Watch my interview with RT TV
External & Internal Forces Fear Continuance of Buhari Presidency
February 1, 2019
President Buhari removed Chief Justice Walter Onnoghen last week, after it was found that Onnoghen had violated the Code of Conduct, failing twice to appear before the Code of Conduct Tribunal. Buhari’s opponent in the Presidential race has accused him of not following constitutional procedures, by which he should first obtain two-thirds in the Parliament vote or a request by the Supreme Court itself. There is a provision in the Constitution under which the President can suspend or dismiss the Chief Justice. That is, in a situation where the Chief Justice is found to have contravened the Code of Conduct. In this regard, the President does not require any Senate vote or recommendation from the National Judicial Council. The Nigerian Supreme Court has jurisdiction and final say in challenges against election results.
Internationally forces based in the City of London- financial capital of the world-do not want to see President Buhari succeed in a second term as Head of State. His commitment to fight against corruption, and develop the Nigerian economy with collaboration from China threatens the internal and external enemies of Nigeria, who oppose the nation’s progress. The announcement this past week that Nigeria has become an official member of China’s Belt and Road portends success for Nigeria, as the country frees itself from domination by the International Monetary Fund.
The British government issued a statement of concern on January 26, which says “we are compelled to observe that the timing of this action, so close to national elections, gives cause for concern. It risks affecting both domestic and international perceptions on the credibility of the forthcoming elections.”
In the US establishment’s Council of Foreign Relations blog, Udo Jude Ilo from the Open Society Initiative for West Africa and Yemi Adamolekun of Enough Is Enough Nigeria (EIE) attacked President Buhari. They wrote among other things: “the timing of [Onnoghen’s] replacement is so troubling. Many analysts, including the authors of this piece, see the move by the President as a calculated attempt to gain some electoral advantage should an election petition between the President and the main opposition party end up in the Supreme Court.”
Open Society Initiative was created by billionaire George Soros, who is member of the global financial elite. Open Society is a vehicle for regime change around the world. Enough is Enough is funded by Soros’ Open Society. The authors of this blog are not just concerned Nigerian citizens, but part of a of a nasty operation to aimed at disrupting/tainting the Nigerian Presidential election and potentially destabilizing Nigeria to prevent the re-election of President Buhari.
In recent weeks media outlets in the West have been voicing allegations of violence and other actions to be instigated by the government of Nigeria in order to insure a victory for President Buhari. The British are undoubtedly the driving group behind this scenario, but we cannot rule out US involvement. President Trump to his credit has come out against regime change, however US support for the removal of the President Venezuela raises doubts about that commitment.
Not accidentally, the terrorist thugs from Boko Haram have resurfaced in force lately, scoring unexpected victories against Africa’s Nigerian led Multinational Force, and the Nigerian army, spawning a new wave of refugees in the Lake Chad region.
Those of us who have studied Nigeria’s political-economy over decades understand that the efforts directed against President Buhari are intended to derail the momentum for the industrial development of Nigeria. This includes the President’s commitment to Transaqua, a vital water-transfer project to save the shrinking Lake Chad.
Human Rights Philosophy Challenged
By Makki Elmorgabi
Why the bill of indictment, and why against Human Rights Philosophy; not just against what the pretenders of the philosophy practice. Pretenders are advocates and activists, some of whom are deceivers, and some are dreamers.
The problem is not simply in the practice, but there is something inherently wrong with today’s human rights philosophy itself. It was not a negative philosophy during the period of aristocratic tyranny and feudalism,but in the recent period it has become negative and resistant to reform. While in the time of traditional tyrannical power, human rights had a role, but in the modern era, the dominant form of human rights philosophy has taken on a different and negative quality.
In the battle to resist the traditional tyrannical authority inherited from the time of European feudalism, the philosophy was positive. In addition to which, the philosophy of “individual secularism” was a positive force in the battle against the authoritarianism of socialism and communism during the cold war. However, after it had become the dominant school of thought for almost two decades, the evil content of this philosophy appeared.
Human Rights gradually became a reactionary philosophy, resulting in it losing its progressive aspects.
