Latest news with #ThePeacemaker
India.com
6 days ago
- General
- India.com
Monthly Numerology Horoscope For July 2025: All Numbers, Check Predictions For Love, Finance, Health & More
photoDetails english 2924376 Updated:Jun 30, 2025, 02:54 PM IST A Month of Soul Searching 1 / 12 As the energies of July 2025 unfold, numerology reveals a powerful invitation to pause and go inward. Calculated by adding the month (7 for July) to the Universal Year Number (2+0+2+5 = 9), we arrive at Universal Month Number 7 (7 + 9 = 16 → 1 + 6 = 7). In numerology, 7 is often referred to as the number of the seeker, philosopher, and spiritual analyst, a vibration that urges introspection, mental clarity, and soulful exploration. Universal Number 7 Sets the Tone 2 / 12 Unlike the action-driven momentum of previous months, this period offers a quieter, more contemplative energy. It's a time to step back from the chaos, retreat into your inner world, and reconnect with your purpose and truth. Picture July as a sacred temple amidst the noise of everyday life, a place where the external world softens, allowing space for clarity and healing to emerge. Shweta Bhardwaj, numerologist and astrologer, Gaura AstroPredictions, brings her insightful monthly numerology predictions for July 2025. Read on! Number 1 (The Leader) 3 / 12 Number 1 (The Leader): July brings a break from your usual dynamic pace. The energy pushes you inward, encouraging you to reflect and plan rather than charge ahead. Avoid making impulsive decisions. Use this time for personal growth, meditation, or learning a new skill. Relationships may demand empathy and patience. Tip: Let go of control — listen more, act less. Number 2 (The Peacemaker) 4 / 12 Number 2 (The Peacemaker): This month enhances your natural sensitivity. You'll find yourself more intuitive than usual, which can help in both personal and professional settings. However, avoid emotional burnout — protect your peace. It's a good time for healing, writing, or connecting with like-minded souls. Tip: Trust your inner voice — it's louder for a reason. Number 3 (The Communicator) 5 / 12 Number 3 (The Communicator): Your usual bubbly energy may feel quieter this month. July invites you to write, reflect, or explore spiritual topics. This isn't the best time for spotlight moments but great for laying the foundation for future creative projects. Communication with others might feel deeper, not louder. Tip: Journal your thoughts — a hidden talent may awaken. Number 4 (The Builder) 6 / 12 Number 4 (The Builder): This month, you're asked to pause and reassess your life foundations. July supports you in revisiting your priorities, especially around work and stability. Some alone time will do wonders. Focus on discipline, healthy routines, and mental clarity. Avoid rigid thinking — flexibility is key. Tip: Declutter your physical and mental space. Number 5 (The Adventurer) 7 / 12 Number 5 (The Adventurer): This introspective month might feel restrictive for your freedom-loving spirit, but it's necessary. July brings a chance to break mental habits that no longer serve you. Avoid major changes. Instead, focus on spiritual exploration, personal truth, or quiet travel. Tip: Stillness is your hidden adventure this month. Number 6 (The Nurturer) 8 / 12 Number 6 (The Nurturer): This month helps you reflect on relationships and emotional boundaries. Family matters may need attention, but not through control — through compassion. Take time for yourself, especially if you've been overgiving. July also supports spiritual learning or charity work. Tip: Nurture yourself first to nurture others better. Number 7 (The Seeker) 9 / 12 Number 7 (The Seeker): You'll feel aligned with the universal energy this month, and your spiritual powers will be at their peak. This is a strong time for self-discovery, study, writing, or teaching. Trust synchronicities — the universe might give you signs pointing to your life purpose. Tip: Embrace your spiritual side fully — it's your superpower. Number 8 (The Achiever) 10 / 12 Number 8 (The Achiever): While the month isn't about bold moves, it does favor deep planning and building structures for long-term success. Financial matters might require introspection rather than bold investments. A time for soul-searching about what success truly means to you. Tip: What you plan now will manifest later — be strategic. Number 9 (The Humanitarian) 11 / 12 Number 9 (The Humanitarian): July helps you release what no longer serves your emotional well-being. Past experiences may resurface, offering lessons and closure. A perfect time for forgiveness, letting go, or doing inner child work. Creative pursuits with emotional depth are favored. Tip: Let go with grace — it clears the way for light. Monthly numerology predictions 12 / 12 With the universal number 7 governing July 2025, this month is less about action and more about alignment. It's a time to step back, reflect, and realign with your inner truth. Whether through meditation, journaling, or self-study, the energy supports personal evolution across all numbers.
