 the University of Alabama blocking the entrance of two black students. However, Democratic President John Kennedy ordered him to stand aside (or else!).

The Civil Rights Movement, designed to end the Jim Crow Laws and practices, were brought about by white Republicans and blacks – but mostly blacks. Finally federal laws were drafted to end the Jim Crow laws. Democratic President Lyndon Johnson sided with the Republicans and against his own party when he supported and signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, thereby ending the Jim Crow Laws.

Notable Politicians

Although it was the Democratic party members that fought for slavery, Jim Crow laws, racial discrimination, and against the Civil Rights Movement, we should remember it was both the offical Democratic and Republican parties that ended the state and local policy of discrimination.

Republican President Dwight Eisenhower sent troops to integrate schools in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1954.

Democratic President John Kennedy told Democratic governor George Wallace to stand aside, allowing black students to enroll in the University of Alabama.

Democratic President Lyndon Johnson, going against his own party, sided with the Republicans and signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Of all the racism in the United States, we should remember racism is essentially an individual act. Racists are people, and government is run by people. Sometimes you're going to find racist government policies. But when American Citizens begin campaigning against racist policies, both Democrats and Republicans take steps to end them.

The lesson is that some people in the United States are racist, but the United States is not a racist nation.

Copyright © 2015 by Jerald L. Brown<|endoftext|>🗯 We Have Met the Enemy, and He is Us

userpic=divided-nationThe recent discussions of Ilhan Omar and antisemitism have reignited the debates of racism and divides in this country.  On the Democratic side there is the push to condemn antisemitism while not offending those who either disagree with the behavior of the Israeli government, or to include other racist attacks. On the Republican side, there is the push to condemn antisemitism while ignoring similar behavior within the Republican party. But the truth is, despicable behavior and intolerance — racial, political, and other — exists on both sides.

The Atlantic had an interesting article recently exploring this. The Atlantic asked PredictWise, a polling and analytics firm, to create a ranking of counties in the U.S. based on partisan prejudice (or what researchers call “affective polarization”). The result was surprising in several ways. First, while virtually all Americans have been exposed to hyper-partisan politicians, social-media echo chambers, and clickbait headlines, we found significant variations in Americans’ political ill will from place to place, regardless of party. The maps show that affective polarization occurs on both sides of the aisle: there is intense political hatred and bias occurring in both Red and Blue areas. A NY Times opinion piece refers to this as the culture of contempt:

Political scientists have found that our nation is more polarized than it has been at any time since the Civil War. One in six Americans has stopped talking to a family member or close friend because of the 2016 election. Millions of people organize their social lives and their news exposure along ideological lines to avoid people with opposing viewpoints. What’s our problem?

I know I’ve fallen into this. I’ve begun to block memes from the side I disagree with: I find them annoying, but it is pointless to comment on them and point out the errors because the other side won’t listen anyway. Why won’t they listen? Another article I found explores this quite well, detailing 24 cognative biases that shape our thinking. These are flaws in human reasoning that political machines can exploit to make our biases stronger. You can combat them to some extent if you know what they are (just as you can filter out the bias from news sources if you know it), but you will never succeed completely.

These biases and prejudices and hatred and contempt are playing out in many discussions we see in the news today. But it isn’t just the news. Racism and hatred can be anywhere, including your local knitting store. Online bots can take racism and hatred, and amplify it. The best way to combat it? First, educate yourself to recognize it. Second, speak out and don’t let it go unchallenged. Third, engage as much as you can. There is a balance between those who cannot be redeemed, and those whom you can educate about their bias. Don’t expect to change minds immediately; but do work to plant the seeds.<|endoftext|>Essay Sample Describing the Israel and Palestine Conflict

Published: 2022-05-19
Type of paper:  Essay
Categories:  International relations War
Pages: 5
Wordcount: 1181 words
10 min read

The terms peace and conflict are two contradictory terms that define the opposite of each other. Peace is a state of tranquility and calmness, in this situation, peace is the state where there is no war. While conflict is a protracted disagreement between two or more parties that may end up becoming armed violence. Other terms that involve peace and conflict; they include peacemaking, peacekeeping, and peacebuilding.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Peacemaking is a practical attempt to give equitable power to all parties involved in a disagreement in an attempt to prevent future conflicts (Immel & Thomson Gale (Firm), 2011). Peacemaking aims at attaining a mutual reconciliation among parties in a conflict. Peacekeeping, on the other hand, is a process that comes in a post-conflict situation; it involves the deployment of peacekeeping troops and peacekeeping observers who play a critical role in monitoring and observing the peace process. They assist ex-combatants in the implementation of peace agreements. This involves helping in social and economic development, ensuring that there is electoral justice by providing necessary assistance in the electoral process and strengthening the rule of law. Peacebuilding seeks to ensure that there is durable peace, it focuses on the causes of conflicts and addressing them, peacebuilding also concentrates on reconciliation among conflicting parties and those affected by conflicts, it also focuses on economic transformation, strengthening institutions and political change which ensures that there is a durable peace.

The focus here is the conflict between Israel and Palestine. The creation of the Jewish state is the point of contention. The idea of the creation of a Jewish state is rooted in the cultural and religious beliefs of the Jewish people. The Napoleonic war led to the rise of movements among this was Zionism that set out the idea for a homeland for the Jews (Ellis, M. H. 2002). In 1917 the Balfour Declaration by the United Kingdom endorsed the establishment of a home for the Jews in Palestine. In 1922 the British government accepted this by agreeing to the British Mandate for Palestine. In 1920, 19-26 April during the San Remo Conference, the European powers mandated the establishment of a Jewish homeland. And later in the year 1948, the state of Israel was established.

The conflict that began as an intercommunal conflict in Mandatory Palestine between Arabs and Jews from the year 1920 fully erupted in 1948 after the establishment of the state of Israel (Slavicek, L. C. 2009). After the six-day war of 1967 where Israel took control of the Gaza Strip and West Bank from Egypt and Jordan respectively where Palestinians sought refuge after the establishment of the state of Israel, the war brought a new dimension.

Critical issues in this conflict are the control of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, the mutual recognition of borders (Shoshan, M. 2010), the power of Jerusalem. Both Israel and Palestine want to control the city that holds cultural and religious significance to both parties, water rights; access to clean water, an Israeli settlement, Palestinian to have freedom of movement and the right for their return. The above fundamental issues are the reasons for the intractable war between Israel and Palestine.

Efforts have been made over the decades of the conflict to try and find a peaceful solution to it. Peacemaking, peacebuilding, and peacekeeping have been used to try and resolve the conflict and maintain peace in the region (Abd H. M. & PASSIA. 2005). Here we focus on the efforts made by the United States of America and their support of the creation of the Jewish state in Palestine.

The Balfour Declaration and the British Mandate were drafted in both Britain and the USA, a judge in the US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis helped in the drafting. Because the US supported the establishment of the Jewish State, they, therefore, are concerned with the conflict between Israel and Palestine. Without a doubt, the US is directly involved in the dispute. They have shown efforts to find a mutual understanding between the parties to try and end the violence.

The United States as a member of the quarter on the Middle East through its envoys and in partnership with other members of the quarter, they have made efforts through mediation to find common ground between Israel and Palestine. The United States through its president Bill Clinton witnessed the signing of the Oslo Agreement on 13th September 1993 between Israel and Palestine. The agreement stipulated for the withdrawal of Israeli troops from West Bank and the Gaza Strip and that an interim self-governing authority should take place within a transitional period of five years that was to lead to a permanent settlement by resolutions 242 and 338.

Another effort was made by the US to help achieve peace between Israel and Palestine after the Oslo Agreement was rejected by Hamas and other Palestinians rejectionists, who launched bombs into Israel


 candidate for monsanto & you make me sick !

  136. Monsanto is a weapon, Donald Rumsfeld was CEO of Monsanto.
    Monsanto had and has ex-executives that are now heads of government departments. Bush Rumsfeld Cheney and other have shares in Monsanto since the late 70's early 80's.

  137. As much as I hate monopolies, I hate lies even more - policies and political actions governed by silly emotions have no place in a conversation.

    Firstly, the term is GM crops, not GE crops (for the dimwits up top).

    Secondly, DDT (or GM crops for that matter) have still not been linked to ANY health issues in people; this argument is as stupid as Jenny McCarthy pretending to be an expert on the fake link between inoculations and autism, or the 9/11 Troofer movement. In fact, an estimated 6 million people have died of Malaria since DDT was banned. Organic food, on the other hand, is granted the right to use Copper as its primary fungicide, which is 200 times more toxic than the biodegradable chemicals used in synthetic farming.

    Organic farming cannot produce more than 80% (on average)of the yield of synthetic farming, and uses much more energy per acre. People who think organic is the solution are simply uneducated...or they are implying that they advocate that most of the third world needs to die off so that the ycan continue to stoke their yuppy ego. Furthermore 8 in 9 food contamination incidents in stores and markets came from small, family farms, 80% of which were organic.

    EVERY crop is genetically modified - they are all products of eugenic practices, not of which occured in nature. Tomatoes were bred from the poisonous Nightshade plant.

    90% of crops are grown on small scale family farms, not on giant corporate farms - this is just another straw man anti business argument.

    The more I read the comments on this site, the more I feel that we deserve to starve to death.

  138. In the U.S., you will have to buy only organic (or grow your own) foods. This will cost you a bit more, but it's what I've chosen to do, for more reasons than just one. There is no reason why anyone should trust Monsanto, given their track record. The U.S. government should stop subsidizing their crops and instead subsidize organic agriculture. Also, you should make sure none of your portfolios include Monsanto stock. I would also encourage everyone else to watch this film. Bravo to the producer and director, well done. We need to do more, all of us. And it can be done. The problem is ignorance and greed.

