Podcasts about pabs

In this inspiring and deeply personal conversation, I sit down with Sherece Brown — the powerhouse entrepreneur behind Dr. Pabs (@drpabs) — to talk about resilience, healing, and building a legacy of wellness for the next generation.From climbing the ranks in corporate America to creating her own plant-based multivitamin brand rooted in representation, empowerment, and community, Sherece shares the real story behind her journey. We explore what it means to walk away from a path that no longer fits, how our children's health is tied to our collective healing, and why betting on yourself can be the most radical act of self-love.If you've ever wondered what it feels like to turn pain into purpose, or dreamed of starting something that could truly change lives — this episode is for you.Connect with Sherece on Instagram at @drpabs and follow our podcast community at @unapologeticallyanxiousme for more conversations that matter.If this episode moved you, please leave a rating and review — it helps us grow and keeps conversations like this alive!Share this episode with a friend who needs that extra push to bet on themselves today.Welcome to your new favorite corner of the world.

In this episode, we sit down with Sherece Brown, the visionary founder of Dr. Pabs Pineapple is a Berry. Born to Jamaican immigrant parents and a proud Howard University graduate, Sherece shares her powerful journey from a 16-year career in corporate America to launching a purpose-driven wellness brand. Motivated by her passion for health, wellness, and community impact, Sherece created Dr. Pabs to deliver high-quality, plant-based vitamins designed for children's growth and well-being. Tune in as she opens up about embracing her immigrant roots, navigating major career transitions, and building a brand that stands for inclusion, resilience, and true purpose.

Just A Couple Of PABS Sitting Around Talking.

I kick of season 4 with an exciting episode! I sit down with Pablo, the creator of Kelptides! We start about the Kickstarter, the inspiration and behind the scenes of it all! https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/kelptides/kelptides-merman-action-figures?ref=clipboard-prelaunch https://www.kelptides.com/ https://www.instagram.com/merman13/ https://www.instagram.com/kelptides/ Everyone that Pabs mentioned in the making of Kelptides Artist, Erik https://www.instagram.com/errablo/ Sculptor, https://www.instagram.com/artofsebadom/ The Merman Podcast links Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/the_merman_podcast?utm_source=ig_web_button_share_sheet&igsh=ZDNlZDc0MzIxNw== Youtube: https://youtube.com/@themermanpodcastthemermanp6407?si=eH7Q6RS2EMwgTdT7 Feel free to send an email to ; themermanpodcast@gmail.com Special thanks to Sean of the Jemboys Podcast for editing this episode. I can also be found there as well. https://open.spotify.com/show/24gOZaXnrH9xPJBVslDwIc?si=c486d0be6998468f

Partner advisory boards (PABs) or councils (PACs) are integral components of many vendor channel programs, serving as crucial platforms for direct and candid dialogue between vendor leadership, channel managers, and partners. These forums allow vendors to gain valuable insights into their current operations and gauge partner sentiment regarding future plans and aspirations. While most vendors acknowledge the significance of PABs in their partner programs, the effectiveness of these forums can vary. Inconsistent execution or a lack of actionable feedback can diminish their value. Successful PABs require careful planning, coordination, active listening, and, most importantly, a genuine commitment from vendors to foster an environment where partners feel encouraged to engage meaningfully. Ivanti, a provider of security and IT management software, exemplifies the impact of a well-executed PAB. Through its robust advisory board, Ivanti gathers crucial insights and direction directly from its partners. In this episode of Changing Channels, Michelle Hodges, Senior Vice President of Global Channels and Alliances, shares her expertise on what it takes to successfully produce and leverage partner advisory boards for mutual benefit. Check out Channelnomics's Partner Advisory Board support resources: PAB Management & Support Services: https://channelnomics.com/pab/ Partner Advisory Boards: A User Manual: https://channelnomics.com/partner-advisory-boards-a-vendor-user-manual/ Choosing the Right Feedback Event: https://channelnomics.com/choosing-the-right-event/   Follow us, Like us, and Subscribe! Channelnomics: https://channelnomics.com/ LinkedIn: https://bit.ly/2NC6Vli X (formerly Twitter): https://twitter.com/Channelnomics     About Larry Walsh: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lmwalsh2112/ X (formerly Twitter): https://twitter.com/lmwalsh_CN Official Bio: https://channelnomics.com/team/larry-walsh/   About Michelle Hodges LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/michellewhodges/   Changing Channels is a production of Channelnomics, a brand of 2112 Enterprises LLC   Follow @Channelnomics to stay current on the latest #research, #bestpractices, and #resources. At @Channelnomics — the voice of thought leadership — we define #channel trends, chart new #GTM strategies, and #partner with industry leaders to champion #diversity in the channel.    © 2112 Enterprises LLC

