything other than gloom or danger.

[ad_2]

Source by Arun K

The Case For a Zero Party System

[ad_1]

Upon travelling to the Black Hills of South Dakota and seeing Mount Rushmore for the first time, Gutzon Borglum proclaimed, "America will march along that skyline."

Between the years of 1927 and 1941 Borglum sculpted and blasted away at that mountain, along with 400 workers, and finally realized that vision. There they were, the gigantic sculpted faces of 4 great presidents-George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, and Abraham Lincoln, and after that last blast of dynamite on October 31, 1941, that mountain came to life.

And since this is my little blog universe, and because I can (which is as good a reason as any), I'm going to sprinkle some magic dust and say the magic words, and tell you that mountain of blasted and sculpted granite literally came to life on that cold Halloween morning. George Washington, squinting in the autumn sun as it rose over the majestic Black Hills and filled the sky with dazzling orange and purple hues, turned to Thomas Jefferson, and while remembering his Farewell Address to America written on another fall day in 1796, squawked:

"Damn it Tom, I freaking told you so!"

Thomas Jefferson, you see, was the founder of the Democratic-Republican party, a party created in response to Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Party, and the two party system of American government was born. It was born, however, much to President Washington's chagrin.

How was it that what has been characterized by our Constitution as a "perfect union" of thirteen colonies, was first organized and led by a president who not only refused to affiliate himself with a political party, but who also warned his contemporaries against the dangers of splintering that very union into a partisan-system of government?

In September, 1796 George Washington, with a quill and feather pen while sitting in his study, wrote a farewell address to the American people. A draft of the letter was initially started in 1792 after the end of his first term in office, but as the newly formed republic began fragmenting and dividing into Federalist and Democratic-Republican parties, President Washington was coaxed into serving another term (and he ran unopposed) in the hopes that he could hold this union together.

The address was later revised in 1796 with the help of Alexander Hamilton. It warned of the grave dangers associated with a representative government being divided into a partisan political process. This is what the only president who was never identified by a party wrote about partisan politics:

"It serves to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration …. agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one … against another … it opens the door to foreign influence and corruption … thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another. "

I do not know about you, but reading that sends chills up my spine.

What was it that Washington was so afraid of?

Well, unless you've been in a coma over the last 214 years, the answer to that question should be rather obvious.

We operate our government through two political parties who, rather than being beholden to their constituents, are beholden to their corporate and special interest masters. Rather than being beholden to the core philosophies that they purport to espouse, their primary focus is to gain power and maintain and increase the power they get.

THAT is precisely what Washington was afraid of.

"It serves to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration … agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one …. against another …."

You said if brother!

A socialist, fascist, communist, liberal president, born in Kenya, who practices Islam on the sly, as he plots the downfall of America with a Baptist minister from Chicago. He's an African Adolph Hitler, I tell ya ', who wants to send grandma to a death panel and put that old bat down. Plus he smokes cigarettes. You want proof? That bastard just rammed down our throats a health care plan that Mitt Romney implemented in Massachusetts, the House Republicans tried to pass in 1993, and Richard Nixon advocated for while he was president of the United States.

Did you say the President lied about cheating on his wife? Here's what we need to do – shut government down, assemble both Houses of Congress together, spend tens of millions of tax payer dollars investigating what "is" is, and impeach the son of a bitch!

THAT is precisely what Washington was afraid of.

"It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption … thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another."

NAFTA, NATO, UN, Kyoto, Copenhagen, China, Citizens United vs. FEC, 737 US military basis across the globe, 2,500,000 US personnel serving across the planet, the international privately owned Federal Reserve which controls our monetary policy.

THAT is precisely what Washington was afraid of.

(And that noise you just heard was him smacking Thomas Jefferson upside the head-go to South Dakota and you will hear and see it for yourself).

Enough said. We're screwed.

We've lost ourselves. Our parties do not stand for anything anymore. They pretend to stand for substantive things, but they really do not. They're doing what George Washington said they would do-they "agitate the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms" in attempting to cling to power. That's their sole function. They ceased to govern and began to rule. After all, governing demands accountability to those being governed, while ruling requires only propaganda and servitude by those being ruled.