  139. sounds like mosanto is fammine of the 4 horsemen. Definetly doing a good job bullying farming communities into poverty and hiding any adverse effect gm crops have and this is only the beginning.

    worrying information. how the hell do you stop something like this?

  140. Rick, sorry but Obama hasn't taken your guns away, but he has given you healthcare in case you do get shot by someone that points a gun in your direction. Understand why you are angry at the government, but privatising profits and socialise losses was something that GW.Bush started, a Republican president. You keep your guns, eat your burger, and idolise your Glen Beck and Fox News, and thank Obama for keeping you alive, because healthcare is something everyone now has access to.

  141. the true answer is to EAT ONLY ORGANIC food, instead of using any MOnsanto produce whatsoever, and boycott them...this is the only solution against such a large global company!lets not just talk about it and throw insults...THE UNIVERSE REWARDS ACTION x

  142. disgusting seeing these type of companies taking what the want, not caring for anything but them selves. how do the people who run these types of business's is beyond me.

  143. jkaz, Bluesmanwalking and others, DO NOT DESPAIR!!! WE NEED YOU for the fight against these giants, and they are NOT as invincible as they look! A movement of disillusioned farmers is already afoot. "People power" is already amassing, and it's more powerful than all the lobbyists and all the guns money can buy. Without lobbyists, and without millions in treasure, People ended Jim Crow, People halted union-busting, People cut Big Tobacco down to size, and now People will challenge Monsanto. "People power" means WE NEED YOU! Check out what Pesticide Action Network is doing, for example. I don't represent them, but they can give insight into what's being done. So far it's just the seed of a grassroots movement (no pun intended) and it is growing. We can collapse in despair (what Monsanto wants us to do) or WE CAN JOIN THE FIGHT! We should cry if we need to; it is a heartbreaker, but let's get it out of our systems so we can get to work on what we can do to take this giant DOWN so they do harm no more. We MUST overturn Diamond v. Chakrabarty (1980), the decision that legalized the patenting of living things. Even if you can only use your purchasing power, use it! Learn how you can avoid making purchases that benefit Monsanto, and tell others what you're doing. Think outside the box. These creeps got powerful under cover of darkness. They are not immovable.

  144. When I watched this I just cried. Anger mixed with helplessness. Monsato and the like are parasites on this planet, their greed knows no bounds. I would like to be positive but basically we are screwed.

  145. Monsanto - the monstrous green plague. Pure evil. They destroy the world. They lie.

    Genetics is not the enemy. But they way Monsanto uses the technology (bad science, lying, rash decisions)for evil short sighted gains is. With such technology the utmost precautions should have been taken. Instead no precautions were taken.

    GMO's should have been quarantined from the natural environment... In space or lifeless planets, air tight facilities or on isolated islands. But not so...

    Complete corruption. We shall all suffer.

    Add Monsanto as a competitor with the tragedy of the commons, religion, ignorance, needless shortsighted selfishness, mortality and war for the title of 'greatest scourge of humanity.'

    I think Watson and Crick despite their great intelligence have failed or ignored the downside of the discovery of DNA structure. Watson seems to have a poor understanding of ecology... and only sees the positives of genetics, as seen by his endorsement of Monsanto.... but I think if he knew they were actually doing bad science, that they were lying to people... that they did not care for humanity like he did... I think he would - or hope he would condemn what Monsanto has done in the world... giving genetics a bad name.

  146. @ Rick,
    come on guys, go and read a proper definition of what socialism is and can be and give your formatted mind a break would you?
    Biased education you have had.

  147. The alarming message taken from The World according to Monsanto & The Future of Foods is...'Health & the Environment' taken directly from this film -can Monsanto be trusted for the future survival of humanity? The "3 critical elements required for humanity to survive" (Air,Water,Food) The focus of a re-vocation of U.S. patent for living organism (seeds) is necessary to stem "monopoly of the world food crop" How did the U.S. patent office allow a patent on an organic natural organism ??? IT SHOULD NEVER HAVE HAPPENED- It is time to stand up!

  148. So what are we going to do about all this ??? NOTHING !!!

    Because Monday to Friday we work 9 to 5 and after work we're soooo tired, then Saturday we got the lawn to do, the kids at baseball, soccer, what have you. And last but not least, Sunday there's church (what a big help that is) then football all day.

    The fact is, Americans do not have what it takes to stand up, like Ireland, Africa, France, Argentina, Palestine just to name a few.

    We rather sit on our Lazy-boys and watch CNN and bitch. The reason is simple, we have never had a war in our own back yard like these countries and so many other countries. The only fight that some of us have seen are the ones in someones else's back yard for our government's agenda.
    (and for the m***** out there, our civil war is not from this time).

  149. I would like to get a patent for every circumcised penis. That way, whenever anyone uses their penis in any way, my corporation will receive a small sum. This will have the unintended effect of reducing the world's population, but more importantly, it will add to my firm's profits. This will be introduced with a marketing campaign heralding the benefits of this plan to the consumer and choice, freedom, etc. I hope no Monsanto executives are reading this, I don't want them to steal my idea.

  150. True Tom. There are only a few ways to change what is happening to our food due to companies like Monsanto, change what we buy and be vocal in our objections. It is not the current administration's fault, Obama did what every president in the last two decades has done, he determined that they best policy makers in the United States regarding food-safety are the creators of


ence P. Jeffrey | July 11, 2013 | 5:30 PM EDT

Sen. Mike Lee (R.-Utah) (AP Photo)

(CNSNews.com) - Sen. Mike Lee (R.-Utah) is calling for the House Republican leadership to force a showdown with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and President Barack Obama when this fiscal year ends on Sept. 30 by refusing to permit funding for the implementation of Obamacare in whatever legislation—likely a continuing resolution—authorizes funding of the government after that date.

In an interview with CNSNews.com about his new e-book (Why John Roberts Was Wrong About Healthcare), Lee said Obama was violating his constitutional obligation to faithfully execute the law by suspending the statutory Dec. 31, 2013 deadline for the Obamacare mandate that requires large employers to provide health insurance for their workers. Lee noted that Obama is not similarly suspending the same Dec. 31 deadline that requires individuals to buy health insurance.

If the player does not load, please check that you are running the latest version of Adobe Flash Player.

“The remedy is for Congress to refuse to fund the implementation of the program that the president insists is not ready to be implemented,” said Lee. “Look, the American people are being told: You’ve got to comply even though the big corporations don’t have to. You’ve got to do this or you’ll be punished. But if [the big corporations] don’t do what they are supposed to do under the law, nothing will happen to them.”

“So, Congress has not only the authority but a solemn obligation in this circumstance to say if the law’s not ready to be implemented and enforced, as it was written, the American people shouldn’t be paying to have it implemented and enforced--not at all,” said Lee.

“It would be irresponsible at this point for Congress to pass any appropriations measure and any continuing resolution that would contain funding for the ongoing, further enforcement and implementation of Obamacare as long as these conditions remain in place,” he said.

Lee said that House Speaker John Boehner and other House Republican leaders should join with Republicans in the Senate in blocking any funding after Sept. 30 for implementation of Obamacare.

“I’m drafting an amendment for the Senate to attach to any continuing resolution here,” said Lee. “Republicans in the Senate and Republicans in the House need to stand on this issue, need to refuse to budge, because we will be complicit in Obamacare, we will be responsible for what happens to the country with Obamacare as the government selectively enforces this law, as the administration has now re-written it, if we provide funding for the administration to do that.”

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 of the Constitution says: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” A law cannot be enacted unless it is approved by the House. The current law authorizing the administration to spend money expires on Sept. 30.

If the Republican-majority House were to approve a continuing resolution to fund the government after Sept. 30 that prohibited the administration from spending any money to implement Obamacare, the Democratic-majority Senate, led by Sen. Harry Reid (D.-Nev.), would have a choice: approve a similar bill and keep the government funded (with the exception of Obamacare), or refuse to approve a similar bill and shutdown the government in attempt to compel the House to reverse course and provide funding for Obamacare.

President Obama would face a similar choice if the Senate joined the House in approving a CR that prohibited spending money on implementation of Obamacare. He would need to decide if he wanted to shut down the government in an attempt to compel Congress to give him the money to implement Obamacare.

Eventually, one side would have to give: Either the Republican-majority House led by John Boehner would need to surrender to Harry Reid’s or Barack Obama’s demand that it fund Obamacare, or Reid and Obama would need to surrender to the Republican-majority House's decision to deny funding for Obamacare implementation.

Lee said he did not want a government shut down, and that there did not need to be one. But in his view, if the House approved a bill to fund the government and the Senate or the president blocked that bill because it did not fund implementation of Obamacare, it would be the Senate or the president who was shutting down the government, not the Republican House.

“I want to make very clear: There’s no need to shut down the government here,” said Lee. “I don’t want a government shutdown, and I don’t think we have to have one.”

“It would be most unfortunate if they refused to keep the rest of the government functioning, just because they are so insistent on the Obama administration having all the funds it wants to be able to selectively enforce this provision,” he said.

“No American who is concerned about individual liberty, no American who is concerned about all the horrible things that Obamacare is going to do to our economy would ever want that taint [of having funded Obamacare even after the administration announced it was not going to enforce its health-insurance mandate equally on individuals and businesses],” said Lee. “No one would want to be complicit in that, and that is exactly why the House must refuse to fund ObamaCare.”