Show Notes and Transcript Noor Bin Ladin returns to Hearts of Oak to discuss the World Health Organization's role in advancing globalism and its impact on the United States.  She highlights amendments at the 77th World Health Assembly regarding pandemic treaties and national health authorities.  Noor delves into WHO's funding sources and expresses worries about the organization's expanded powers in responding to global health emergencies, emphasizing the implications for national sovereignty and individual freedoms.  She calls for local activism to challenge health-related laws, repeal unconstitutional measures, and reduce big pharma's influence on global health policies, advocating for awareness, involvement in local politics, and the defence of bodily autonomy and constitutional rights in the face of potential global health governance by the WHO. *Items of reference mentioned in the podcast... WEBSITE                      wehurtothers.com JAMES ROGUSKI         jamesroguski.substack.com Noor Bin Ladin was born in Switzerland to a Swiss mother and Saudi father with the most controversial last name of the 21st century, at first glance it isn't obvious that she would be a freedom loving, Americanophile and patriot at heart. Noor's background story and early life were recorded in her mom's bestselling book, "Inside the Kingdom: my life in Saudi Arabia", by Carmen Bin Ladin. In short, her mother realised that she couldn't bring herself to raise her three girls according to Saudi culture, she fought a long, harsh battle in Swiss courts in order to gain their freedom and secure their upbringing in the West with Judeo-Christian values. This clash between her life and how different it would have been in Saudi Arabia had her mother lost, made Noor appreciative of the values and freedoms in the West from early on in her childhood. Travelling to America extensively from the age of three onwards further cemented her love for the American way. Though she has largely kept to herself since the tragic day of 9/11, Noor can no longer stand by and watch as America burns. A supporter of President Trump since his campaigning days of 2015, she felt compelled to speak up ahead of the 2020 elections, the most consequential in America's history. Why? Because the more we are to take a stand in the fight for the Free World, the higher the chance of saving Western Civilization from the brink of collapse. Connect with Noor... X/TWITTER          x.com/NoorBinLadin SUBSTACK          noorbinladin.substack.com/ PODCAST            rumble.com/c/NoorBinLadin  Interview recorded 4.6.24 Connect with Hearts of Oak... X/TWITTER        x.com/HeartsofOakUK WEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/ PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/ SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/ SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/ TRANSCRIPT (Hearts of Oak) I am so happy to have Noor Bin Ladin back with us once again. Noor, thank you so much for joining us again today. (Noor Bin Ladin) Thank you for having me, Peter. It's a pleasure to be back on the show with you. Oh, thank you. It's always good having someone on more than once. I thoroughly enjoyed discussing your background, your life, and where you are now in your activism. And we're going to talk about something completely different today, which is a huge topic, a contentious topic and a confusing topic. So we'll see what happens there. But people can find you @NoorbinLadin on Twitter or X. And of course, your Substack, which is essential reading. And that's just noorbinladin.substack.com And all the notes, all the links are in the description for viewers and listeners. So make sure you go after the end of this. I know you'll want to subscribe to NoorbinLadin.substack.com. The WHO, World Health Organization, we've heard. Maybe I can just ask you first, Noor, how did you kind of become interested in an entity that probably most of us hadn't actually heard about until the COVID tyranny? But how did you get interested and begin to delve into the WHO and kind of what they were? Well, Peter, as we discussed last time when I was on the show for the first time, you know, my interest is in the history of globalism and how obviously that intersects with the planned decline of the United States of America, you know, my nation that is very dear to me. And looking at globalism as a whole, especially the last 200 years, but more specifically the 20th century, you understand that the globalists have built one giant superstructure in order to advance their agenda of a one world order, this new world order, this one world government and the who is one of many many vehicles that was set up in order to push forward with this agenda of theirs of you know centralizing all the resources in the world centralizing power into one governing body essentially and they use many different tools many different crises such as you know quote pandemics and for that reason the WHO plays a key role so that's how I became interested in the WHO, but it's very much related to all the work that I've been doing in the sense that the WHO is one piece of the puzzle. And of course, I know you've been a key reporter on the ground there on this topic and many others for the War Room. And it's always good to connect with the War Room posse and anyone who brings information and news to the number one political podcast in the States. And I've enjoyed many of those. Thank you. Let me get into what we want to talk about, which is this decision at the World Health Association. It was the 77th meeting. I know many of us think, where have we been? 77 of these just flew past. But there have been 77 of these. Most of them, many of us were and have been completely unaware. But they adopted what are called the IHR, which are the International Health Regulations Amendments. Tell us how this meeting, the WHA, what was the intention of it? And again, we'll go into talking about how this was pushed through seemingly at the very end of it without proper assessment or looking at, probably when everyone was just wanting to finish off and go to bed, this was slipped through. But yeah, tell us about the WHA, this 77th meeting of it. Sure. I'll start by giving a little bit of context. So indeed, all eyes were on Geneva last week, Geneva, Switzerland, my hometown, where the WHO have their headquarters. Every year they meet in the UN building to host the World Health Assembly which is their annual meeting and this is where the member states and you know the executive board and the WHO entity essentially decides on their plans and whatever items are on the agenda and this year's annual meeting the 77th World Health Assembly was of particular interest to a lot of people in the world because everybody was kind of holding their breath to see what was going to happen with the so-called pandemic that was one track that was one legal instrument that was supposed to be presented last week and then the second track were the amendments to the international health regulations which were initially adopted back in 1969, there was a first big set of amendments that were adopted in 2005 and now this is the second, you know, kind of package of amendments that were adopted, as you mentioned, at the 11th hour on the final day of the WHA. And so coming back to the first track so that we get that one out of the way. Everybody was waiting to see what was going to happen with the so-called pandemic treaty. A lot of propaganda over the past couple of years, you know, post the scamdemic. A lot of our leaders in the world, many different, quote, stakeholders pushing for a pandemic treaty to be reached at this 77th WHA. Obviously, Big Pharma, manufacturers of, quote, vaccines, different alliances. We can come back into that later because there were a few announcements by CEPI and Gavi following the WHA. But on the Friday prior to the WHA starting on the 27th of May, it was announced by the WHO that it was likely that they weren't going to be able to reach an agreement on the pandemic agreement. I smelled a decoy straight away while others were prematurely celebrating and unfortunately it was unwarranted. This is also something we can get back into a bit later. But essentially the decision what transpired and this was announced as well on the final day of the WHA at the same time as the adoption of the amendments. But the WHO, the member states have decided that they were extending the negotiation period for the pandemic agreement. Up until next year at the next WHA, WHA 78 in May here in Geneva once more. And with an objective of actually finalizing the agreement before the end of the year. So they're going to put pressure on the different member states to reach an agreement before the end of 2024 but they're giving themselves some extra time until May just in case and also announced in that same statement negotiations will resume in July of this year so we're going to keep looking at what's coming out of these negotiation meetings out of Geneva and, over the next few months, because that's not over at all. It's just delayed, but it's very much still on. So that's the first track. And then the second track, the amendments were adopted very late on the 1st of June, the final day. I think it was expected that they were going to pass at some point during this week. It wasn't expected that it was going to be so late during the time frame for the WHA. And these amendments are certainly not a victory for the people. And we can get into that in terms of what the amendments actually are during this interview. Okay, well, you mentioned about we were all given this false sense of security by many people by being told, It's not going to happen. It's been paused, delayed. Don't worry, we've won the battle, but the war may go on. I think we've talked before about the danger of putting out information which is not necessarily true, maybe wishful thinking, maybe pure misinformation. And we attack governments and mainstream media for misinformation but it does seem as though sometimes it happens on our side and that announcement by many commentators that actually it's been paused, we've won this battle seem to be part of that misinformation. Yes it was actually quite frustrating and I did my best to push back against it straight out of the gates already on that Friday that I mentioned before the start of the WHA on social media. Because it's hard enough that we need to fight against the disinformation on quote, the other side from the other side from the mainstream media, like all the propaganda that they wage against us. But then we also need to fight back against disinformation, you know, whether ill intentioned or not, you know, So from our side, it's a little bit disheartening. And because the issue here is that you give people a false sense of hope or a false sense of having a moment of respite. Is that how you pronounce the word? Yeah, respite, yeah. Respite when actually this is the time where we really need to be pushing back really strongly and even more so like there's no space for us to let down our guard and I think the other the other side understands that very well which is why you know they make it so convoluted and they have all these different tracks and instruments and they put out the propaganda it's a way of, I mean, there are many objectives to that, but including demoralization and getting people discouraged. And so when you have that thing on our side where people are celebrating, although it's unwarranted, you kind of like take the wind out of people's sails at a very critical moment in reality. We obviously we have two main international bodies which we are all concerned, we've got the WEF and that's more in the economic and the WHO is looking at health but how does because we've seen some discussions in the media in the UK over the last maybe two months, three months calling into question the power of the WHO and these regulations. But how is it made up? Is it government representatives that go and they vote? Because the WHO is funded by individuals and entities and governments. But what individual power is it that Switzerland sent a representative, the UK sent a representative, and they come together and vote and they're accountable to their national governments or people? Or how does the setup work? I'm so glad you asked that question, Peter. Thank you so much. There is a lot of confusion and many misconceptions as to what is actually going on, especially with this term sovereignty. And this is the reason why I have been doing a podcast series on my podcast, Noor Bin Ladin Calls, with James Roguski, who is the number one researcher on the WHO. A lot of what I know and what I'm learning about the WHO is thanks to my conversations with James and his Substack, which I have subscribed to and read regularly. And that's the reason I really wanted to do regular phone calls with him for myself, but more importantly for the audience to try and make sense of actually what is going on and the key distinctions, because as I said, they make it complicated on purpose. And people need to understand, I'm going to try and make it as simple as possible. We are dealing with tentacles of the same octopus, and they advance in lockstep, all of like all of these stakeholders to use, you know, the globalist terms, they're all advancing together. And so the key point, if I had to boil it down to one thing, is that this has nothing to do with health. And this is about all of these stakeholders getting together and figuring out how they are going to continue to poison world populations. And I'm going to borrow a brilliant sentence by James, who I just mentioned. You know, this is about our decreased health and their increased wealth. This is what the WHO, Big Pharma and our governments and all these other organizations and institutions are working towards and we can get into as well the the inception of the WHO why it was set up in the first place and the fact that it's been rotten since the very beginning and designed for this purpose but this is especially true or manifests in a very clear way when you look at the the last few years and the pandemic industry that they've essentially created out of thin air to push these, quote, pandemic related products onto the population, whether it be faulty PCR tests that we know are completely useless for the purpose of diagnostics, these so called, you know, medications, these drugs like Remdesivir, and, of course, the genetic modifying jabs. Experimental jabs. What they're trying to do with these two instruments, along with many other initiatives and regulations and activities, is to institutionalize this new pandemic industry and push more of this poison onto the population. And it's not a question of the WHO stealing the sovereignty of our nations. And this is something, again, I understood with James, because in the documentation, it doesn't say that. It's about coordinating the response to these so-called pandemic emergencies between the different stakeholders, allowing them to make a profit while poisoning us. And our governments are in on this. This is the crux of the matter, is that our governments are driving this. They themselves are drafting and enacting legislation that not only supports these international instruments, but actually are even stricter in their application. And it's