Yahoo
14-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The world won't acknowledge it yet, but we owe Israel a debt of gratitude
'I swear I believe Armageddon is near.' This was Ronald Reagan's initial reaction, writing in his diary, after hearing news of the Israeli attack on the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak on June 7 1981. The Israeli attack was a major operational success, destroying Osirak and denying Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein a nuclear bomb. In time, American leaders would come to recognise that they owed Israel a huge debt of gratitude for disarming Iraq's monstrous tyrant. Yet this is not how they reacted publicly at the time. For the deeply religious Reagan, with his profound aversion to nuclear weapons, his initial reaction was a mix of horror and confusion. As the historian William Inboden put it in The Peacemaker, his recent book on the US president's national security strategy, 'Reagan worried that his first year in office might also be the last year of Earth's existence.' President Donald Trump may not share Reagan's religious faith but he has spoken repeatedly over many years of his fear of nuclear war. This is likely to colour his response to the Israeli strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. Like the Reagan White House, the Trump's administration's avowed policy positions should, on the surface, lead it to endorse the strikes – support for Israel, opposition to nuclear proliferation and disgust at the target, in both cases a tyrannical regime that has committed itself to Israel's destruction and unleashed bloodshed across the region. Yet other diplomatic considerations led the Reagan administration to publicly disassociate itself from Israel. The White House denounced the attack. At the United Nations, Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick allowed a Security Council Resolution condemning Israel to pass without issuing a US veto. And initially the US suspended any further sales of F-16s to positions derived from a number of conflicting policy priorities. First, there was concern about the reaction of America's Arab allies, particularly Saudi Arabia. Secondly, there was a growing sense in the White House that the US should support Saddam's Iraq in its war with Iran, which had begun the previous year. Thirdly, there was concern about the potential for wider regional escalation, particularly in Lebanon. That war-torn country, occupied by Syria, had served as the base for regular Palestinian guerilla attacks on Israel and was now hosting Syrian SA-6 missiles. Israel was determined to remove this threat but the Reagan administration wanted to negotiate a settlement. Fourthly, and overhanging all of this, was the wider fear that America's Cold War antagonist the Soviet Union might exploit the regional there were other officials in the administration who recognised that what Israel had done at Osirak was necessary, not only for its own security but that of the US too. And while Reagan reprimanded the Israeli ambassador that the US was 'caught by surprise,' he would very quickly begin to empathise with the Israelis. 'Indignation on behalf of Iraq is a waste,' he wrote in his diary. 'Saddam Hussein is a 'no good nut' and I think he was trying to build a nuclear weapon.' What's more, he had 'called for the destruction of Israel' and the threat thus had to be removed. After reflection, Reagan resumed sending F-16s to like Reagan, President Trump has distanced his administration from the Israeli strikes, although he has not yet gone so far as to issue any condemnation. Like Reagan, Trump had hoped to solve broader regional issues by negotiations rather than strikes. Yet there are important differences with 1981. Firstly, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has made it clear that Israel had informed the US ahead of time that 'this action was necessary for its self-defence.' Secondly, many of America's Arab allies, particularly Saudi Arabia, have long feared what Iran's theocratic Shiite rulers will do with a nuclear weapon. They are less likely than they were in 1981 to be condemning Israel's attack on Iran behind closed doors, whatever they say publicly. Thirdly, Iran has moved well beyond Saddam's rhetorical denunciation and support for terrorist attacks. Since October 7th 2023, they and their proxies have unleashed a broad, multi-front attack on Israel with its by escalating its conflict with Israel, Iran has also left itself weaker, with its proxies devastated and its own air defences largely demolished by Israel last year. The Iranian nuclear weapons programme might be more sophisticated and spread out than the Iraqi one at Osirak. But Iran is also more isolated in the region. Even more so than with Saddam in 1981, the moment of maximum danger has already approached for Israel. While intelligence then suggested Osirak would become operational within months, the Iranians are currently enriching uranium to such levels that they are already a threshold nuclear state that could step over that precipice in as in 1981, much of the region and the wider world will condemn Israel's actions. But just as then, I suspect in time, the vast majority will come to be exceedingly grateful for what they have done. Iranian drones are already enabling Russia to pound Ukrainian cities, while the Islamic Republic's agents are targeting dissidents in the West, interfering in our elections, and unleashing violence on our streets. A nuclear weapon in the hands of Ayatollah Khamenei would have been as dangerous, if not worse, than one in the hands of Saddam remains to be seen if the Israeli strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities prove as successful as their previous attack on Osirak. If it does then Western governments should be grateful to Israel. Just don't expect to hear much thanks. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