“This is the moment,” Lee said. “This is the moment when Americans stand together and say: We don’t want this.”<|endoftext|>MTG sparks outrage by saying if she and Steve Bannon had ‘organized’ January 6th ‘we would have won’

At a Young Republican dinner on Saturday night in New York City, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene inspired a cheering crowd with a stirring address.

Among other things, Greene assured the jubilant throng that “we would have won” if she and Steve Bannon had planned the January 6 Capitol assault.

“I’ll tell you something, if Steve Bannon and I had planned it, we would have triumphed,” she said.

Not to mention, she said, we would have been armed.

One prominent MAGA Republican who attended the dinner was Greene, who wore a blue one-shouldered gown with diamond accents.

Donald Trump Jr., Steve Bannon, Steve Cortes of Newsmax, Jack Posobiec, a conservative pundit, and James O’Keefe, the creator of Project Veritas, were also invited.

Greene spoke on current Republican initiatives in Congress, which would include a long list of agenda-driven issues after the GOP retakes control of the lower chamber on January 3. Greene was receiving an award at the event.

“I’m going to tell you I am fired up about 222 in the House after the previous two years of suffering under Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats and voting no consistently to Joe Biden and the Democrats communist agenda,” she stated.

The Georgia congresswoman’s committee responsibilities were removed not long after she arrived in Washington, DC. She has supported Republican Kevin McCarthy for the position of House Speaker and is probably looking forward to a period without the responsibility of holding that position.

She went on to say that getting all House Republicans to vote in unison is a task in and of itself, making reference to the continuing issue of party discipline, especially as the race for president in 2024 starts to take form.

Greene continues to steadfastly back former president Donald Trump, who declared his candidacy for reelection last month. Greene urged other Republicans to support Trump despite requests from a sizeable segment of the GOP to consider elsewhere for their choice for 2024.

During her speech, Greene also boasted about her persistent opposition to providing US cash to Ukraine, which is still engaged in a conflict with Russia that began over ten months ago.

She said that the tens of billions of dollars donated by US taxpayers to Ukraine would have been better spent tackling the country’s continuing problems with Mexican drug gangs who have set up shop along the US-Mexico border.

Although it seemed like Greene was adored and loved at the dinner, her comments were not well received online.

One non-fan tweeted, “I can’t wait to see you in jail.”

One user who claimed to be associated with a podcast on “mental, physical, spiritual,” and “financial” wellness blasted Greene’s looks. The user said, “I’ve seen males look better in an evening gown.”

One user responded to her remarks about Bannon and January 6 by writing, “Ummm that’s sedition…,”

In response, another person said, “At least you fascists are simply stating it out loud now and letting the rest of us know exactly what you are.”

Another account, labeled GOP Implosion Monitor, was perplexed by the notion that there would be any Republicans in very blue New York City.

He remarked, “The thought of young Republicans in NYC is funny.”

»MTG sparks outrage by saying if she and Steve Bannon had ‘organized’ January 6th ‘we would have won’«

↯↯↯Read More On The Topic On TDPel Media ↯↯↯<|endoftext|>child rights

Ten Sacred and Forbidden Truths Every Child Should be Told, Taught, and Inspired to Embrace

Before we get into the actual Truths themselves, let us develop, those of us who are capable of sane and rational deductive reasoning, a clear understanding of what is at stake here, what must be done, and how it must be done.

Each of us, every human-born still able to pretend to be alive at this moment within the illusion of time, is a tortured and destroyed ex-child. We are murder victims of mind consciousness, every one of us, Myself included, despite the remarkable brilliance and purity and depth of my Forbidden Truth insights, realizations, and revelations. The difference between Me and you, you teeming masses of unwashed sheeple, is that I have achieved the feat of giving birth to Myself as something beyond human. An incredible feat, but going back to childhood I am still exactly what you are: A murder victim, irreparably harmed, damaged,


 we don't have the luxury of time, as Canadians are already consuming cannabis at record levels. The individual and societal harms associated with cannabis use are already being felt every day. The proposed legislation and eventual regulation is our best attempt to minimize those harms and protect the well-being of all Canadians.
    Witnesses at committee further pointed out that there is always a perception that more time is needed, but that any delays would contribute to confusion among the population.
    Our government agrees that we need to act now, and we have been working closely with provinces and territories on many fronts, including through a federal-provincial-territorial senior officials working group. The working group has been kept apprised of developments on this file over the last year through meetings via teleconference every three weeks, as well as in-person meetings. Most recently, a meeting took place here in Ottawa on October 17 and 18.
     Since the introduction of Bill C-45, several federal-provincial-territorial issue-specific working groups have also been established to collaborate more closely on a range of complex issues, including drug-impaired driving, ticketable offences, taxation, and public education.
    Our government recognizes that providing support to provinces and territories for this work is critical. That is why we have committed, for instance, up to $81 million specifically to the provinces and territories to train front-line officers to recognize the signs and symptoms of impaired driving, build law enforcement capacity across the country, and provide access to drug screening devices.
    Our government is encouraged by the tremendous amount of work that has already been carried out in the provinces and territories. Many jurisdictions committed to and have completed public consultations on how cannabis legalization should be implemented.

    Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, and Alberta have released proposed legislation and frameworks describing how they will approach recreational cannabis, and Manitoba has enacted the Cannabis Harm Prevention Act. Clearly, many provinces are moving forward in anticipation of the July 2018 time frame.
    Recognizing that some provinces and territories may not have systems in place by the summer of 2018, our government is proposing to facilitate interim access to a regulated quality controlled supply from a federally licensed producer via online ordering, with secure home delivery through mail or courier.
    Our government's intention is to offset the broader costs associated with implementing this new system by collecting licensing and other fees, as well as through revenues generated through taxation, as is the case with the tobacco and alcohol industry. Discussions with provinces and territories around the proposed taxation plan have already begun and will continue. As part of our consultations on this matter, we welcome the feedback of all Canadians to ensure that we achieve the goal of keeping prices low enough to put criminals out of business while helping to offset the costs of education, administration, and enforcement.
    In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that Canada's current approach to cannabis continues to contribute to the profits of organized crime, risks to public health and safety, and exposes thousands of Canadians to criminal records for minor cannabis offences each year. Most Canadians no longer believe that simple possession of small amounts of cannabis should be subjected to harsh criminal sanctions. I would like to conclude by encouraging all members of this House to support Bill C-45, as amended by the Standing Committee on Health.
    Mr. Speaker, I sit on the health committee along with a number of other wonderful people, and we do some good work. We listened to many presenters on this bill at committee, one in particular being Professor Steven Hoffman, an expert in international law who teaches at Osgoode Hall Law School. He is very concerned about Bill C-45 being passed and violating three United Nations treaties that Canada signed onto years ago. This particular bill would violate those three treaties.
    How does the minister plan to deal with the United Nations and our international friends when this bill is passed?
    Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all members of the committee for their substantive work on Bill C-45. As I have said with respect to this bill, protecting the health and safety of Canadians is a top priority of our government. That is why we are taking a careful regulatory approach to cannabis legalization.
    Our officials have been very open, honest, and reflective in embracing discussions from across the country and throughout the world. We have been working actively with international experts, including the United Nations, to determine the best course forward on our international commitments. I want to remind the members of this House that eight American states, including the District of Columbia, have already decided to legalize recreational marijuana. We are committed to ensuring that we continue to work with our global partners to best promote public health and combat illicit drug trafficking.
    Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has acknowledged from the beginning the devastating impacts that criminalization of simple cannabis possession and usage has had on Canadians. In fact, the government knows that those impacts have been particularly damaging for marginalized Canadians, such as the young, racialized, indigenous, and poor. Yet one of the ironies is that this legislation maintains that criminalized prohibitionist approach. Any Canadian caught with 31 grams of cannabis in public, who grows five plants, or is an 18-year-old in Alberta selling to a 17-year-old faces criminal prosecution, conviction, and penalties of up to 14 years in jail.
    She is the Minister of Justice and knows there are hundreds of thousands of Canadians who carry criminal convictions today that have devastated their lives in many respects. What plans does she have, as the Minister of Justice, for granting those Canadians pardons for engaging in activities that, come next July, will be entirely legal in this country?

    Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill C-45, as all members of the House have heard me state before, and what we are committed to, is legalization, strict regulation, and restriction of access to cannabis to keep it out of the hands of young people, and the proceeds of its sale out of the hands of criminals. As I have stated many times, simply decriminalizing it at this point would not assist us in achieving those objectives.
    What I have been doing, and what I am committed to continue to do, is to work with my colleague, the Minister of Public Safety. We have recognized that over-criminalization of the possession of small amounts of cannabis is something that needs to be addressed. We have sought to address this in Bill C-45. Again, in conversations with the Minister of Public Safety, we are considering how we can approach record suspensions.
     However, our focus right now is to change the status quo to ensure that we put in place a comprehensive framework for the legalization, strict regulation, and restriction of access to cannabis by young people.
    Mr. Speaker, first, I must commend not only the lead minister but also the other departments that engaged in making this proposed legislation possible. In particular, there was a fairly lengthy process that ensured that Canadians were thoroughly consulted.
    For me, representing Winnipeg North, one of the biggest benefits I see from this proposed legislation will be its impact on the criminal activities of gang members, and so forth, who go into our schools and sell cannabis to 12, 14, or 15 year olds. This proposed legislation is a step in the right direction, as it would minimize the damage caused to young people and, at the same time, literally take hundreds of millions of dollars away from criminal gangs, and so forth.
    Could the minister comment either on what it took to get the legislation before us today, or on the criminal aspect?
    Mr. Speaker, as I said in my comments, the status quo simply is not working. Our government has been committed to the legalization, strict regulation, and restriction of access to cannabis from day one.
    To the first part of the question, we have engaged in extensive consultations to ensure that we heard from Canadians right across the country. The first step we took, a vitally important step, was to engage a task force on cannabis. The task force consisted of experts in justice, public health and safety, and law enforcement. This task force was led by the hon. Anne McLellan, and it provided us with substantive recommendations. Most of those recommendations are contained in Bill C-45. The task force received 30,000 submissions from Canadians across the country.
    We introduced Bill C-45 and have continued throughout to engage with provinces and territories, municipalities, and indigenous communities and indigenous governments. We will continue to do that as we move towards July 2018 to ensure that we have a substantive, comprehensive framework for the legalization of cannabis in this country.