not the WHO that's going to say, close down your borders. It's our own countries that are going to close down our borders, make foreign travellers either quarantine, get jabs, and have these procedures done to them upon entry of the country if they want to continue to travel, vaccine passports, etc.. We saw with COVID, we got the preview of what our governments did to us. They didn't need the WHO. WHO makes recommendations, has these regulations, and then our nations can point to the WHO, as you know, the health authority, to justify their tyrannical rule over the populations. And, I think it's very important for these distinctions to be made because when people go around saying certain things, that aren't right, or precise, it leads to a lot of confusion. And then, you know, you have Tedros who goes on stage or whatever in different conferences and says, oh, there's so much disinformation and misinformation and we have to fight against that. Well, he's not entirely wrong when he says that, because on our side, we're not doing the due diligence of communicating accurately about what's actually going on. And, you know, obviously everybody makes mistakes. I make mistakes. I just really do try my best to do a good job in terms of explaining this. And when I don't know what I refer to people who really know their stuff. And in this case, it's James Roguski. You know, we mentioned that the outset of this conversation, the WHO, it's just one piece. And I'm much more of a macro person looking at how all of these pieces fit together and I also love history so you know I'll look more into the history of things and how we got to this point and the different steps that the globalists took in order to get us to where we are, which is, you know, on the brink of the realization of this agenda, 2030 agenda, new world order agenda. But looking at the different individual pieces, we really need to look to people who are doing the most thorough job. And in this case, it's James Roguski. So you really need to have him back on the show, Peter. I will, I love talking with James. He was thorough. He was open. It was a great conversation. And I know you and James have done many chats, many interviews. I had one. Yeah on that on that point I encourage people to go to my Substack the latest article is a 15 minute chat I had like, the last episode of the podcast with James is featured in the latest article on my Substack and we do a kind of like briefing or debrief of what happened during the WHA so to understand what transpired I would encourage people to watch that Oh, absolutely. Can I ask about the, I want to get into the regulation, but another question about the makeup. You've got a lot of money comes from countries and private organizations into a lot of these entities. And I think the US is maybe the biggest funder of the WHO with probably, I think, $400 million is what I read. But then the Bill and Melinda Gates also gives a lot. Then you've got other UN bodies like Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, that also give a lot of money. Explain a little bit maybe about what that means because you've got the vax, a quasi, organization representing vaccine organizations and it is pumping money into this and that could be seen as very good that the media could portray that as this is wonderful they're actually contributing to world health but there seems to be a darker side and I always worry about when organisations are involved in funding that have no representation, no say with the public, with the government. It's one thing you can lobby your government. But actually with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, we don't have a seat on the table. We can't write a letter to Bill and complain. They are a power and authority onto themselves. So tell us a little bit about the funding. Great question. I actually built a website with my friend Nick Chirruti called wehurtothers.com. And you'll see there's a whole section on the page dedicated to the WHO on funding. So all this information is available there, but I'll obviously just answer your question. WHO gets funding via two key ways. The first one is through the membership fees of the member states, that accounts for about 20% of their funding. And the rest, the 80%, is done through voluntary donations, which can be from the member states themselves if they want to give more than what they're obligated to give. And via any other institution, such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, such as the Rockefeller Foundation. I made sure that in that section on wehurtothers.com, I had a special link regarding the relationship between the WHO and the Rockefeller Foundation. The WHO wouldn't have been able to exist in its shape without funding from the Rockefeller Foundation and support from the Rockefeller Foundation, who had already been instrumental in setting up the WHO's predecessor health body in the League of Nations. So we can draw a straight line, you know, from the early 20th century to today with the Rockefeller Foundation. And anyway, we can do that with regards to anything that has to do with, quote, health and medicine, because they really captured all of this. And to your point what I was describing a bit earlier about you know the WHO being this coordinator or facilitator or quote middleman acting you know for the benefit of big pharma and for them to be able to put more and more and more money into their pockets, this is what this funding is about and this is what you know CEPI's role Gavi's role is about it's about putting in place via the WHO, the structure of this business deal in order for them to continue profiting of off of our ill health caused by them in the first place. Well, this is how the industry works. They give us something which has side effects, and then there's a solution for that, which is another drug. So it is, yeah. And one thing that is interesting, and I actually pulled it up for you before we did our interview, but you see both Gavi... And CEPI made announcements relating to the pandemic treaty following the World Health Assembly's decision. And I mean, I'll put this online on my Twitter just after our call. So in the meantime, it'll be available. They urge the delegates the member states the WHO to reach an agreement with regards to this pandemic treaty because obviously they have an interest there in terms of getting all of this deal structured so that they can continue as I just mentioned pushing their poisonous jabs onto the population. Let me just mention it was wehurtothers.com we'll put the link in the description of wehurtothers.com for delving into the work that Noor and others have done into the background of the WHO. So make sure and use that and delve in deeper. Yeah, if I just may say one word about this, it's a great tool that we built with Nick because we aimed to do a sort of repository of WHO information from alternative sources, you know, who are trying to draw attention to the ills of the WHO, but also we have a lot of official documentation in there so that you can see for yourself through the WHO speak, obviously, what it is that they're pushing forward through that vehicle. So I really encourage people to go look at that website. And obviously, I also have all the interviews I've done with James listed there and just documentaries, articles. So whatever medium you prefer, it's a great tool for you to educate yourself on the WHO and the con that is WHO on behalf of big pharma. Absolutely. Let's go into the amendments that were passed at the 11th hour. Again, you mentioned this has been there, the International Health Regulations 2005. So they've been there, set in legal stone. However, that actually works. But this has now been a big change to that. And of course, off the back of a supposed pandemic, it's a perfect opportunity to revisit something like this. But maybe let us know some of those amendments and why they are concerning. Yes, the first thing I'll say in terms of procedure is that these were adopted in a fraudulent way, because according to Article 55 of that very document, this final text needs to be made available a minimum of four months before the World Health Assembly. So that would have been end of January. So that was completely thrown out of the window. And in terms of what happens now that they've been adopted, there wasn't a vote or anything like that. It's more of a tacit acceptance. Member states now have, I think, between 10 and 18 months to reject these amendments. So this is where we need to be acting and telling our, governments and the representatives, you asked me a question earlier about how it works, our government sent a delegate, there's a delegate that is selected by our government. So the Biden regime has, you know, their who delegate that comes here to Geneva for these meetings etc representing the government the Biden regime I can't call it a government obviously, there are 10 to 18 months now to reject for our you know countries our governments to reject them so we need as you know a people in each of our respective countries to be like banging on about this and asking for our governments to reject this, obviously. But I'm not sure how successful we will be considering that all of our governments are captured, but this is very important and that's why a lot is riding as well on what happens this year in 2024 with so many elections going on in the world, but most importantly in the US. It's true. And with all the meaning, you've got European parliamentary elections happening more or less now. And I'm intrigued at the change that could bring with so many populist parties on the right raising concerns. Sadly, in the UK, we've also got an election and we're going to get a Labour government. So it's going to be the love of the WHO is going to just be increased massively with a hard left government. But of course, then the election in November could change how funding works for the WHO. But I kind of think even if President Trump is able to regain that position in the White House, probably other entities, I mean, if that's 400 million, that drops off. I can imagine other entities will step up because this project is too important to fail. Yeah. Before we go into the amendments, as you just asked, to that very point, I wanted to bring up this special character. His name is Lawrence Gostin, and he is currently the director of the WHO's Center on Global Health Law. He's been working in the health, public health sector for decades. He even worked with Hillary in the 90s. He was working on health policy since the 70s, but in the 90s, he was working with Hillary when she was the first lady. He authored the US's Model State Emergency Health Powers Act in 2001. And we know how much legislation came out of that that was detrimental to the people. He authored a book entitled global health security, a blueprint for the future, I posted this on Twitter you just go and read the book's description and you understand exactly what we're talking about in terms of them building out this architecture for global health and how this is going to impact us as people using national institutions like our health services etc, national governments and also international institutions working hand in hand to push this, right? So this is what the book is about. And he put out an interesting tweet. Saying, Dr. Tedros tells the WHA he's confident the pandemic agreement will be finalized. WHA is likely to extend the mandate for negotiations for five to 24 months. So this was during the week before the official announcement came out. U.S. diplomats wait to find consensus, but think it'll take one to two years. If Biden loses the White House, the US will surely pull out. So he was saying that during the week. So they're aware that it depends on what happens in the US, right? And it's obvious that they're expecting that the US would pull out should President Trump regain, and rightfully so, his place in the White House, because he started the process of exiting, of having the U.S. exit the WHO. Unfortunately, the timeframe wasn't long enough because once you trigger that, you need one year before it comes into effect. And one of the very first executive orders that Biden signed after that sham of an inauguration ceremony was to get the US back into the WHO. Okay, so take us through some of the amendments that have been made and why they should be of concern to us. I really encourage people to read the amendments themselves to echo what James says. I know it's really convoluted. So I also encourage people to go to James's Substack because he highlights the key bits. And I'm actually going to read from one of the articles that he made with regards to that, selecting a few of the key amendments that we need to be looking at. And the first one people need to read in full actually is Article 1, because Article 1 is all about definitions. So from the outset of the regulations, they just changed a few of the definitions and added some of them or amended some of them. And so the first one I'd like to read, which is relevant to everything we've been discussing in terms of them wanting to poison us with these products, is the definition of, quote, relevant health products. So, relevant health products means those health products needed to respond to public health emergencies of international concern, including pandemic emergencies, which may include medicines, vaccines, diagnostics, medical devices, vector control products, personal protective equipment. Decontamination products, assistive products, antidotes, cell and gene-based therapies and other health technologies. So those were added. And if you paid attention, they used the term pandemic emergency and that definition. So now I want to read the definition for pandemic emergency. Pandemic emergency means a public health emergency of international concern that is caused by a communicable disease. And one, has or is at high risk of having wide geographical spread to and within multiple states. [34:42] Two, and is exceeding or is at high risk of exceeding the capacity of health systems to respond in those states. Three, and is causing or is at high risk of causing substantial social and or economic disruption, including disruption of international traffic and trade. Four, and requires rapid equitable and enhanced coordinated international action with whole of government and whole of society approaches. And so the point that needs to be made with this definition it's that it's so vague and so wide-ranging and the person, according to these regulations that gets to determine what is quote a pandemic emergency is the director general of the WHO Dr Tedros Gabriel and so he can wake up tomorrow and say oh this is this pathogen or this you know virus qualifies as a pandemic emergency and then that would trigger certain things and allow states to implement some of some of the regulations that are in this in this document and one of the key new things in the document pertains to the creation of what they have termed a national IHR authority. So each member state within their health system is going to create a national IHR authority and also an IHR focal point that will be tasked with coordinating with the WHO. And I think if I had to choose one term to to make it clear for people is coordination, switch it for sovereignty and