It is true that in the West, human rights are based on “individual secularism” which drives communities to a state of war (state of nature), by isolating the individual from the community. As is commonly known, the social contract theory of democracy is based on the development of communities from the individual in the “state of nature.” From this social contract is born civil society. Human Rights philosophy today is again isolating the individual, and separating him not just from the community, but from his inheritance and source of ethics.
The modern individual motivated by human rights theory, thinks about himself in his moment, and in so doing he is distancing himself from his community, traditions, inherited ethics, and much more. Through individual rights, he returns to the “status quo” of being completely dominated by his wicked, evil, selfish needs and wants. The result is that the community is returning day by day to “the state of nature.” The wicked personality is coated by fake culture, fake arguments, and the media; even the laws and its practice are full of tricks. As a result, justice is denied and abandoned!
Five Charges against Human Rights Philosophy and its Pretenders
1)…Human Rights Philosophy is tyrannical, i.e., it is vulnerable to manipulation by tyranny. The reason for its vulnerability to manipulation is that people are divided and scattered on the basis of needs, demands, and wants, that are guided and directed by powerful groups, who are conflicted and competing among themselves. The so-called activists and pretenders of human rights are mostly under the control of these powerful groupings who control the discourse of what are the appropriate human rights issues for agitation. The powerful, rich and strong decide, then the activists and interventionists follow. The pretenders often attempt to portray a false image that they are attacking “the powers that be” but, in truth they are not working for the sake of human rights, but for national and international powers pulling the strings behind the scene.
2)…Human Rights Philosophy is a divisive, discriminatory, and violent philosophy, not integrative nor peaceful. It creates, generates, and invents more differences every day among, and between groups, communities and even nations. In actuality, human rights philosophy does not simply invent differences, but encourages and drives the communities mad to accept and defend any newly-discovered differences among them. Thus, putting any person, group or even a nation overseas,under imminent threat and “justified” intervention, if they refuse the newly discovered differences.Their philosophy uses inflammatory campaigns under the justification of taking rights from the grip of other people peacefully, but the size and the effects of their campaigns leads otherwise. Violence is an absolute result of such inflammatory campaigns in a cracked community. If adopting and practicing inflammatory and provocative campaigns between groups, races, classes, and sects, is not violence, then what is?
3)…Human Rights Philosophy eliminates and denies the people’s right to information, as human rights pretenders are addicted to using silence and distracting facts on other topics to deprive their audience from needed and correct information.
Human rights pretenders’ tools are disinformation, misinformation, passive silence and distractive campaigns. A smart mix of these things is always ready to be put in place for immediate operation by well-financed tyrannical powers.
Sometimes human rights organizations give themselves the right to prioritize the size and length of campaigns. They claim that they didn’t miss any violations, but they can keep what they want low-profile, and use minute by minute updates to create massive. They design poll questions to bring specific answers, and they produce fake and rigged studies and statistics, instead of being observers and monitors. They themselves are the ones that need to be monitored, observed and investigated for the good of society. If the Human Rights Philosophy is leading people to such a waste of money and time, then their philosophy itself should be reviewed.
4)…Human Rights Philosophy pretenders are dehumanizing their opponents, mainly conservative and religious people, portraying them as monsters and barbarians. They deny their opponents the right of freedom of expression, justifying lies and fake news against them. Their methods include physical violence or when suitable they utilize passive silence and distraction in collusion with the violence.
5)…Human Rights pretenders collude with interventionists and neo-colonialists to create and prolong conflicts in Third World nations through pressure groups, NGOs, and support from elements within international liberal organizations. They drag countries into wars, regime change with chaos, or “Creative Anarchy”. Human rights pretenders follow the angle of the war and the directions of interventionists, then they distance themselves and pretend that it was not their idea even after very strong collusion. However, the fact remains that they get benefits through organizations that live off conflicts, refugees, and disasters. They manipulate innocent human rights believers and dreamers from the Third World. There is a class of people now making business from this collusion. They have not been held accountable for their corruption, and abuses to humanitarian crisis and use of donor’s money, because of the difficulty in investigating and proving their criminal behavior. They live off the collusion with interventionism, but claim they are opposed to it
Human Values Not Human Rights
I call for Human Values as an alternative to Human Rights today’s philosophy and practice. Another article has explained this thoroughly, but still we need to deal and debate with Human Rights philosophy and its advocate, in spite of the fact that a great number of them are “pretenders and paraders”.