    Mr. Speaker, I have been following this debate closely, and there are many things the minister has said that are simply not so. For example, she talked about record levels of marijuana use. However, from the Statistics Canada website, I have in front of me a comprehensive Canadian addiction survey that looked at drug and alcohol use. In 2004, 14.1% of Canadians reported they had used cannabis in the last year; in 2008, it was 11.4%; in 2010 it was 10.6%; and in 2011 it was 9.1%.
    The Conservative approach in government was to emphasize the importance of public health information and working with all aspects of society, including law enforcement, in a way that reflects the real risk associated with marijuana, and, yes, in a way that keeps it out of the hands of children. However, letting parents with children at home grow marijuana and making it legal for one child to give marijuana to another child, rather than selling it to them, is perfectly legal under the proposed legislation. This will not keep it out of the hands of children.
    The minister might disagree on certain points philosophically, but I


 But he is not a man to be messed with. By his count, he has seen action in more than a dozen conflicts around the world and been shot at more times than he can remember. With a pistol strapped to his belt whose custom grip is emblazoned with a U.S. flag and a bald eagle, Brown continues to work full-time

“Boulder is 25 square miles of hippy-dippy bullshit surrounded by reality. I come down here to cleanse my soul,” Brown tells me, the words coming out of his mouth in bursts like machine-gun fire. “You know what they say about the golden years? It’s bullshit.”

 Dubbed “the Journal of Professional Adventurers,” Soldier of Fortune has, since 1975, chronicled a shifting, no-holds-barred world of black ops and mercenaries fighting Communism and terrorism. Its reporters have operated unlike most, carrying guns along with their pens and cameras, writing first-person accounts from battlefields around the world in what Brown likes to call “hardcore participatory journalism.”

“We would create the story, gin up a lot of action, and then write about it for the glistening pages of our bad-boy magazine,” is how he de- scribed it in his 2013 memoir, I Am Soldier of Fortune: Dancing with Devils.

The December 1982 issue.

The December 1982 issue.

In many cases, its writers really were mercenaries, and six Soldier of Fortune correspondents have been killed in action over the years, in places like Angola, Nicaragua, Burma (now Myanmar), and Sierra Leone (where legend has it that the remains of reporter Robert C. MacKenzie were eaten by rebel fighters).

The small weekend gathering at Whittington has effectively replaced the annual Soldier of Fortune conventions Brown held for two decades that used to draw hundreds of camouflage-clad war buffs to the desert for displays of military firepower, weapons, tactical training, and apparently quite a lot of drinking. Brown says the showcase demanded more manpower than his downsized magazine could staff, so he pulled the plug a few years back in favor of just spending time with his close friends.

Several members of his entourage have traveled hundreds, even thousands of miles to join the colonel for the weekend. Some he has known since his days in Special Forces in Vietnam, and others he has met on a variety of battlefields along the way.

“The vast majority of the people I have been close to have had some involvement, in one way or another, with the magazine. Some of them have been with me in the shit, others I know be- cause they have written for us, and then there are guys I’ve met in fighting for gun rights,” he says. “They are an eclectic group.”

While many of them have also known each other for years, the linchpin of the get-together is undeniably the colonel—often referred to as RKB or Maximus by friends. His colorful personality commands attention and brings out a mixture of awe, respect, and genuine affection among the gang of pretty gruff guys.

Perhaps the oldest pal in the group is Robert Bernard, the Army medic who saved Brown’s life back in 1969 when he was seriously wounded in a mortar attack in the central high- lands of Vietnam. Known as “Bac si” to his buddies (which means “doctor” in Vietnamese), the soft-spoken Bernard still keeps a close eye on the colonel’s health.

“He hasn’t always taken the best care of himself, so somebody has to look after him,” the 77-year-old tells me. “He was the kind of guy you wanted as your CO in Vietnam—he really stuck his neck out for the people he was in charge of— and he is the kind of guy you want to have as your friend in life. Never a dull moment with him.”

For 40 years, Brown has served as an inspirational figure for a particular brand of misfit, whether they were fighting for a cause or a price or just seeking a bit of adventure in various hot spots around the world.

It was for guys like Bernard and his generation that Brown initially created Soldier of Fortune. When he launched the magazine, he had hoped to give something to the Vietnam vets who were coming home and finding themselves spat at and being called "baby killers" by antiwar peaceniks.

“A lot of Vietnam veterans felt they weren’t given their due, so I wanted to promote the concept of giving them recognition. We said our blood was just as red as anyone who fought in WWI or WWII or Korea, but that wasn’t the case in society at the time,” Brown says.

Later the readership expanded to include a broader swath of military buffs, hard-core cold warriors, and a fair share of young men who would later join the armed forces inspired by the blood-and-guts tales of patriotic derring-do they had read in its pages.

“It was reading Soldier of Fortune as a teenager that inspired me to join the Army. There are a lot of guys who will tell you that,” says Jerry Kraus, a 50-year-old insurance agent and Soldier of Fortune field editor from Colorado who has become the colonel’s right-hand man of sorts and drove down from Boulder with him for the weekend.

Brown says one of his most cherished mementos is a signed copy of Chris Kyle’s American Sniper, in which the marksman (who was killed in 2013) thanks Brown in the dedication for in- spiring him to join the military.

But the troubles faced by print publishers as readers increasingly move online, plus the question of how to keep a magazine relevant that was born in the days of the Cold War and is geared largely toward men who have long been collecting social security, have begun to weigh on Brown.

Ads from Soldier of Fortune circa the 1980s ran the gamut from (clockwise from the top) an armed-pinup poster and mail-order blowguns to mercenary classifieds and calls to fight in Afghanistan.

Ads from Soldier of Fortune circa the 1980s ran the gamut from (clockwise from the top) an armed-pinup poster and mail-order blowguns to mercenary classifieds and calls to fight in Afghanistan.

“Obviously we are nowhere near where we were during our heyday in the 1980s, but we bring in a little coin and cover costs,” he says. Still, Brown now finds himself having to do much more of the work, as he is down to just an associate, two part-time editors, and a contract art director from a peak of about 50 employees in the early 1980s.

That has made it hard for him to get out into the world and do what he loves to do most—fight. “You know, I just don’t have the time. We used to have a lot of people running the place. It’s hard to do all this with just a few people and still have the time to get out there. I may try to go to Ukraine or Kurdistan soon. I still have good contacts in both places,” he says.

Despite the fundamental role Soldier of Fortune has played in his life (“it’s as much an extension of me as Playboy is for the guy who walks around in his pajamas all the time”), Brown says he has been negotiating to either bring in younger partners or even sell the magazine altogether.

For 40 years, Brown has served as an inspirational figure for a particular brand of misfit, whether they were fighting for a cause or a price or just seeking a bit of adventure in various hot spots around the world. But as time passed and the world changed, the colonel is the first to admit that the magazine’s hard-charging ethos may not have the same impact today.

“Vietnam veterans have gotten older and settled down. Some have died. The Rambo era—whatever that amorphous phase was—is no longer. Who knows what it was, but there was something there. Of course, the Cold War is over and granted we have the War on Terror- ism, but it is not the same thing,” he says. “We never would be able to do now what we were able to do back then.”

In its early years, Soldier of Fortune regularly ran full-page recruitment ads for mercenaries willing to fight with the white supremacist government of Rhodesia against Communist-backed black guerrillas. That led some members of Congress to call for the magazine to be investigated for possibly violating the Neutrality Act (the magazine was ultimately cleared of any wrongdoing).

Editorially, the magazine focused heavily on war stories and first-person dispatches, with correspondents jetting off to fight in and write about wars in the far corners of the globe. Issues in the 1970s featured regular reports on the situation in places like Rhodesia and Angola. As the 1980s rolled around, the focus moved to Central America’s bloody wars and the fight between the Mujahideen and the Soviet army in Afghanistan. In the 1990s, the focus became increasingly domestic, with an onslaught of pro–Second Amendment articles critical of the Clinton administration and its gun control efforts. The next decade the magazine turned to tales from the War on Terror and on efforts to control America’s borders.

While it is unflinchingly pro-military and pro-police, the magazine is also deeply suspicious of government overreach, which has also made it popular among antigovernment types (Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh was a subscriber).

The magazine continues to focus on similar themes, but battlefield articles are now less often written by the ragtag group of fighter-journalists that set the magazine apart years ago. The June issue had a long feature story on South African mercenaries (“mercs” in Soldier of Fortune lingo) who were going to Nigeria to fight the radical Islamist fighters of Boko Haram, but the piece


 heat for being opposed to the federally approved pipeline. Many have said that the provincial government’s power is insufficient next to the federal’s, but they may be proven wrong. According to this news, the provincial government isn’t standing down to the feds, and they’re pulling out the big guns.