the who is going to steal your sovereignty which is not accurate and change it for coordination this is about coordination the who coordinating with our own governments and our own governments being you know the the tyrannical organisms that will be effectively enacting laws on a national level in and as an expression of their national sovereignty, you see this is where this is perverse and James explains this very well, if the United States of America, if the the federal government decides, hey you. You're a Swiss national, if you want to come and visit in the US you need to be jabbed, you need to have digital id with your vax status etc, you need to quarantine upon your arrival regardless of whether you come via air, boat, seas or land, this is a decision by the US government and it's a decision that they already made Peter, during this scamdemic, the first round COVID, I was not allowed to go to the US as a unvaxxed non US citizen. And we got a preview during that round of what it is our countries, our governments can do as an expression of their national sovereignty with the full backing and complicity of the WHO and these regulations. So this moves from previously, the WHO gave recommendations and governments fell into line, every single government but in theory I guess a government could have said, this is nonsense, we're going to reject that, but this seems to be legally making that enforceable that states must now comply. That's a great point you make, because a lot of the confusion is also due to the fact that we had quite different drafts a year ago. And in the initial drafts, it did appear that there was an issue of sovereignty and the WHO having these types of powers over states. It was the reading of those documents with the legally binding, they had the term legally binding in there and other provisions. And I was also following the release of these documents, I was also mentioning the fact that this was a power grab by the WHO. But in the meantime, throughout this year, we've had new information with leaked documents. And now we have this final official document that was released a few days ago. That is the final version that was adopted, as we mentioned, at the 11th hour. And it's not as, I want to say stringent as the previous versions, there is language you know, the member states shall, the state party that's how it's referred to in the document, the state party shall, you know, may compel the traveller to undergo, so they do kind of like a, it's kind of like a gymnastics exercise where they they manage to circumvent certain things, but the end goal is the same for all of them and so they're playing with the law, they're very good at playing with the law but the result inevitably is the same, loss of freedom for us, the people at it, the loss of sovereignty at the individual level. Using or abusing power at the state, at the national level, and the international level. And of course, I mean, James' article is exceptional. We'll put a link in going through those. But it does seem that the ritual of absolute power to quarantine anyone, to demand that happens. But then it's also about international travel. It's not just about the States. They then will make recommendations which are, in effect, demands that actually international travel is subject to whatever. I think one of the that talks about vaccinations but i think in in part of it it says any in article 31 it says additional established health measures that prevent the control, so any extra health measure, it's not, it doesn't say you know, you need to get a jab or wear a mask, it's like anything that may be needed that is dangerous. Yeah and what is key here, Peter, is that they agree on all this stuff when it comes to the measures and what our own, countries are going to compel people to do. This is not the point of contention. And I understood this very well with James. This is about the business deal. The negotiations is about figuring out who is going to get a piece of the pie. They've agreed on all the measures and how they're going to deal with us plebs once the next pandemic comes around, which there is a consensus. It's not about if, it's about when the next pandemic comes around. So the point of contention, why these negotiations are taking so long, be it with the IHR or with the pandemic treaty, is about how they're going to structure their deal and how they're going to distribute the spoils. And that's why I wanted to come to Article 44 because this is what it's about, Article 44 and Article 44BIS. Not BS. No, it should be BS. It definitely should be BS, but let me read. I'm not going to read the full thing. It's a little bit long, but no, but I should. It's really important. If you bear with me like two minutes, I'll read the full thing. So Article 44.2bis states parties subject to applicable law and available resources shall maintain or increase domestic funding as necessary and collaborate, including through international cooperation and assistance as appropriate to strengthen sustainable financing to support the implementation of these regulations. Tutor, pursuant to subparagraph C of paragraph 1, state parties shall undertake to collaborate to the extent possible to a. Encourage governance and operating models of existing financing entities and funding mechanisms to be regionally representative and responsive to the needs and national priorities of developing countries in the implementation of these regulations, b. Identify and enable access to financial resources, including through the coordinating financial mechanism established pursuant to Article 44b is, necessary to equitably address the needs and priorities of developing countries, including for developing, strengthening, and maintaining core capacities. [Which brings me to Article 44bis. 1. A coordinating financial mechanism. The mechanism is hereby established to a. Promote the provision of timely, predictable, and sustainable financing for the implementation of these regulations in order to develop, strengthen, and maintain core capacities as set out in Annex I of these regulations, including those relevant for pandemic emergencies. B. Seek to maximize the availability of financing for the implementation needs and priorities of state parties, in particular of developing countries. And C. Work to mobilize new and additional financial resources and increase the efficient utilization of existing financing instruments relevant to the effective implementation of these regulations. This is an important part I'm almost done. 2. In support of the objective set out in paragraph 1 of this article, the mechanism shall enter alia a. User conduct relevant needs and funding gap analysis. B. Promote harmonization, coherence, and coordination of existing financing instruments. C. Identify all sources of financing that are available for implementation support and make this information available to state parties. D. Provide advice and support upon request to state parties in identifying and applying for financial resources for strengthening core capacities, including those relevant for pandemic emergencies. C. Leverage voluntary monetary contributions for organizations and other entities supporting state parties to develop, strengthen, and maintain their core capacities, including those relevant for pandemic emergencies. 3. The mechanism shall function in relation to the implementation of these regulations under the authority and guidance of the health assembly and be accountable to it. And so I'm not going to read Annex 1, but as it refers to Annex 1, and it's all about creating the structure and the core capabilities for surveillance, on-site investigation. Laboratory diagnostics, implementation of control measures, etc., determining the risk of communication in terms of the disease. But what it means is that they are essentially setting up the infrastructure so that the poorer nations can also be able to say, hey, the pathogen you've identified, well, that we've identified in our mechanism, like in our, how would you say, with the core capabilities set up that we've put in our countries, the pathogen comes from us. So we want to be able to get a percentage of all the profit that you make off of the products, the health-related products that you create for the so-called pandemic. And this is what happened, you know, with Omicron in Africa, right, where they gave away, you know, Omicron, the genetic resources, the genetic resource, pardon me, of Omicron, and then Big Pharma created all these products off of the back of it, you know, the boosters and stuff. And so they made an agreement where rich countries would give funding so that the poorer nations could set all of this up and have the right to claim the spoils basically of the products that will be created off of the back of these pathogens. And this is the point of contention, by the way, with the pandemic treaty was how they were going to agree on the PABS system, the pathogen access and benefit sharing system, because they need, you know, these quote, pathogen or genetic resources or sequences to base their poison on and then it's about distribution and it's you know these nations they're not saying what they should be saying, is that we don't want these poisonous products, we don't want to be forced to take these poisonous products which is what our nations should be saying, they're saying, hey we want a piece of that poisonous pie, as James refers to it, we also want to to get money from these criminals that are in charge of our different countries, they also want to get money in their pockets so this is what this whole process has been about. It's about profiteering off of our continued ill health. Yeah profiteering and control absolutely. Noor it's always difficult to squeeze a huge topic like this into an hour but maybeI will put the links up and people do need to read James's Substack and they can go through the articles and everything is there. Yeah I'm sorry reading article 44 and article 44bis, it's so dry this language and it's, James said it on our podcast the other day, he gave out very good medical advice. He said, if you want to fall asleep at night, if you, suffer from insomnia, just read these documents. And it was so true, ahead of recording that very podcast episode with James, you know, we did it 24 hours after all of these announcements were made. And so that following day, I was reading the amendments and it wasn't in the evening, it was in the afternoon and it still managed to make me really drowsy. So listen, bless James for spending so many hours reading every single word in these documents. But, yeah, it's done on purpose, you know, to really not make people want to read these documents and therefore be properly informed. But I'll echo James, you know, read the damn documents if you want to know what it is they're up to. And for sure, listen to other people that are talking about this subject by all means. But if you really want to grasp what's going on, just go and do the research as well and do the reading yourself. Thankfully, you have a few people that you can look up to who can give you pointers. This is what James does. He gives you pointers and he says, hey, look at this, look at this, look at this, look at this. But the time to just consume news from whatever source and just take it at face value, we know that doesn't really work. So don't even listen to me. Just go and read the documents. I agree. And just for the last few minutes, can I just ask you about people responding? We talked about 10 to 18 months about being extended, the negotiating period being extended. That's part of the pandemic treaty. But, I mean, how can people be involved? They can obviously raise awareness online, on social media. Is it a case of writing to governments? I mean, what can people do when they're armed with the information? What's kind of their next step? Listen, you need to be focusing at the local level and regional level. So, for example, in Switzerland, they are preparing a law on epidemics. That's the name of the law. It's currently being redrafted it's to be presented in 2026, I'm involved with local, associations and organizations that are trying to raise awareness in the wider population, we have, we are very fortunate here because we can vote directly on on laws you know through our referendum process we also have the ability to put forward quote initiatives, so for example on the 9th of June, I'm going to go vote. There's an initiative to protect bodily autonomy in terms of vaccine mandates and to have that added specifically in the constitution. We do have an article in the constitution that protects the integrity of a human being, but we want to make it specific so that there's no way to go around it when they introduce the law on epidemics. And in the US, I mean. You have so many laws that should be repealed because they're completely unconstitutional. Laws, as I mentioned, some of them that derive from this act that Lawrence Gostin authored, the U.S. Model State Emergency Health Powers Act in 2001. This was, when the anthrax thing was going on. He had actually started working on it two years prior in 1999 kind of like the patriot acts you know they had started working on it also in the 90s so they were preparing a few things ahead of different crises, let's put it that way and so that US model state emergency health powers act from that I don't know how much legislation, how many laws were derived that you really need to be looking in your own country what's going on, your health and, what's HHS in the US, oh you're in England sorry, but for the American audience stuff coming out of HHS, how they coordinate with the CDC and all of these corrupt sick and evil institutions. Listen, just take big pharma down, all of it, and all of these associated institutions. It's been going on for at least 100 years longer. But, for the sake of focus, we can just talk about the 20th century and how basically everything was set up to push poison and to suppress actual remedies. Not manufactured by big pharma. So this is the root of the problem of what's going on. It's really looking at the entire structure within which the WHO sits. Well, Noor, I really do appreciate you coming on and giving us that, not only background information, but the call to action. I know people want to delve deeper into your Substack and also James both of the links are in the description so thank you so much for coming on unpacking what you're seeing there and what's going to impact every country in the world, so thank you. I hope I was able to bring a little bit of of clarity because as I mentioned at the outset of the conversation, it is very convoluted it does take time, people don't have time, people are busy fighting other battles, figuring out how to survive. And I just hope that, my work, certainly James's work that I know for sure because it does help me, but I hope that what I'm doing can help orient a little bit and provide a little bit of clarity with all this confusion. So thank you everyone for listening up to now and even sticking till the end, despite the reading of Article 44 and 44 BIS, which was so boring, but important. It is. And, Noor, I've certainly learned a huge lot just listening to you. So I know our audience will feel exactly the same. So, Noor, thanks so much for today. Thank you.