I know I tend to pick on Republicans far more than I pick on Democrats, but that's because I probably identify most closely with Republican core philosophies as more a part of my own core philosophies, and I feel like I've been absolutely jilted and abandoned by a party that rarely practices what it preaches. Think about what we've been sold in terms of traditional conservatism:

1) small government;
2) low taxes;
3) state's rights;
4) laissez faire foreign policy and isolationism; and
5) fiscal responsibility.

Now think of what has been given to us:

1) the Patriot Act;
2) abortion restrictions;
3) ban on gay marriage;
4) a $ 2.4 trillion Iraq war;
5) a military-industrial complex culminating in more than $ 1 trillion a year in military spending;
6) maintenance of over 700 overseas military bases;
7) insistence on overturning marijuana decriminalization in states that pass it;
8) an income tax base that allocates more than half of its intake to maintaining defense spending;
9) government monitoring of book purchases;
10) warrantless wiretaps;
11) corporate takeover of our electoral process through Citizens United vs. FEC … and on and on. It seems that every opportunity Republicans get, they are looking to intrude on our private lives, create a "Big Brother" government which violates our civil liberties, and expand our military while expanding our debt to pay for it, which requires more taxes.

What the hell happened to this party?

This is the party that had to be dragged into World War II. This was the party that preached global isolationism. This was a party that preached no government intrusion into your private affairs. Now they're in my bedroom, taking my weed, sending me to war, building military bases all over God's green earth, and making me pay for it all, while claiming there's no money left for me to see a freaking doctor!

WELL, SCREW YOU GUYS, I'VE HAD ENOUGH!

The Republican party has been bought and paid for-that's what happened. And it's a lot easier to buy and pay for a party that is continuously in a struggle to maintain its hold on power than it is to buy out individuals on a one on one basis that have to answer to constituents. These men and women do not answer to you and me-they answer to Exxon / Mobile, Halliburton, and Chase Bank. They will placate their constituents with rhetoric and diversion that we've come to know as "partisanship," in order to funnel more money to their corporate masters.

Of course in an attempt to create a façade that they are operating true to their core philosophies, they'll use those same core philosophies as a convenient excuse to oppose something politically when it suits their corporate masters' interest-for example health care reform is conveniently not fiscally responsible, but juxtapose that fiscal irresponsibility argument with the complete silence on fiscal responsibility when it comes to defense spending, and you see the absurdity that is the Republican party.

Democrats are equally divorced from their core values ​​incidentally. The "Civil Rights" Party was completely silent on the Patriot Act, and could not have been more accommodating when it made its way into passage in lightening speed through Congress. They were completely silent on the Iraq war, voicing no objection to George Bush's bogus claims of Iraqi 9/11 connections and non-existent WMD's. They got us locked up into Vietnam-that was a mess created by two Democratic administrations and an appeasement of the same defense industry master that controls Republicans. Democrats are equally in bed with the military-industrial complex, just as the Republicans are and pass a budget every year that allocates over a trillion dollars for defense expenditures. In all fairness though, their hypocrisy seems to be a bit more measured than that of Republicans. But make no mistake, they have their masters too, and many of them are the same masters the Republicans have and both parties routinely answer to them.

I keep hearing that we need a third party in this country.

What the hell for? Typical American reaction, you see two bad things, now let's add another bad thing to it in the hope that things will improve.

All I need is another group of boobs that play slave to corporate America. All I need is another party that advertises a philosophy and abandons it to hold on to power. That'll fix things all right!

No sir. Give me a man or a woman that will answer to their core philosophies and constituents and not tie themselves to a bogus party line that will keep him or her in power so long as they continue to tow that line.

Washington's co-author in his farewell address, Alexander Hamilton wrote, "The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE. The streams of national power ought to flow from that pure, original fountain of all legitimate authority. "

The consent of the people. Not the consent of the party, nor the consent of lobbyists and special interest groups. Not the consent of foreign countries, and foreign banks. But the consent of the people.

How will America achieve this? In the same manner that Gutzon Borglum envisioned that America will march along a new skyline in which a national monument was carved into the face of a granite mountain with powerful dynamite blasts and the elegant hand of a sculptor with his chisel. Like Borglum, we need to blast away this old mountain of partisan-politics and carefully sculpt a vision of America that was first conceived by our founding fathers and born through our Constitution, and then march along that new skyline.

America was not founded under an ideology of partisanship. The literal fabric from which this country was born-the Constitution of the United States-was not created with such an ideology in mind.