Robson, John. “Canadians feel for Aboriginals, but our patience for too many insults has its limits” National Post, Full Comment, June 30, 2017. http://nationalpost.com/opinion/john-robson-canadians-feel-for-aboriginals-but-our-patience-for-too-many-insults-has-limits

This is an opinion article in a newspaper.

The National Post ran an opinion piece written by John Robson in its “Full Comment” section, regarding the inequalities between Aboriginal people and Canadians, but instead of focusing on the inequalities of Aboriginal peoples focusing on the inequalities of Canadians. Robson writes that the past is the past, we must move forward as a nation to truly advance for the better, and continuing to apologize, make amends, and offer compensations to Aboriginal peoples isn’t fair or correct. Robson points out that there are many groups of oppressed people in Canada who don’t receive benefits or help, and to give one group an advantage over others for something that happened over a hundred years ago isn’t relevant to our society and culture today. This is important to our podcast because it represents the voice of Canadians who don’t believe that Aboriginal people should have more power in the court of law over any other Canadian.

Slattery, Brian. "Understanding Aboriginal Rights," Canadian Bar Review vol. 66, no. 4 (December 1987): p. 727-783.

This is a scholarly article.

This article from Google Scholar describes not only the legality of Section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982, but how it has been used in the court of law before for Aboriginal people to gain power. The Constitution is a very binding act, and is almost impossible to go up against. The Supreme Court of Canada often rules in the favour of Aboriginal peoples, as the Constitution requires them to. The article describes a case in which the Musqueam band of Vancouver reclaimed damages and collateral for misconduct from the government not upholding their treaty and land agreement. This is an example of power, and how to understand the legal system is to potentially gain power. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in the Musqueam bands favour, and the government of Canada was forced to repay the band.

Ghoussoub, Michelle. "B.C. Challenges Alberta Wine Ban Under Free Trade Rules", CBC News, British Columbia. February 19.

This is an opinion piece.

This article features the recent boycott of B.C. wine from Alberta provincial government. The British Columbia NDP government  is currently challenging the boycott in reference to the Canadian Free Trade Agreement (CFTA). The actions made by Alberta's NDP leader Rachel Notley are considered to be a violation of the obligations the province owes B.C. under the CFTA, and the dispute is currently under consultation. The boycott of B.C.'s wine is a direct response to the B.C. government's recent provincial action against the Kinder Morgan pipeline construction and oil transportation. Stakes are high, and the interests are in Alberta's favour. The battle between the two province's provincial governments is integral to our episode, as it shows that perspective differs widely from province to province. The fact that both B.C. and Alberta are governed by the same provincial political party adds depth to the debate.

Audette-Longo, Trish. "Jagmeet Singh Takes Same Position As John Horgan In Kinder Morgan Pipeline Dispute", National Observer, News, Energy, Politics. February 18th.

This is an opinion piece.

Jagmeet Singh, who serves as Leader of the New Democratic Party in Ontario, recently issued his support for British Columbia Leader John Horgan in his fight to oppose the construction of the Kinder Morgan pipeline. Singh says that the pipeline needs more environmental assessment, and therefore adds to the drama of the cross-country debate. As Leader Rachel Notley continues to fight fiercely for the pipeline, that is strongly in her province's interest, it is beginning to seem that it is only in her province's interest. The transportation of diluted bitumen from Edmonton to Burnaby through the Kinder Morgan pipeline is increasingly seen to be extremely dangerous, and understood to be an impending disaster. Singh adds that the federal government is to blame for the tension, saying that as Trudeau did not do his job thoroughly and ensure a proper process for analyzing the pipeline and its risks, the consequences in the form of B.C.'s resistance are just. This article shows that this topic truly applies to all Canadians.<|endoftext|> International Science Complex "Astana"

Eng | Pyc

Svetlana Kozhirova. Chinese-American relations at the current stage: security issues

The change in the correlation of forces between the East and the West becomes one of the most important trends of the modern era. Therefore, many experts believe that the main content of world politics for the next decade is referred to as the global geopolitical confrontation between China and America.

The Chinese factor in the world politics

The modern world geopolitical situation displays a remarkable enhancing of “Chinese factor” in the world politics, which has the following features:

  • the high dynamics of changes in the system of international relations associated with the emergence in the XXI century of influential organizations such as the G20, the SCO and the BRICS, in which China appears as the country that structures this system and takes the leading position in it;
  • critical instability in the world economy and global finance (China, with its stable annual growth again looks not only more successful, but dominant, and if you add the increase in the share of China in the IMF, China is the only country beneficiary);
  • the worsening of regional conflicts, not only in the middle East (Syria, Iran, Israel-Palestine), but also in the area of South China (China, Philippines, Vietnam) and East China sea (China – Japan), etc [1].

Analysts note that the international prestige of China in recent years greatly increased, whereby the interests of Beijing in the field of security has expanded significantly beyond the Asia-Pacific region (APR).

Where once China and the United States did not cooperate sufficiently on security issues, at the present time, this question becomes more than relevant. That is why Washington and Beijing are seeking to find ways to control their differing strategic, economic interests and security. Not coincidentally, on the meeting with the President of the United States D. Trump (FL, April 6-7), the President of China Xi Jinping claimed: “The Parties should work together to continuously strengthen mutual trust and military cooperation” [2].

According to Xi Jinping, China and the United States must continue to use and improve the mechanism of warning each other in terms of important military operations, and also to improve the standards of conduct for security of sea and airspace, “the Military security and mutual trust in this sphere are the basis of strategic mutual trust of China and the United States. The parties must be contacted by all military levels, to develop the mechanism of dialogue and consultations between the ministries of defense and dialogue consultations on security issues in the Asia-Pacific region” [3].

Conflict of interest in the Asia-Pacific region

The Asia-Pacific region occupies an extremely important position in terms of peace and security. The vital interests of powers like USA, Japan, Russia and China are intersected there.

One of the key challenges of international relations in the region can be identified as the growing contradictions between the US and China, including competition in the military-strategic sphere. Modernization and increasing the military strength of the armed forces of the PRC are faced with the desire of the United States to keep its position by increasing its military presence in the region and strengthening collaboration with partners and allies.

The features of the Asia-Pacific region are that there are a large number of potential “hot spots” and the growing militarization, which, however, combined with the development of intensive economic cooperation. For many decades there are still outstanding issues concerning relations between States.

The US has many reasons for active participation in the APR: a significant market and source of capital and technology. Furthermore, there are several traditional allies of America in this region (Japan, South Korea, Australia and others). The central issues in this region are the astablishment of the conditions for long-term growth of the economy, supporting the Trans-Asian trade, investment and technology routes, ensuring the safety and prosperity of regional partners, preventing the hostile forces, terrorism, weapons of mass destruction and other global threats.

North Korean problem

The first major problem in Asian security is the nuclear program of North Korea. In the next few years of Pyongyang may have (or already had) nuclear weapons, which can strike at the USA, Japan, and of course South Korea. This is a serious challenge to peace and the non-proliferation regime in Northeast Asia.

Washington needs to work with other countries make Pyongyang stop and reverse its nuclear program. And for this you need to clearly understand the sources of leverage and the limits of American influence on North Korea, China, South Korea and Japan.

Researchers believe that China is not interested in the development of the nuclear program of Pyongyang, but the US war against North Korea is not much incentive for Beijing, since if the fall of Kim Jong-un’s regime the NATO bases will be at the borders of China.

After the recent American sanctions against Chinese banks, it became clear, that China will not get involved in an adventure with North Korea [4]. The White house is currently at a crossroads: it now either needs to recognize that Xi Jinping does not intend to disrupt the status quo, or to provide the Chinese a few months at addressing this problem. The latter option is now possible because of Pyongyang and its ballistic missile capable of reaching Alaska.

It must also be borne in


..

#6. FEMA doesn't want you to know that...
FEMA trailers were toxic (and they knew it)!
Occupants of FEMA trailers along the Gulf Coast who were
afflicted by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005 had breathing
difficulties, headaches and nosebleeds. Previously the Sierra
clubwarned FEMA about formaldehyde levels in the trailers, but
FEMA dismissed the problem.

#7. FEMA doesn't want you to know...
They mailed 83,000 debt notices to Hurricane Victims
That's right. FEMA wanted their money back because they
overpaid federal aid amounting to more than $385 million to
victims of hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma at an average of
approximately $4,622 per recipient.

#8. FEMA doesn't want you to know that...
They have massive amounts of coffins ready.
Every large corporate office in America has an emergency
contingency plan, which includes a plan to deal with the dead,
including body bags and toe tags. FEMA is no different, but they
are certainly expecting massive calamity in ordering the coffins!
With all the hype
about Ebola, ordering coffins starts to make
sense (and yet it is alarming).

#9. FEMA doesn't want you to know that...
They can't send enough people to rescue everyone, and you
may be in double jeopardy (and FEMA is ill-equipped to handle
simultaneous emergencies).
FEMA simply isn't equipped to send massive scale help during a
disaster, particularly disasters which pose multiple threats:

  • Hurricanes often present a double danger they can't
    handle. (A flood often follows a hurricane). FEMA is not
    equipped to handle a hurricane followed by a flood, because
    that's essentially two disasters and FEMA is overwhelmed.
    Such was the criticism of FEMA by Louisiana's largest
    newspaper in an open letter to President Obama on the
    failures to respond Hurricane Katrina. With flood comes
    another problem, contamination of the water supply. Even
    bottled waters are contaminated if they reach flood waters,
    and you should not drink them.

  • Earthquakes present a double danger, too. (Fires often
    follow earthquakes). Again FEMA is often ill-equipped to
    handle simultaneous emergencies of rescuing people who are
    entrapped and handling the fires.