01-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - ‘We win, they lose' — GOP should take Reagan's approach when it comes to unions
Republicans are falling into a familiar trap. From President Trump to Vice President JD Vance to Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), a growing number of party leaders have come to believe that coercive labor unions are a permanent part of American politics, so the Republicans might as well forge an uneasy truce if not an outright alliance with them. To build that bridge, Hawley released his first of several promised pro-union bills in early March. The thinking seems to be: If labor unions are here to stay, why not put political expediency ahead of deeply held Republican principles like worker freedom and equal opportunity? Fifty years ago, Republicans made a similar argument about another kind of union — the Soviet variety. In the mid-1970s, Republican leaders, along with the Democratic Party and virtually the entire foreign policy establishment, assumed the Soviet Union was here to stay. Two successive Republican presidents — Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford — pursued a policy of détente with a coercive regime that rejected American principles and was actively working toward America's destruction. What other choice did they have, if the Soviet Union wasn't going anywhere anytime soon? One Republican knew better. Ronald Reagan had no interest in playing nice with the Soviet Union. I recently heard William Inboden, author of the Reagan biography 'The Peacemaker,' explain the 40th president's thinking. Like other Republicans (and like Democrats, too), Reagan believed that two forces were at play. First, the Soviet Union was a fact of life — a regime that existed whether he liked it or not. Second, the U.S. and the USSR were locked in a battle of ideas — a battle between freedom and tyranny. But what made Reagan different was that he believed the second force was more important and powerful than the first. The only reason the Soviet Union continued to exist was because liberty-loving nations didn't believe freedom could truly triumph over tyranny. But Reagan did believe in freedom's strength, which is why he marshaled America's economic and military might to pressure the Soviet Union into collapse. His philosophy was summed up in his famous saying, 'Here's my strategy on the Cold War: We win, they lose.' His vision was widely derided as impossible, yet the Berlin Wall fell within a decade of Reagan's election to the White House. The Soviet Union was obviously a different beast from labor unions, which at their best give workers a voice. But for at least 75 years, American unions have given in to their worst instinct of coercion. Given how long they've been around, it's no wonder that a growing number of Republicans think they'll always be here, though unions represent a smaller share of the workforce with every passing year — now 9.9 percent, the lowest in recorded history. These Republicans have it backward. As Reagan showed with the Soviet Union, America doesn't have to blindly accept the eternal existence of something antithetical to our national principles. To the contrary, applying those principles — and vigorously reminding the American people of their power and truth — can ensure their victory over injustice. In the case of unions, that means fundamentally reforming the current labor model. This doesn't mean going back to the bad old days, when unions were treated as a criminal conspiracy. But it does mean ending the legal favoritism that allows unions to coerce workers, control businesses and advance their selfish interests at the expense of everyone else. The Republican goal should be to make unions earnestly compete for workers' support, with neither a monopoly in the workplace nor restrictions on workers' ability to choose the union that's best for them. When is the last time Republicans forcefully advanced such a principled vision? Even before the recent backsliding, Republican leaders rarely made the moral case against forced unionization. Sure, they broadly supported policies that would have empowered workers, and most Republicans still do. But with few exceptions, the party tip-toed around the real stakes. If union coercion is wrong, then anyone who loves freedom has a duty to fight it — without apology and without quarter. Reagan showed that a principled approach can work, and Republicans may get another opportunity sooner than they realize. Last year, a federal court ruled that the National Labor Relations Board — and by extension, the labor law that governs America's labor-union framework — is unconstitutional. This case seems destined to end up at the Supreme Court. If the justices strike down the law, will Trump and Republicans side with the unions they're trying to appease? Or will they stand with American workers against union coercion, seeking to end injustice the same way Reagan defeated the Soviet Union? Joseph G. Lehman is president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