There are practical considerations to make when abandoning the party structure of government to be sure, but other countries have done it. Future articles will explore how that can be accomplished. Indeed I am in the process of writing a book that addresses this issue in great detail. However the purpose of this article is to allow you to envision a country without partisanship, and realize that this was precisely the intent of the founding fathers when this country was formed.

Our country was designed to be non-partisan.

The preamble to the Constitution opens with: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union …"

… Not "we the People of the Republican or Democratic Party in order to form a more imperfect Division."

Division and partisanship lead to entitlement and elitism. Division and partisanship lead to loyalty to party rather than loyalty to country.

It's time to revert to what the Constitution of the United States intended for us, the People of the United States, to do-create a more perfect Union. It's time for us to abandon this "enfeebled" partisan structure of ruling which does nothing more than kindle animosity and get back to the business of governing-with a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

It's time again to march along that skyline and forge an America in the vision of what our founding fathers had in mind when they first drafted that Constitution and created this undivided, non-partisan, perfect Union.

[ad_2]

Source by Gus Bridi

Market Entrepreneurs and Political Entrepreneurs

[ad_1]

What is an entrepreneur? Well, in the United States of America there are two types of very successful entrepreneurs. There is the market entrepreneur and there is the political entrepreneur. The market entrepreneur makes money in the free market by delivering the lowest prices and the best quality and service to its customers and the consumer. The market entrepreneur wins markets and beats out the competition because they are better and more efficient.

The political entrepreneur uses the influence with government through various methods such as lobbying, political campaign contributions and networking with government bureaucrats to either win government contracts and make money or use this influence to get the government to make new rules and regulations and he is industry.

The political entrepreneur will also use his influence to get government bureaucratic regulatory bodies at all levels of government to attack his competition. There is a big difference in market entrepreneurs and political entrepreneurs. Unfortunately, genuine Capitalism getting clobbered by political entrepreneurs coaxing government agencies to constantly attack market entrepreneurs.

The economy and the free market and capitalism for that matter works better with the most efficient companies compete on a level playing field where the consumer and the buyer votes with their dollar for the best products and services at the best possible prices. There is nothing wrong with capitalism there is only something wrong with the way it is applied in United States of America. It could be done a lot better.

[ad_2]

Source by Lance Winslow

Literature Review – A Play of Giants By Wole Soyinka

[ad_1]

The play, a Play of Giants, was written by Wole Soyinka to present a savage portrait of a group of dictatorial African leaders at bay in an embassy in New York City, United Nations. The play was purposely written to show the resemblance between the recent historical characters / African leaders and long or one time leaders in Africa who were known for their authoritarian or tyrannical rule and these include: Macias Nguema (late) of Equatorial Guinea, Jean Basptiste Bokassa of the Central African Republic, Mobutu Sese Koko of Congo Kinshasa and the Hero of heroes, the Field Marshal El-Haji Dr. Idi Amin of Uganda.

The play started with three of the dictatorial African leaders, Kamini, Kasco and Gunema who are planning to get a life-size group sculpture of the 'crowned heads' in their likeness. They have the intentions of making their statues part of other statues that would be placed at the UN stair passage. Their discussion on power and governance was interrupted by the presence of the Chairman of the Bugara Central Bank who brought the news of the refusal of the World Bank to grant Bugara country the demanded loan based on the ground of unsatisfied conditions to which the Bugaran President, Life President Dr. Kamini, responded that the Chairman should go back and agree to whatsoever conditions put forward by the World Bank even at the expense of the Bugaran people's body and soul.

However, the Chairman response to the President as touching the printing of the Bugaran currency by its Central Bank, saying that such printing would make no difference to 'toilet paper' made him to be severely punished by flushing the toilet on his head at the feet of the dictators.

The leaders further went on with their discussions when the Ambassador came in to inform them about his idea on where to place the leaders' statue. They all agreed to this and went on with their power discussion emphasizing on the importance of voodoo. This conversation was closely followed by the issue of the speech to be read, who to get it prepared, who to edit it and the importance of reading it to the hearing of the leaders present before the final or actual reading at the UN.

The sculptor was the next victim in the hand of Kamini who dealt badly with him through the hand of the Task Force Specials for saying that Kamini's statue does not worth being at the face of currency but rather sit in Madame Tussaud Chambers of Horrors.