#10: FEMA doesn't want you to know that...
They'll order you out, but they won't help you get out of
harm's way
Many residents didn't want to leave there homes during Hurricane
Katrina, but for the most part it was the lack of money and
transportation that prevented victims from following FEMA's
orders to flee during Hurricane Katrina. For this important reason,
we prep!

Want to learn where is the FEMA camp closest to you?
Not that you ever want to visit a FEMA camp, but in case you're
curious, check out this article listing the FEMA camps and you'll
find the one closest in your area. There are FEMA locations in
every state! Find the FEMA camp nearest you.

Is FEMA color coding your house for death camps?
Preppers have been reporting  mail boxes being marked with color
stickers or marks, possibly
FEMA is color coding homes for their
camp assignments. Whether or not this is true, doesn't really
matter. Preppers have much reason to be concerned with FEMA.
Prepare now so you don't end up in a FEMA camp.

Certainly you don't want to wait for FEMA to help you, which is
why you're a prepper! Here are
25 Reasons You're Not Crazy for
Prepping. You can recover from adversity, ride out any
catastrophe and subsist on your own preps, and we're here to

  • Pandemic preparedness: FEMA is hoarding supplies for a
    pandemic, but only a select few will get them! Right is an
    official pandemic flu preparedness kit designed for issue to
    military families, which contains 4 Surgical Masks, 2 NIOSH-
    approved N95 Masks, 4oz Bottle of hand sanitizer and an
    information card. There are other, more comprehensive,
    pandemic kits available, but this fits nicely into the glove
    compartment of your vehicle.

  • Most notably, is this fact: Before September 11, 2002, FEMA
    concentrated its funds (and efforts) on preparedness for
    natural disasters; however now, FEMA has become a sort of
    step child of the Homeland Security to focus on terrorism.
    Indeed monies were diverted to fight terrorism (instead of
    natural disasters), and many preppers argue that this is the
    biggest failure of the horrific events of recent natural
    disasters, including Hurricanes Katrina in 2005 and Hurricane
    Sandy in 2012.

Money and resources were diverted from FEMA for natural
disasters to fund homeland security, and as a result, there are
things that FEMA doesn't want to divulge to the general public.
Now you know!

Happy endings...
Generally preppers don't need to worry about FEMA that much,
that's because we have backup contingencies! FEMA is for those
who don't prep. You can live happily ever after knowing you've
done everything possible to avoid FEMA camps.

More prepping articles....

Prepare to live happily ever after with us at happypreppers.com - the emergency
preparedness Web site of prepping, survival,
homesteading, and self-reliance.
------------------------------------------------- Revised 09/13/18
(C) Copyright  2012-2018FEMA secrets was archived by waybackmachine.org and saved more than 34 times between
September 13, 2014 and Sept. 13, 2018. This helps protect our copyright.

Do NOT copy. (Linking is okay.)

privacy policy
Water bob for earthquakes or hurricanes
Pandemic flu kit
Happy Preppers site for survivalists + preppers
Facebook: happypreppers.com
Pinterest: happypreppers.com
Google + happypreppers.com
Twitter happypreppers.com
Are fish antibiotics safe for humans?
Funny FEMA shirt
Prepper Deal Alerts Check
daily deals for prepping
gear and food storage.
Ten things FEMA doesn't want you to know about
10 reasons to never microchip a human
Survival tabs
Homeless survival prepping lessons
Best used prepping books on to buy on Amazon
Ten nuke supplies to own ~ supplies necessary to survive nuclear fallout
Indoor emergency cooking options
Chocolate for prepping and survival
Energy chew review
Best cans for your food storage
How to prepare for a Hurricane
Food bar for the bugout bag.
Best water purifiers for preppers
Waterbob ~ bathtub reservoir<|endoftext|>Yemeni Socotra.. Under the UAE Occupation

2018-05-29   Reads: 3953

The United Arab Emirates, the second force in the Saudi-led Arab Coalition against the Houthis, sent military troops to Socotra Island in the Indian Ocean on April 30, 2018 without permission from the internationally-recognized government. The troops - over 300 soldiers, armored personnel carriers and tanks – took control of the island’s port and airport. UAE also deployed military forces to besiege a naval brigade stationed on the island, and prevented Yemeni officials from entering the airport to receive a Saudi delegation that arrived in the island to resolve the dispute between UAE and the government. This event launched a more difficult phase of relations within the Arab Coalition.

The dispute is the latest in a series of disputes between the internationally-recognized authority of President Abdrabbo Mansour Hadi and Abu Dhabi since the first quarter of 2016. The most prominent of these differences was in January 2018 when the National Army was fighting against paramilitary militias financed and trained by the UAE in Aden (the country's interim capital), the matter which reflected relations within the coalition and made it more fragile.

The Socotra Island has an ecological nature that is uncommon and the strangest in the world. Two thirds of creatures and trees on the island are not found anywhere else on the planet. They were added to the World Heritage List in 2008 [[1]]. The island enjoys a strategic location that tempts the colonial military forces. Throughout the modern history, the strategic island was able to avoid the setbacks of attempts to turn it into a military base in order to occupy the "Horn of Africa" and the "Arabian Peninsula." The island is located near the strategic strait (Bab al-Mandab), which makes the military concentration on the island greatly affect the Arabian Peninsula and Horn of Africa, and threatening the global trade.

The UAE presence on the island
The UAE began to exist on the island after two hurricanes struck the island in October 2015 in order to rescue 60,000 people. The UAE used the Red Crescent and the Sheikh Khalifa Foundation as a cover to expand and control Socotra Island and its poor people who depend upon fishing, animal husbandry and little farming.
The UAE has taken control of the island in many ways, most notably:
- Government support: In February 2016, Vice President, Khalid Bahah, held a press conference on the island alongside with the UAE Red Crescent, announcing the signing of contracts with the UAE authorities for the reconstruction of Socotra Island [[2]]. About 40 days after the conference, Bahah was removed from his position. The dismissal of Bahah caused tension between Abu Dhabi and President Abdrabbo Mansour H


 looked to possible confirmation hearing fights, and the new administration faced criticism for being the least diverse (and the wealthiest) in modern history.

Looking ahead to the first days of the Trump administration NPR examines the Womens March on Washington, scheduled for the day after inauguration, while Marketplace looks at the feasibility of Trump's promises regarding the steel industry. PBS NewsHour looks at the implications for the future of healthcare, and Next Avenue offers some advice on taxes and finance.<|endoftext|>Previous month:
February 2016
Next month:
June 2016

March 2016

How the founding fathers' communities voted yesterday

Jefferson's birthplace, Goochland County, and his longtime home, Albemarle County, both went for Rubio on Tuesday.

How did the other Founders do?

George Washington's, James Monroe's, and Robert E. Lee's birthplaces, on Virginia's Northern Neck, all went for Trump. But their longtime and chosen homes -- Fairfax, Fredericksburg, Loudoun, Albemarle, Alexandria, and Arlington, all went for Rubio and Clinton. Fairfax was also George Mason's home and probably his birthplace.

James Madison's birthplace, King George, and his longtime home, Orange, voted for Trump and Clinton. So did Patrick Henry's birthplace and longtime home, Hanover County, and his later home, Henry County.

The Adams hometown of Quincy, Mass., and neighboring Braintree, voted for Sanders and Trump. Boston, where Ben Franklin was born and raised and many other Founders lived, voted for Clinton and Trump.

Our colonial/revolutionary triangle of Williamsburg, Jamestown and Yorktown, and their counties, all voted for Rubio. But neighboring Charles City County, birthplace of Tippecanoe and Tyler, too, went to Trump.

Staunton, birthplace of Woodrow Wilson, went to Rubio and Sanders.

Campaign finance reform will leave you free to speak, as long as you "use your inside voice" and make sure no one's listening

Back in the eighties, campaign finance reform  was just the pet project of a few utopian cranks, but sometime in the late 90s, somehow it was decided that all liberals, including Trump, had to be for it. Probably because the elite opinion-makers felt threatened by "new media" and new grassroots political groups that didn't look to them for guidance and approval.

To see what this issue is about, look at the name of the big Supreme Court opinion that all the liberals despise: "Citizens United". That's one of those perfectly-named Supreme Court decisions, like "Loving," "Fullilove," and "Hardwick." The elitists' "Campaign Finance Reform" would basically say that individuals can speak out, and donate small amounts to candidates, but citizens are not free to unite into groups that can put together significant amounts of money for a candidate, or enough money to buy TV ads or other methods of mass communication. And that if citizens unite their resources into a corporation -- which for centuries has been the standard way of getting together to form something larger than yourself -- then that corporation has no free speech rights. And no right to be guided by the conscience or religion of its members or owners when it chooses how to do business.

So Campaign Finance Reform will leave you free to say whatever you want by yourself, to a tiny audience, but not free to get together in groups that could actually do anything significant in politics or public debate. Not unless you are a billionaire.<|endoftext|>Always With the Bang Bang….And Also With Whimpers

Leave a comment

11/06/2013 by syrbal-labrys

1geting rid of At least the latest shooting only killed the shooter himself, allegedly paranoid and maddened by drug issues. How sad that we must count ourselves fortunate that only one died, eh?

But then, nobody will be counting those who die as a result of cuts to welfare, will they? Those don’t leave bloody holes, and can be attributed to “natural” causes. Like that time when I was in kindergarten and my mother almost died of food poisoning; because as private in the US Army, my father couldn’t make enough money to feed his family all month. So the mother ate some suspect food. Yeah, natural causes it is, sure.