Desencuentros con Brays Efe, besitos con Cepeda y otros marujeos. Makoke a la calle Camiseta Reyes del palique: https://www.supermolon.com/camiseta-reyes-del-palique-podcast.html Instagram: @somosreyesdelpalique Tiktok: @reyesdelpalique Twitter: @reyesdelpalique Síguenos en nuestras redes sociales personales: @Fizpireta @UYAlbert

Welcome back to USR FRNDLY! We've got an audio-only episode from the beginning of Feb, right before Squared's birthday. Pabs and Squared go dolo while Jas and Rex are in Hawaii. Squared reflects on his 23rd bday in 2018, and the impactful event that happened. Pabs empathizes with Squared's disappointing experiences with the police. We talk about not getting recognized in a list of Chicago podcasts, and how broadcasting evolved from radio to pods. Squared reminisces on the Chicago radio hosts he grew up with, and gives the young radio hosts of today their flowers. Pabs gives props to Squared for starting his marathon training. All this and MORE! As always, thank you so much for listening! Your support is what keeps us going

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) published a notice in the Jan. 10 Federal Register establishing a 10% cap on income limit increases for housing fin ' 'anced by low-income housing tax credits (LIHTCs), private activity bonds (PABs) and various HUD programs, including Section 8. In this week's episode of the Novogradac Tax Credit Tuesday podcast, Michael Novogradac, CPA, and Novogradac partner Thomas Stagg, CPA, discuss how the cap has historically been calculated and how the notice clarifies the calculation of rent and income limits. Later, they discuss the possible effects of the decision as well as future dates to circle on the calendar.