Although human rights philosophy is resistant to reform, it is still advisable to try to solve the corruption of this philosophy by contributing to the debate of reform among the pretenders, who claim the title of activists and advocates. Trying to reform will help to create a good climate for change. However, we should redefine human rights philosophy in a broader concept of a “Comprehensive Orientation for Human, Environmental and Peoples’ Rights.”
Mekki ELMOGRABI, is a Sudanese press writer and diplomat focuses on East Africa issues, he founded in 2011 Mekki Center and participated in several African initiatives and programs. He is currently in Washington DC and reached through (Mekki Elmograbi: Google, Facebook, twitter) or email@example.com Cell Phone +17033426346 (Preferably text or Whatsaap)
No to British Regime Change in South Africa!
David Cherry and Ramasimong Phillip Tsokolibane
January 10, 2015
South Africa is being rocked by destabilization. The leading edge of the operation is the recent call of the Metalworkers Union (NUMSA)—the largest in the country—for regime change. This comes just as the spirit of the BRICS association of nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) is taking hold worldwide, and as the commitment of South Africa’s ruling African National Congress (ANC) to the BRICS—and to nuclear power—is becoming entrenched. The ANC has chosen the only path that can provide the country with a future. What hostile force, then, is at work?
The destabilization is no different, in essence, than the one Russia is now experiencing. Both come from the same mother, the British Empire in its neo-colonial phase-based on propaganda, and financial and psychological warfare-and both have the same intent: to immobilize or overthrow lawful governments that
threaten to break out of the British system and create the beginnings of an alternative worthy of the human spirit-the BRICS association. The project includes surrounding Russia and China with hostile governments as a step toward the overthrow of the governments of those two nations
George Soros & Open Society-British Empire Using ‘R2P’ To Destroy National Sovereignty
April 29, 2011
R2P was explicitly Nerobama’s justification for starting the war in Libya. Don’t believe the press lies that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was the muscle behind the Libya war policy: The R2P doctrine has been the British Empire’s
drumbeat since Tony Blair’s 1999 Chicago speech calling for a ground invasion of Kosovo, and it has been the policy of Clinton-haters George Soros and Soros owned Samantha Power since the mid-1990s, when Soros was creating the International Criminal Court, and trying to take over the nearly failed states of the former Soviet Union through his Open Society operation. Soros’s little handmaidens, Power and Rice, have been drooling to implement R2P ever since it was first cooked up in the inner sanctums pf the Empire in 1999.
In addition to propagandizing for R2P, Soros has poured billions into creating tandem institutions that will smash the sanctity of sovereignty, especially as it was defined in the UN Charter. In the 1990s, Soros financed the propaganda for the creation of the International Criminal Court (ICC), and in 1999, he jumped immediately into supporting the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS, a.k.a. the Responsibility To Protect Commission), an independent initiative of the British Commonwealth that spewed out of the mouth of then Canadian Prime Minister Chrétien during the UN Millennium summit.
Southern Africans Rally Against British Assault on Zimbabwe
October 12, 2007
There is no better timely example of the British colonial imperialist policy towards Africa then the current self-defeating temper tantrum by Britain’s new leader. The ghost of the infamous conqueror of Southern Africa, Cecil Rhodes, is alive but not well in the body of Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Fortunately, South African President Thabo Mbeki, with overwhelming support from the leaders of the Southern African Development Community, has brought about a compromise between the ZANU-PF ruling party, and its opposition, the British-backed leadership of the Movement for the Democratic Change (MDC). This has thwarted, for the moment, British attempts to instigate a regime change of Zimbabwe’s elected President, Robert Mugabe , before the March 2008 multiple national elections.