And that was a long time ago…55 years ago. And now it comes back around as Republicans fight against things like raising minimum wage or making background checks necessary for folks to buy weaponry. When I was growing up, we often had insufficient food; but my dad almost always had guns.
Sometimes he was able to kill food, poaching deer or rabbits. Sometimes he held my mother at gunpoint through the night, too. Which one of those pretty much illegal activities is it that the Holy Second Amendment crowd is oh-so-sure-is-defensible?

I am really wondering how the GOP and their Tea Party fringes think this all works out; see, I have SEEN this movie before. Being poor AND armed is always more prone to end in something ugly.
When my dad could not make financial ends meet, he found a way to drink and when he drank, he didn’t care what he shot. One night he shot at the neighbor’s prize bull (and missed), and a goat (hit that one), and our dog (hit that, too), and threatened his best friend and his wife.
The cabinets were still empty, but by gawd he had bullets.

So yeah, keep shipping jobs overseas, replace the few left with machines to do them, tell Americans to go shopping, to not get abortions, to send their children to wars in defense of corporate privilege and rapine abroad, tell them health care is Communism and that gay rights threaten their marriages. Sure, keep up the patter of batshit on all roof-tops. In the end, hungry people with guns will do more than stare through the windows of the 1%. Don’t say I didn’t tell you so<|endoftext|>Animal People: Why Do Animal Rights Activists Care About Animals and Not About People?
Animals: Tradition - Philosophy

Syed Rizvi (Engineers and Scientists for Animal Rights) in SouthAsia Magazine
December 2010

On the surface, the question appears to be quite legitimate. After all, why care about animals when so many humans are suffering? However, behind the question there lies an element of preeminence that can also be extrapolated to a purely human hypothetical: should wealthy nations - The United States, for example - offer assistance to poor countries, when their own poor also need help? One case involves crossing the species' barrier, while the other can be seen as crossing the barrier of nationality, or even race, to some extent.

The question posed above comes with the same political and racial fervor among some such as whites should help whites first. Although such bias is politically incorrect in today's pluralistic, multicultural society, a small but radical element of society do harbor such views. Fortunately, with our cultural and sociological evolution, most have risen above the "stick- with- your-own-kind" mind set - a vestige of our tribal days that has no place today's worldview.

Proponents of animal rights go a step beyond, and include animals within the sphere of their moral concern. They see animals as sentient beings with interests of their own, who wish to live a life natural to them. Like people, animals try to avoid pain and seek comfort, and have a family structure of their own. When a cow gives birth to her calf, we mercilessly drag him away from the mother while she grieves and the calf is destined to spend his entire life in restrictive confinement where he can hardly stretch or turn around. Watch Ohio Dairy Farm Brutality.

This imposition on the life of animals by humans is morally deplorable in the eyes of animal rights proponents. They do not see animals as objects to be exploited. While this view of animals has been predominant since the early days of civilization, so has been the practice of regarding women as inferior being created to serve man. The imprimatur of long-standing tradition does not justify practices considered unjust today. Alice Walker (author of Color Purple) expresses this eloquently in her preface to Marjorie Spiegel's classic "The Dreaded Comparison: Human and Animal Slavery." Walker writes: "Animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans any more than black people were made for whites or women for men."

Animal rights people see pain as pain, whosoever pain it is, and will make every effort to minimize it, irrespective of the race, sex, or species of the sufferer.

In many ways, the case on behalf of animals becomes even more compelling. Since animals cannot speak for themselves, the element of pathos is added to other moral components. Animals are handicapped when it comes to the power humans have over them. Most suffering inflicted upon animals comes from humans, over whom animals have no control.

Once compassion for animals is aroused, the starkness of their plight becomes ever more apparent. For example, in a city like Karachi the animal population is several orders of magnitude greater than human population, yet the number of animal hospitals and veterinarians in Karachi can be counted on the fingers of one hand. The number of hospitals and other medical facilities for humans can run into the hundreds if not thousands. Globally, the number of organizations dedicated to helping animals is minuscule compared with the number of organizations helping humans, although the human population is tiny compared with the number of animals in the world.

The irony is that not only do people deprive animals of their rights, they often rebuke anyone speaking on animals' behalf, with comments like "human problems come first." With such a mindset one cannot help but wonder what exactly it is that


 service. He learned the value, but I don’t think he ever learned the lesson.

    In the end, Henry was, at best, reactive. No Anne Boleyn, no reformation; no Catherine Howard, no retrospective edicts; no French invasion, no navy; no need for money, no dissolution. Yes, that’s simplistic, but arguably, that’s how it reads because that’s how it is. His capacity for self-deception and the retroactive rewriting of history is unrivalled in kings who are listed under the ‘sane’ category. His ministers were more than competent and far more than he deserved and he terrified everyone. Yes, they all played the game of thrones, but he not only wrote the rules, but he changed them all the time as well. And yet he still repeatedly lost.

    I’m not going to argue that good things didn’t come out of his reign, but I would absolutely argue that it was despite, and not because, of the ruler. Imagine what Elizabeth I would have done with the starting point that Henry had.

    (That was much longer than I expected. Please understand the strength of my feeling when I say that I’ve typed the whole thing one-handed as I’m holding a sleeping child in the other! Thanks for the episode and, indeed, all of the Henry story, as well as the discussion.)

    Best wishes,

    1. Imagine what you’d have thought of Henry if said 5 year old had woken up! Thanks for the comment – very interesting and of course impeccably argued.

  18. I voted Elton. Henry VIII comes across as a narcissist, definitely more self absorbed than self aware. While some may argue that he should only be viewed by the lens of his times, there is a danger that in doing so would be rationalizing his motives. How would have Anne Askew answered the quiz?

    1. Quite possibly, Anne would have argued that while she could not but believe what she did, as the annointed king Henry had the right to have her executed – I’m busking, but it is far from impossible – and Anne was tortured not by Henry of course, and not at his orders, and not with his knowledge. I take your point though, and agree Henry was very much the narcissist – but he was a king, in a time that meant his will was supreme., It’d be difficult not to have your head turned. Surely we must rationalise his motives – otherwise characters in history are reduced to puppets, with no will of their own in our view. And what may happen to us in the future? That’s my view anyway – sometimes its difficult, but we must judge by the standards of the day. or so I think anyway!

  19. I voted for Loades, but it was a tough choice. All of the quotes seemed to me somewhat un-nuanced. I think the Loades quote at least gets at the point that even “bad” people may do things that have “good” results. If this was the reason you chose them, bravo!

    I want to address one thing that you said during the podcast, though: that we must judge Henry by the standards of his time. I don’t entirely disagree, but I think it’s worth stating that there should be some standards that we hold that ought to be applied even to the pre-modern era. For example, judicial murder is wrong and the person who connives at it is tainted by that connivance. I grant you that Anne B. played the game of thrones (pretty adroitly) and can’t be judged as an innocent, but in my opinion Henry caused her to be judicially murdered when, for whatever reasons, he decided to be rid of her. Even if every monarch of the era did exactly the same thing — and, of course, they didn’t, which is one of the things that fascinate us about Henry — it would still show him to be monstrous. We need to hold some basic moral principles and be prepared to apply them to the past as well as the present, otherwise we lose the ability to judge anything or anyone.

    I agree with the consensus that the wrap-up show, as well as the series on Henry generally, was excellent. Very cogently and fairly argued. Well done, sir!

    1. Thanks Lisa. I have to say that I think we should always judge people by the standards of their time. We might then make a judgement that we reject those standards for our time, and use past examples as to why we want to order our society differently. However, I think this allows your requirement that judicial murder is wrong. Anne Boleyn’s death was in all probability a put up job, with falsified evidence. By the standards of 16th century England, this was wrong, and Henry is rightly condemned for it. All I am saying is that many of those judicially murdered were complicit in this perversion of the standards, guilty themselves of trying to have their political enemies removed by the same means.

  20. I note that many of the best things you had to say about H8 were the unintended consequences of his decisions. To me, this is not a reason to praise him. I agree, completely, that he was not nearly as amoral (or immoral) as we may view him from the early 21st century; and family relations were as much political as familial for him and his class than they are today. So, long and the short of it, he probably should be praised for laying the groundwork for a true navy, but condemned for most everything else – failed at any meaningful foreign policy (though he did not have too much opportunity), furthered religious chaos through indecision, perpetuated an environment of “to the death” power struggles within his advisors (although he picked good ones), and squandered his father’s endowment. Rubbish.

  21. Elton! Of course, H8 may (or not) have been a rubbish person as judged by his contemporary standards. But as a king, he pursued personal goals without regard to public good (tyrant). He came to the throne with a surplus, realized the immense revenue from the dissolution of the monasteries, and left an indebted realm with little gain to justify the expense.

    Just because some cherry-picked accomplishments may have worked out for the better (parliamentary democracy, naval board, etc) does not excuse the overall quality of his reign.

    1. Interesting – and I share your view a little I think;l what had you expected – more on the Scarisbrick, or more on Pollard’s quote?

  22. I reluctantly voted Loades. I think Henry was horrible, and I think anything positive that came out of his reign was stumbled into, and definitely not by design, but there was some positive stuff, and I don’t think it was all due to others, so that pretty much ruled out the first 2 quotes.
    And I’m incredibly bummed that I just missed the deadline for the drawing (I was a bit behind and only listened to the episode this morning). Hoping you haven’t actually done it yet and might find it in your heart to squeeze my name in there with the others…

    1. I am sooo sorry. I literally just did the random number generator thing, and I don’t think I should break the rules. Thanks for voting anyway – I’m going to leave it up. I think Henry was pretty horrible too. But I suspect some at least of the things I dislike derive from the fact that he was a king in a time when that meant he was at the head of the great chain of being; that would probably have turned my head too. Personally I would have gone for C.