On the latest episode of the Conduit Street Podcast, Moyah Panda and Ethan Hunt join Sarah Sample to discuss the role of police accountability boards and administrative charging committees in working with county governments and law enforcement agencies to improve policing and police accountability across Maryland.In keeping with the legislative mandate from 2021, all 24 Maryland counties have established a civilian oversight process for police misconduct. With the implementation of PABs and ACCs, these entities have a full year of operations under their belts. Anne Arundel County's Executive Director of the Office of Police Accountability Moyah Panda and Director of Government Relations Ethan Hunt discuss successes, challenges, and a few complicating factors that might need legislative remedies in the 2024 legislative session.The Anne Arundel County Office of Police Accountability was established to oversee and support the PAB and ACC. The PAB works with law enforcement agencies to review, provide policy advice, and report on disciplinary matters stemming from public complaints about police misconduct. The ACC reviews the findings of an investigation of misconduct by a police officer and determines to administratively charge or not charge and, if charged, recommends discipline.The Conduit Street Podcast is available on major platforms like Spotify, Apple, Google, and anywhere else you get your podcasts. Episodes are also available on MACo's Conduit Street blog.Useful LinksPrevious Conduit Street Coverage: Police Accountability Panel at #MACoCon Signals Necessary Changes to Reform LegislationAnne Arundel County Office of Police Accountability

F*** both parties really! The so-called founding fathers were against parties or what they called factions! If we got rid of parties candidates would run on their name and people wouldn't be able to vote Republican down the ballot they would have to know about the f** issues wouldn't they!! And where the candidates stand on those issues. Rudy f* COLLUDI #guiliani and old #diaperDon himself #realdonaldtrump were selling presidential pardons like candy for two million a pop and splitting the proceeds! Yet another abuse of power and a host of other Federal criminal charges! Where the f*** is the FBI? Where the f* is the Department of Justice? 202-514-2000 Y'all really need to get off your ass and do your f* job PABs your cowardice and inaction are turning America into s** country mfrs I'm geofenced so I've had the same number of followers on YouTube that I've had for months now but I'm just going to keep dancing like nobody's watching!

Political beat down what a show love that show you will too!F*** both parties really! The so-called founding fathers were against parties or what they called factions! If we got rid of parties candidates would run on their name and people wouldn't be able to vote REPUBLICAN or DEMOCRAT down the ballot they would have to know about the f* issues wouldn't they!! And where the candidates stand on those issues. Rudy f* COLLUDI #guiliani and old #diaperDon himself #realdonaldtrump were selling presidential pardons like candy for two million a pop and splitting proceeds! Yet another CHARGE of abuse of power IN AN AVALANCHE OF MILLIONS of Federal criminal charges! Where the f* is the @FBI? - HEY HELLO GUYS GOOD MORNING FN WAKE UP

KIRSTEN CINEMAS PRECIPITOUS FALL FROM GRACE! WE THOUGHT SHE WAS PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT BUT TURNED OUT TO BE EVIL UNICORN

Welcome once again to USRFRNDLY the frndly-est podcast in the planet! We go solo again and catch up - discussing everything thats been on our minds. We talk wedding fits and choosing a best man. Friends or family? Frnds ARE Family! We reflect on the last event of its kind: Pabs & Pals 5. The whole crew was out celebrating art and family

Welcome back to another spectacular episode of Usr Frndly! On this weeks episode we give the listeners some gems, the best jerk taco spots in Chicago, as well as the best burger thank you Kevin for the great USR question. We love everyone who listens and participates when we ask for questions so thank you to the few that help us out! We announce Pabs and Pals 5, pablo's art show where he showcases his old and new friends art, hopefully you can make it they're always a great time and a chance to get your hands on some rare pieces. We recap this years Wrestle Mania, David pay your dues! Squared predicted the winner and vouches for one of his favorite past times, its as real as real can be! Pablo misses his dog until he gets a home he has to stay at his parents house, Jason has some bloody heat for ya'll on the way no pun intended! Squared has been focused on CMFY and is gearing up for a restock! We talk about AIR , what's more important being the goat or owning the goat company? Slight wutang appreciation towards the end of this episode the series has been amazing. We talk C2E2 and about working within your niche as a vendor/ artist. Thank you for listening, subscribing and sharing it means the world , Pablo and Jason have Coechella coming up so we might be inactive or more active you never know. Hope you have a great one and remember to stay friendly! Thank you for listening we can't thank you enough but we can try! Thank you! follow us everywhere and most importantly subscribed so you know when our next episode drops!    / @usrfrndlypodcast   Follow us on IG!: https://www.instagram.com/usrfrndlypo... https://www.instagram.com/pablotrees/ https://www.instagram.com/squaredhill/ https://www.instagram.com/jas.outofor... https://www.instagram.com/rexkw0ndo/ Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/USRFRNDLYPOD --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/usrfrndly/support

D/L Link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/xofmsg10m31jw4m/P%2027.03.2023%20-%20M4RKY%20VYBZ%20with%20Nakes%2C%20T5%20Montana%2C%20Pabs%20Looc%20%26%20Ryskii.mp3?dl=0Catch MXRKY VYBZ every  3rd Friday 17:00 - 19:00. Socials:Twitter: @mxrkyvybz                        Instagram: @mxrkyvybz

MIT KØBENHAVN – O.G. HAR GÆSTER Forsinket advents-podcast… Superligaen ligger fortsat stille, men vi er nu mere end halvvejs igennem pausen. Så lang tid skulle der gå, før det lykkedes, at få det udsatte 3. søndag i advent-program i kassen. Sygdom, foretningsrejser m.m. kom i vejen. Nu har vi igen sat et kamera og to mikrofoner op i Steen O.G.s køkken, hældt kaffe i glassene og inviteret fire gæster, som Steen blandt andet kender fra Twitter. I dette forsinkede program er gæsten Pablo “Pabs” Bresciani aka. Pabs, der er ærke F.C. København-fan, og en af mændene bag Guldexpressen. Men til O.G. overraskelse kommer snakken også til at handle om B.93… Dagens gæst har, som en fast del af programmerne, naturligvis fået lektier for og fortæller derfor, hvem han synes udgør den bedste midtbane i den hvide trøje, nogensinde. Så nu kan vi endelig får hele “det bedste FCK-hold nogensinde” på plads. Og som de tre andre gæster har dagens gæst også sit bud på en drømme-transfer til dette vindue med. Programmet er også optaget på video og udgivet på Youtube. God fornøjelse! Vært: Steen Ordel Guldbrand Jensen Gæst: Pablo Bresciani Optaget på Amager den 14. januar 2023. Programmet er sponseret af Odds for Vindere. Video: Copenhagen Sundays. Partner: Unibet. 18+ Regler og vilkår gælder. Spil ansvarligt. StopSpillet.dk / Selvudelukkelse via ROFUS.nu