01-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
‘We win, they lose' — GOP should take Reagan's approach when it comes to unions
Republicans are falling into a familiar trap. From President Trump to Vice President JD Vance to Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), a growing number of party leaders have come to believe that coercive labor unions are a permanent part of American politics, so the Republicans might as well forge an uneasy truce if not an outright alliance with them. To build that bridge, Hawley released his first of several promised pro-union bills in early March. The thinking seems to be: If labor unions are here to stay, why not put political expediency ahead of deeply held Republican principles like worker freedom and equal opportunity? Fifty years ago, Republicans made a similar argument about another kind of union — the Soviet variety. In the mid-1970s, Republican leaders, along with the Democratic Party and virtually the entire foreign policy establishment, assumed the Soviet Union was here to stay. Two successive Republican presidents — Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford — pursued a policy of détente with a coercive regime that rejected American principles and was actively working toward America's destruction. What other choice did they have, if the Soviet Union wasn't going anywhere anytime soon? One Republican knew better. Ronald Reagan had no interest in playing nice with the Soviet Union. I recently heard William Inboden, author of the Reagan biography 'The Peacemaker,' explain the 40th president's thinking. Like other Republicans (and like Democrats, too), Reagan believed that two forces were at play. First, the Soviet Union was a fact of life — a regime that existed whether he liked it or not. Second, the U.S. and the USSR were locked in a battle of ideas — a battle between freedom and tyranny. But what made Reagan different was that he believed the second force was more important and powerful than the first. The only reason the Soviet Union continued to exist was because liberty-loving nations didn't believe freedom could truly triumph over tyranny. But Reagan did believe in freedom's strength, which is why he marshaled America's economic and military might to pressure the Soviet Union into collapse. His philosophy was summed up in his famous saying, 'Here's my strategy on the Cold War: We win, they lose.' His vision was widely derided as impossible, yet the Berlin Wall fell within a decade of Reagan's election to the White House. The Soviet Union was obviously a different beast from labor unions, which at their best give workers a voice. But for at least 75 years, American unions have given in to their worst instinct of coercion. Given how long they've been around, it's no wonder that a growing number of Republicans think they'll always be here, though unions represent a smaller share of the workforce with every passing year — now 9.9 percent, the lowest in recorded history. These Republicans have it backward. As Reagan showed with the Soviet Union, America doesn't have to blindly accept the eternal existence of something antithetical to our national principles. To the contrary, applying those principles — and vigorously reminding the American people of their power and truth — can ensure their victory over injustice. In the case of unions, that means fundamentally reforming the current labor model. This doesn't mean going back to the bad old days, when unions were treated as a criminal conspiracy. But it does mean ending the legal favoritism that allows unions to coerce workers, control businesses and advance their selfish interests at the expense of everyone else. The Republican goal should be to make unions earnestly compete for workers' support, with neither a monopoly in the workplace nor restrictions on workers' ability to choose the union that's best for them. When is the last time Republicans forcefully advanced such a principled vision? Even before the recent backsliding, Republican leaders rarely made the moral case against forced unionization. Sure, they broadly supported policies that would have empowered workers, and most Republicans still do. But with few exceptions, the party tip-toed around the real stakes. If union coercion is wrong, then anyone who loves freedom has a duty to fight it — without apology and without quarter. Reagan showed that a principled approach can work, and Republicans may get another opportunity sooner than they realize. Last year, a federal court ruled that the National Labor Relations Board — and by extension, the labor law that governs America's labor-union framework — is unconstitutional. This case seems destined to end up at the Supreme Court. If the justices strike down the law, will Trump and Republicans side with the unions they're trying to appease? Or will they stand with American workers against union coercion, seeking to end injustice the same way Reagan defeated the Soviet Union?