  23. I find it fascinating that 94% of the vote is on the two quotes that essentially say ‘some good turned out, but not for great reasons’. The only real distinction between Elton and Loades is that the latter ascribes to Henry the successes and the former states ‘despite’. Whichever way, he ends up as neither astounding success nor desperate failure, but somewhere in between, where the shadows lie because we cannot truly, from this distance (or arguably any distance) accurately interpret and assign intent. Which is probably why he is, and will probably always remain, so utterly fascinating. I think the reason that there are so few on the Scarisbrook and Pollard is that they are fairly absolutist views, and the reason the discussion is so interesting is that it’s nigh-on impossible to be absolutist about Henry.

    (Incidentally, and I know it’s due to rounding, but it amuses me hugely that, at the time of writing this, 101% of people have voted – 48%, 46%, 5% and 2%. Well done, you extra percentage of the population!)

    Best wishes,

    1. I guess when you boil it down that’s true; though I felt that the nuance of Elton was more negative. His is description of Henry (‘ego monstrosity’) would get you into trouble down the pub on a Saturday night (try it maybe?!), and Loades is quite specific about the dramatic impact Henry had. I quite agree,m at this distance it is difficult to assign intent; though G W Bernard seems to have proved that the Reformation was driven by the king.

      You delivered the highjest score on the quiz by the way. Whoop! And yes,m it;’s nice isn’t it – the History of England listeners gave it 101%…

Leave a Reply to Baron Ogle Cancel reply<|endoftext|>Some People Say White Liberals Made Up This Controversy. That's Just Not True.

People are pretty divided on the issue of sports mascots and team names like the "Redskins


, and you organize your life accordingly—so you can pursue what truly fascinates you. This makes for a roller-coaster existence, riding high one minute and feeling lost the next, but the optimistic Three recovers quickly, begins again, and is often successful. You need stimulation and distraction, so regular nine-to-five office work may not suit; you may prefer to travel for work or run your own projects or business. Threes are also great communicators and may excel at persuasion or direct selling, provided you believe in what you are offering.

Shadow character: Impulsiveness, overconfidence, impatience; lack of staying power.

Advice: Admit mistakes and see balance as a goal rather than a compromise.

Number 4: The Tetrad—Willpower and Order

Four denotes stability, structure, order, and willpower; it also signifies the four elements of Fire, Earth, Air, and Water. Fours are loyal and practical character types who focus on creating lasting emotional and financial security.

Symbol: The square

Best days of the month for 4 as Life Path: 4th, 13th, 22nd, 31st

Character influences: Order is important to a Four type, so you prefer to follow rather than flout the rules and work in environments in which conventional structures are essential to achievement. At work and at home, you do not turn away from tough work and the jobs others will not do, because you understand the value of these tasks in the greater scheme of supporting the whole. You may find fulfillment in spiritual service and enjoy being part of a large organization or network. Whatever your age, professional status, or time limitations, you do whatever needs to be done efficiently. Working as part of a team adds to your feeling of security. In relationships and friendships, Fours are outstandingly loyal and honest.

Shadow character: Lack of initiative; fussiness, martyrdom; difficulty adapting to new people or surroundings.

Advice: It’s fine not to follow every rule; do things your way, too.

Number 5: The Pentad—Expansion and Freedom

Five is the number of vitality, discovery, and the five senses. Five character types tend to be sensual, with great energy and curiosity.

Symbol: Pentagon, five-pointed star, or pyramid

Best days of the month for 5 as Life Path: 5th, 14th, 23rd

Character influences: Fives are the ultimate multitaskers, who try many things; you may not succeed in every challenge you take on, but what counts is the adventure. You thrive on tests of courage and can be led by your heart. Fives may have many passionate affairs and often have lots of good friends, as you easily connect with others and are genuinely interested in their lives. In your professional life, you make a great strategist; perceptive and fast-acting, you know how best to respond to a problem or opportunity. Fives also have the ability to make the most of any situation and often appreciate the simpler things in life.

Shadow character: Casual thoughtlessness, lack of consideration; irresponsibility.

Advice: Bring your focus to one or two goals and consistently pursue them.

Number 6: The Hexad—Love and Protection

Six is the number of happiness, love, and idealism. It also denotes harmony, due to its geometric shape—the hexagon is perfectly balanced. Sixes are loving and seek a peaceful life. They aim to act for the higher good and are often sensitive and imaginative.

Symbol: The hexagon, the Seal of Solomon (two intersecting triangles)

Best days of the month for 6 as Life Path: 6th, 15th, 24th

Character influences: The charitable Six enjoys giving to others and is motivated by love and the need for peaceful, caring relationships. If you have money, you are excited by what it can do to support those you love, how it might contribute to your community, and how it may help those who are less fortunate; wealth otherwise means little. This does not mean you are unambitious, however. You may be strongly motivated by creative projects, for example, but the goal is never financial. In relationships, you are loyal and caring, and you take your responsibility to others seriously.

Shadow character: Being too idealistic; neglecting good financial opportunities.

Advice: Avoid those who mistake your kindness for weakness.

Number 7: The Heptad—Mystery and Wisdom

Seven is the number of knowledge, self-discipline, mystery, and fate. Sevens often have great wisdom and the resilience to stand by their ideas.

Symbol: The heptagon

Best days of the month for 7 as Life Path: 7th, 16th, 25th

Character influences: Sevens are associated with philosophy, wisdom, and imagination. Small concerns may not be of interest to you; your remit is the mysteries of this world and what is beyond. Intellectually ambitious, you may be ahead of your time. As a result, you become strong, enduring the pain of being rejected or misunderstood, but you know you can contribute to society through the knowledge you have acquired, and have the determination to stand by your beliefs. You may be naturally reserved and recharge best in your own company.

Shadow character: Being overcritical; neglecting friendships; impracticality.

Advice: Focus on putting your knowledge into practice; manifest your ideas.

Number 8: The Ogdoad—Power and Success

Eight is the number of power in the material world. Eights are excellent organizers who achieve their goals.

Symbol: The cube (which has eight corners)

Best days of the month for 8 as Life Path: 8th, 17th, 26th

Character influences: Eights are practical, powerful, and determined to succeed; they often have a flair for business and are fast to react to an opportunity. Their focus is stability, but Eight character types can also embrace change because they respond brilliantly to it, reorganizing and adapting to create the security they value. They are kind and loving but tend not to fall in and out of love, because this invites disruption; they prefer to nurture a deep, constant bond with a long-term partner. In friendships, they are giving and supportive but know where to draw the line if they feel they are being manipulated.

Shadow character: Being domineering; tactlessness; overly materialistic.

Advice: Listen to others’ opinions; deepen your understanding.

Number 9: The Ennead—Spirituality and Courage

Nine is the number of intensity, courage, spirituality, genius, and boundaries. It is the last single-digit number before 10, said to hold the preceding numbers within itself. Nines are often inspired, highly intelligent people.

Symbol: The nonagon (nine-sided shape)

Best days of the month for 9 as Life Path: 9th, 18th, 27th

Character influences: The Nine personality is similar to that of number Seven—both types are cerebral, but the Nine has the advantage of genius. As a Nine, you may be the ideal mentor, consultant, counselor, or adviser, and you have the potential to make an outstanding contribution to your field of work. Success comes due to your inspiring ideas and sharp intellect, so you may rise quickly in your chosen profession. The Nine has the gift of discernment and knows how and where to direct his or her energy and attention. You are a supportive, sympathetic, and loyal friend, just like the Six.

Shadow character: Lack of focus; inconsistency; inability to complete anything.

Advice: With sustained effort, anything is possible.

Master Numbers

Numbers 11 and 22 are believed to have intense vibrations. These types are often associated with having an evolved awareness.

Number 11: Intuition

Eleven can be considered a doubly empowered One. As Ones are associated with leadership, ingenuity, and communication, at the level of Eleven, the influence of the One expands into global communities and can also signify great faith. Elevens are believed to be visionary and charismatic individuals.

Character influences: Eleven people often possess a special gift in a chosen subject area and a unique power of communication. You have the ability and drive to articulate your ideas, and you can passionately convince and motivate others. You have strong beliefs and values, and you’ll often put a cause above your own needs, making personal sacrifices in order to help others. Some Elevens are clairvoyants and healers and/or creative and artistic. You may feel a deep call to be of service to the world.

Shadow character: Overidentifying with a cause; lack of perspective; obsessiveness.

Advice: Temper your idealism so your goals remain realistic.

Number 22: Global Vision

Twenty-Two is known as the number of the master builder. It adds up to Four, the number of stability and structure, so whatever the Twenty-Two makes is designed to last. It may also be impressive, even a legacy for future generations. Twenty-Twos are therefore associated with power and the realization of a vision.

Character influences: Twenty-Two people materialize ideas; whatever you envision, you make. It is important that you see results, so you may direct your energies into a physical product, building, or other environment that represents your values and beliefs. Equally, you may put together a group or evolve a larger organization or business that delivers a service or lasting benefit to others. Twenty-Twos are therefore highly sensitive to others’ needs, with great empathy and compassion.

Shadow character: Stubbornness; lack of attention to important detail; intense anger.

Advice: Stay within reasonable boundaries; you don’t need to push so hard.

Significant Days

Take the whole date and add it to your Life Plan number. You can use this technique when looking at potential start dates for a new job or any venture. For example, if you