In this episode, James speaks to Julie-ann James, swimming industry pioneer, founder, and CEO of Aquababies Global and PABS consultancy. She is also an established researcher and innovator in swim fitness, introducing PABA fitness and PABS workshops to consumers' swim schools and businesses. Julie-ann is one of the world's leading baby and toddler swimming consultants having built a global franchise network and a training and consultancy business.    The Aquababies program is a self-perpetuating rolling business model that is often imitated but seldom equaled. With its thorough research and effectiveness, the program has benefited from the experience of teaching tens of thousands of children to swim. They offer franchising opportunities worldwide and the opportunity to train with Julie-ann personally.   In a nutshell, James and Julie-ann speak about: Julie-ann's amazing research in child psychology related to aquatic responses and reflexes Early days of baby swimming franchising in the UK vs the current work consulting franchise operators Challenges she faced during her fast global expansion and inception of the industry in other countries Key themes she has seen great businesses and organizations employ Great insights and tools she believes guarantee a successful business  …and so much more!    Connect with Julie -ann: Email:julie-ann@aquababiesglobal.com  LinkedIn: Julie-ann James   Check out Aquababies Global: Website: www.aquababiesglobal.com  Facebook: Aquababies Global  Twitter:@AquababiesHQ   Check out PABS Consulting: Website: https://pabsconsulting.com/   Connect with James: Instagram: @james ventures Facebook: Coordinate Sports FB Page LinkedIn: James Moore Coordinate Cloud: The Drive Phase Podcast

After a lifetime of owning and training dogs, Dexter Blanch had a great idea for a product that would prevent unwanted dog pregnancies. The PABS dog chastity belt was born, and it has gained real traction in the pet space. Now, he is launching another great product, The Hydro Leash. Listen to Dexter talk about his journey. Find out more about PABS and The Hydro Leash at delayherspay.com and thehydroleash.com

Pab braves Jordan Peele's new horror flick to bring you a review of NOPE, starring Daniel Kaluuya and Keke Palmer. SPOILER WARNING!(Sorry for the audio quality! Couldn't wait to record this one and recorded while on vacation.)(0:31)  – Intro(0:45) – Is it good?(1:01) –  What's good about it?(1:33) – Spoilers synopsis(6:50) – Where does this film belong in horror sci-fi cinema?(7:24) – How many Pabs?Follow Pab on Twitter.Listen to the spoiler-free review.

Pab braves Jordan Peele's new horror flick to bring you a spoiler-free review of NOPE, starring Daniel Kaluuya and Keke Palmer. (Sorry for the audio quality! Couldn't wait to record this one and recorded while on vacation.)(0:32)  – Intro(0:46) – Is it good?(1:03) –  What's good about it?(1:35) – Where does this film take its place in cinema?(2:09) – How many Pabs?Follow Pab on Twitter.Listen to the full spoiler review.

Paper Pabs steps back into the virtual studio with Blacker The Berry. Before that good o'l UK Wifi became too much, he was dropping gems and jewels on relationships and life. Then it transitions into Dean & Los going through some wild videos on the internet and breaking down exactly what is wrong with society! . . . . Click here the subscribe icon and don't forget to hit the notifications for our YouTube page: Blacker The Berry - YouTube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClJHzSbs0pvY8Sxpt09RY5w . . . Blacker The Berry on Instagram Blacker The Berry (@theberrygang1) • Instagram photos and videos https://www.instagram.com/theberrygang1/ . . . Blacker The Berry on Twitter Blacker The Berry (@theberrygang1) / Twitter https://twitter.com/theberrygang1 . . . Dean on Instagram Dean (@berrygangdean) • Instagram photos and videos https://www.instagram.com/berrygangdean/ . . . Los on Instagram

Pab is worthy to review THOR: LOVE AND THUNDER, directed by Taika Waititi and starring Chris Hemsworth, Christian Bale, Natalie Portman, and Tessa Thompson.(0:32)  – Intro(0:46) – Is it good?(1:30) – What's bad about it?(2:10) –  What's good about it?(2:24) – The state of the MCU(3:16) – How does Thor: Love and Thunder rank?(3:28) – How many Pabs?Follow Pab on Twitter.Listen to the full spoiler review.

SPOILER WARNING: Pab is worthy to review THOR: LOVE AND THUNDER, directed by Taika Waititi and starring Chris Hemsworth, Christian Bale, Natalie Portman, and Tessa Thompson.(0:32)  – Intro(0:46) – Synopsis(3:04) – Is it good?(4:02) – What's bad about it?(4:41) –  What's good about it?(5:21) – End credits scene(5:29) – The state of the MCU(6:20) – How does Thor: Love and Thunder rank?(6:32) – How many Pabs?Follow Pab on Twitter.Listen to the spoiler-fee review.

The Man The Myth, Pabby Wabby, Prince Of Scales call him what you want he is Paper Pabs Rap/Grime Legend tell us his story and spills the beans on the industry LEAVE US A COMMENT Join this channel to get access to perks: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVjOe4UwNRZx89uBXojoPcw/join You can also listen on Spotify, Apple Podcasts & Google Podcasts! For more content head over to.. Instagram: Thecentralclubpodcast Facebook Page: The Central Club Facebook Profile: Central Club Tiktok: thecentralclubpodcast Tiktok: thecentralclubclips E-mail us at: Thecentralclubpodcast@gmail.com STAY CENTRAL

In this episode of White Canes Connect, we talk with Pennsylvania Association of Blind Students Secretary Angelina Angelcyk. She tells us how she started singing when she was very young (she's only 16 now) and how she taught herself to play the piano. She gives out some tips on how you can do it, too. Show notes at https://www.whitecanesconnect.com/034  Angelina Sings YouTube Channel Make sure you check out Angelina's YouTube Channel at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHwQzjXhXwwGF0Yn3RBM_-Q. You can see what a great voice she has developed over the years.  Other Things Angelina Mentioned Here is a link to theYamaha keyboard Angelina uses: https://amzn.to/3G38HDr. The app that Angelina uses to play D&D is called DiceX. 2022 NFB of PA State Convention Save the date! This year's State Convention in Pittsburgh will be held from November 10 through November 13. Put it in your calendar and we'll see you at the Sheraton Station Square Hotel! Give Us A Call We'd love to hear from you! We've got a phone number for you to call and ask us questions, give us feedback, or just say, “hi!” Call us at (267) 338-4495. You have up to three minutes for your message and we might use it on an upcoming episode. Please leave your name and town as part of your message.  Follow White Canes Connect Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon | IHeartRadio  Connect With Us If you've got questions, comments, or show ideas, reach out on Twitter. We are @PABlindPodcast. You can also email us at WhiteCanesConnect@gmail.com  

Mike and Robbie reconvene to discuss a fast-food surprise, weddings, PABs, Dr Strange in the Multiverse of Madness, plus their drinks, snacks and more! Email: 222MandR@gmail.com Social Media: Facebook.com/mikeandrobbie & Twitter.com/mikeandrobbie