Yahoo
25-04-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
‘Green Wave' Helmer Xu Lei Talks Chinese Film Funding And Directing His Father In The Comedy-Drama
After sweeping the Best Actor and Jury awards at China's Pingyao International Film Festival, writer-director Xu Lei's quirky comedy-drama Green Wave arrived as the opening film at the Far East Film Festival (FEFF) on Thursday in Udine, Italy. Drawing laughter from the crowd of more than 1,200 people at the film's international premiere in the Teatro Nuovo Giovanni, Xu tells Deadline that he did not intend to write a comedy at first, but humor gradually found its way into the story. More from Deadline 'Bullet Train Explosion' Director Shinji Higuchi Talks Casting Singer-Actor Tsuyoshi Kusanagi & The Film's Moral Questions Shudder Acquires Historical Horror 'Orang Ikan' Netflix APAC Film Viewership Grew 20% In 2024 - APAC Showcase 'At the beginning, it wasn't meant to be a comedy, it was just meant to be a family drama about the father and son,' says Xu. 'However, as the story evolved during the production, it gradually turned into a comedy. As a filmmaker, I always appreciate the opportunity to grow in making your own movie. You find out more about yourself while making a film.' Xu adds that it will be far more challenging to fund a film like Green Wave in China today, compared to the domestic funding landscape a few years ago. 'When I started the project and looked for investors two to three years ago, it was a good time in China's movie market. But if I had to make this movie now, I would probably not have the same outcome,' says Xu. 'It's because fighting for audiences to take the time to go inside the cinema is even more competitive now, compared to three years ago. Now they have TikTok, streaming and games. In order to lure the audiences to go inside the theater, it's not as easy as before, so investors hesitate before they give the money to make a movie.' Xu says that he has completed the screenplay for his next film, titled The Peacemaker, and is currently putting together funding for the film. The Peacemaker is set in a rural village and revolves around a person who assumes the role of a local 'godfather' for the village, helping to arbitrate for the villagers, and settling their struggles and disputes. Xu previously directed Summer Detective (2019) and co-directed Hutong Cowboy with veteran filmmaker Ning Hao. Green Wave revolves around Wei Fei, a screenwriter who lives in Beijing. His recently-widowed father, Lao Wei, who lives further away in a village, finds a seemingly antique porcelain bowl while his ancestral home is being demolished. Father and son live under the same roof again, as Lao Wei arrives in Beijing to have the bowl evaluated by experts, in the hopes of making a windfall. Xu cast his real-life father, Xu Chaoying, in the role of Lao Wei — marking the second time that his father has appeared in his films. 'When writing the script, I did not initially intend to cast my father. But through the casting process, I looked around and felt like my father would be very believable and convincing in this role, so I ended up choosing him.' It seems like a move that has paid off, with the elder Xu picking up the Best Actor prize at the Pingyao fest. Elaborating on what it was like to direct his father, Xu said: 'This is the second time working with my father, so the easiest part is that I know his capacity, how much he can perform and what he can do.' Xu said that he spent some time working with refining the accents of the actors in the film, including Wang Chuanjun (who plays the son) to match the accents of the onscreen duo, as Wang is not from the same province as Xu's family. The inspiration behind the film's plot came from a friend's story. 'I have a friend who has a disability, and his father is an antique collector. All his life, he wants to find something authentic that will make him super rich, so that he can secure financial independence for his son,' says Xu. 'My friend and I both knew that his father's collection is all fake — none of them are real antiques, but he appreciates the affection and thought behind what the father is trying to do, which is real and genuine.' Best of Deadline Everything We Know About Netflix's 'The Thursday Murder Club' So Far TV Show Book Adaptations Arriving In 2025 So Far Which Colleen Hoover Books Are Becoming Movies? 'Verity,' 'Reminders Of Him' & 'Regretting You' Will Join 'It Ends With Us'