The fourth leader joined the scene at the later end of part one, General Barra Tuboum of Nbangi – Guela, who Kamini called Alexander the Great. After short discussion on rebellion and war, the Honourable Mayor of Hyacombe and his party came in preceded by Professor Betey; his arrival changed the point of discussion to imperialist conspiracy, calling themselves names like Alexander, Napoleon and all sort. The Mayor came with golden keys.

The second part was opened with launch organized by Kamini for other African leaders with the Secretary-General introduced, who is a top civil servant, who missed the dreaded anger of Kamini when he said that the sculpture suppose to be statuettes, small in size and put on shelves like that of Beethoven, Shakespeare or Lenin and later distributed in copies. The sculptor was seen with bandages all over from head to toe, the handiwork of Kamini TF Specials.

Further conversation continued as two Russian and American delegates each arrived at little interval before Betey ran in alarming that coup has been staged in Bugara. Not long after, TF Specials were asked to position the weapon including missiles of Bugara to be used in destroying UN, fueled by the news that the Secretary-General has escaped and the believe that the delegates have hand in the coup. This was followed by the aggression of some people who ganged up outside the embassy, ​​protesting (singing) that Kamini should leave (handover).

The play ended with shout from Kamini: Fire! Fire !! Fire !!!

[ad_2]

Source by Oluwanisola Seun

Intimate Fundraising Events – Parlor Meetings, Political Fundraisers and Investment Parties

[ad_1]

Great ideas often lead to big things, but somewhere along the way investments and fundraising are often required. Non-profits, political causes, and commercial startups all need cash to expand and grow. Although many groups may dream of a mega grant or super venture capitalist, support from small donors and individual investors are often the foundation from which all things grow.

One of the most successful ways of attracting these individuals is through small gatherings. These "house parties" are a popular and successful way to raise money for nonprofits, political functions, and business ventures. Although the reasons for these gatherings are always to raise funds, the purpose for the money creates subtle differences in the structure and style of the events.

Let's take a look at all three types of events and see how they vary.

Nonprofit events are called by many names including a parlor meeting, house meeting, house party, or round up. The purpose can vary from funding for social programs or religious organizations, support for the arts, humanitarian outreach, environmental awareness or assistance for dozens of other charitable causes.

• These small charitable parlor meetings are usually hosted by two or more people commonly referred to as co-chairs.

• Successful house parties need two or more months advance notice.

• As a practice, the host does not ask for money. Instead, one of the co-chairs or the featured speaker will speak about funding needs and the benefits of supporting the organization or cause.

• One popular way to increase donations is to offer matching dollars. This is a popular incentive. A major funder agrees to make a specific donation as long as his or her amount is matched by other supporters.

Political Fundraising can be focused on a single candidate, group of candidates, or local political party. Small group fundraising accounts for a significant amount of dollars for both minor and major candidates.

• Political house parties usually begin with a committee led by a chair. In most cases, all the members are responsible for bringing in guests.

• The purpose should be defined. There can be more than one goal, but each goal should be very clear.

• Unless it is a general fundraiser, a target audience should be defined at the beginning. Food, location, and activities should be geared to target audience.

Investor Meetings also go by several names including networking house parties or Angel events.

• Although these small parties are often held in homes, informal settings in business or prestigious locations are also OK.

• Incentives, perks and well known speakers are often used to attract attendees.

• A few commercial groups are available to organize events.

Although the three types of small events have some differences, successful events share many of the same elements.

1. Prestigious location – Private homes are fine, and sometimes the best choice. Setting the event in a prominent neighborhood or in a notable home can attract guests and set a financial tone.

2. Organizers set a realistic financial goal with a specific amount they plan to raise.

3. The budget should be set in early planning and should be paid for in advance. (Dealing with last minute fees or unpaid bills creates a negative atmosphere.) A flawless event reflects on the organization, candidate, or company.

4. Leadership should be clear and defined. Jobs and roles need to be written down and understood by all members of the team.

5. Time management is very important. If the event is listed as two hours, do not run over time. Running overtime makes potential donors angry.

6. Aggressively Market target audience. Make sure to budget for marketing campaign which may include personal contacts, mailed invites, direct mail, and entertainer contacts.

7. Thank you letters (or calls) should be sent to all attendees who attended parlor meetings or investment parties, whether they immediately invested or not.

[ad_2]

Source by Rivka C Willick