In this episode of White Canes Connect, we have a special presentation of Blind Abilities in support of the Pennsylvania Association of Blind Students Piano Bar Fundraiser on February 16th. PABS President and Keystone Chapter Secretary Simon Bonenfant moderates the show.  Show notes at https://blindabilities.com/?p=7177 Piano Bar Fundraiser Info The piano bar is from 6PM to 9Pm on February 16th and costs as little as $5 to attend via Zoom. When Simon, NFB of PA member Angelina Angelcyk, and the others aren't performing, Keystone Chapter First Vice President Stacie Leap will be reaching into her bag of jokes to keep us laughing as she emcees the festivities. Learn more and make your donation at http://www.nfbp.org/piano-bar/. Angelina Sings Angelina is a very talented 16 year old from the Pittsburgh area. If you were at the NFB of PA State Convention in Harrisburg in November, you know what I'm talking about. Watch her perform When We Were Young by Adele during a recent talent show at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_1Ya_MsCCU. Check out all of her videos on YouTube here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHwQzjXhXwwGF0Yn3RBM_-Q/videos Blind Abilities Podcast Thanks to Jeff Thompson for allowing White Canes Connect to use this episode. Check out all the shows from Blind Abilities at https://blindabilities.com/ or where ever you get your podcasts. Follow White Canes Connect Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon | IHeartRadio  Connect With Us If you've got questions, comments, or show ideas, reach out on Twitter. We are @PABlindPodcast. You can also email us at WhiteCanesConnect@gmail.com

In this episode of the iCantCU Podcast, I talk about needing another cornea transplant. It will replace the tissue that I received in December, 2008. I also talk about designing an iCantCU Podcast iPhone case. Show notes at https://www.iCantCU.com/166 Cornea Transplant Scheduled For Spring My cornea transplant will be scheduled for early spring. The surgery that I will be having is called DSEK. It will replace the cornea tissue I received in 2008 from a 69 year old woman donor. I'm hoping for some much younger tissue than my current 82 year old cornea tissue (though it's only been mine for a little over 13 years.) Designing Podcast Merch I've always loved creating graphics for my own personal websites and social media, as well as clients though my company Digital Graphics Design serves. Not the best work for someone with very limited sight. It's even more difficult now as my sight worsens.  Support The Pennsylvania Association of Blind Students PABS is holding a piano bar fundraiser on February 16 at 6:00pm on Zoom. For more information and to donate, go to http://www.nfbp.org/piano-bar/ PABS President Simon Bonenfant will be performing, along with NFB of PA member Angelina Angelcyk. Check out her latest performance at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_1Ya_MsCCU My Podcast Gear Here is all my new gear and links to it on Amazon. I participate in the Amazon Associates Program and earn a commission on qualifying purchases. Zoom Podtrak P4: https://amzn.to/33Ymjkt Zoom ZDM Mic & Headphone Pack: https://amzn.to/33vLn2s Gator Frameworks Desk Mounted Boom Arm: https://amzn.to/3AjJuBK Senheiser Headset (1st 162 episodes): https://amzn.to/3fM0Hu0  Support Keystone Chapter Please make a donation to the Keystone Chapter of the National Federation Of The Blind Of Pennsylvania by going to http://www.SupportKeystoneChapter.org.. Scroll down to the text field and enter the amount  you'd like to donate. Payments are handled by PayPal, but you don't need a PayPal account. You can make a donation with any credit or debit card. Thank you so much! I really appreciate it. Follow the iCantCU Podcast so you don't miss an episode! Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon | Google | IHeartRadio Reach Out On Social Media Twitter | Instagram | Facebook | LinkedIn Get In Touch If you've got questions, comments, or show ideas, I want to hear from you! Call (646) 926-6350 and leave a message. Include your name and town and let me know if it is okay to use your voice on an upcoming episode. You can also email the show at iCantCUPodcast@gmail.com  

Members of the Pennsylvania Association of Blind Students (PABS) gathered in the Blind Abilities Studio to announce the 2nd Annual virtual Piano Bar Fundraising event. Happening on Wednesday, February 16 from 6 PM Eastern, 5 PM Central and 3 PM Pacific Time. This 3 hour virtual event will showcase college students playing piano and singing songs and engaging with the participants. President of the Pennsylvania Association of Blind Students, Simon Bonenfant, introduces the performers as they unveil‑ their songs of choice and the dedications and tributes that you will be able to hear by registering for the Piano Bar event at www.NFBP.org/Piano-Bar.  The cost is only $5 and the PABS members thank you for all your support. If you are interested in joining an Association of Blind Students, check out these links to the Student Associations at NFB or ACB and see how you can participate and learn, share and contribute to the body of like-minded students engaging in their educational journeys. Contact Your State Services If you reside in Minnesota, and you would like to know more about Transition Services from State Services contact Transition Coordinator Sheila Koenig by email or contact her via phone at 651-539-2361. Contact: You can follow us on Twitter @BlindAbilities On the web at www.BlindAbilities.com Send us an email Get the Free Blind Abilities App on the App Storeand Google Play Store. Give us a call and leave us some feedback at 612-367-6093 we would love to hear from you! Check out the Blind Abilities Communityon Facebook, the Blind Abilities Page, and the Career Resources for the Blind and Visually Impaired group

In this weeks episode: Kev has taken Pabs advice and gone back to teaching; Sheepdog is easily swayed; Anna is desperately trying everything and Pab just wants to chill. All this and much more on episode 457 of MGP!Kev now has an affiliate link with CDKeys; so if you want the latest PC/ console games at low prices click the link below:http://bit.ly/CDKeyslollujo

Time to go back across the pond into the United Kingdom. Paper Pabs is one of the OG's in the UK rap scene. If you are from the UK, you have seen him in the drill scene, grime scene, rapper, and now expanding his horizons into producing and acting he has been a staple in the UK music/entertainment scene for 10 years. BTB & BT talk the similarities of growing up Black in America & the UK, how the American rap scene influenced music in the UK, and the fellas had to find out about The Bloodline. We also couldn't talk about the rap game and not talk about the fake gangstas who aren't necessarily living they life they are talking about, but we also have to talk about the UK rappers who are about that life, but with the new UK laws their lyrics can jam them up. This was just a tip of the iceberg to what we get into with Paper Pabs. Come find out not only how he got into the UK rap scene, but how he has been able to progress and stay relevant the whole time. You don't get a distribution deal with a major label unless you are doing all the things right. Sit down, have fun, and learn yourself a whole lot about not only Paper Pabs, but the grit it takes to stay relevant and on top within this entertainment game! If you don't evolve you die - Paper Pabs is showing us how to not only survive but to thrive! . . . Click here the subscribe icon and don't forget to hit the notifications for our YouTube page: Blacker The Berry - YouTube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClJHzSbs0pvY8Sxpt09RY5w . . . Blacker The Berry on Instagram Blacker The Berry (@theberrygang1) • Instagram photos and videos https://www.instagram.com/theberrygang1/ . . . Blacker The Berry on Twitter Blacker The Berry (@theberrygang1) / Twitter https://twitter.com/theberrygang1 . . . Dean on Instagram Dean (@berrygangdean) • Instagram photos and videos https://www.instagram.com/berrygangdean/ . . . Los on Instagram

Hoy contesto a un mensaje de Rafael que me toca mucho y hablo de tener lo aquello de lo que estás convencido como guía de vida. Escucha el episodio completo en la app de iVoox, o descubre todo el catálogo de iVoox Originals

Austin catches up with Inter Miami CF's first esports athlete- Pablo Georgakopoulos (IMCF Pabs) and talk about his roots, the e-MLS scene, the best FIFA player on Inter Miami, and the upcoming Copa de La Familia! Be sure to follow our pod socials: Twitter: @theheronoutlet Instagram: @theheronoutlet YouTube: The Heron Outlet

In this episode of White Canes Connect, we talk to college freshmen Adison Lemmon and Simon Bonenfant. They tell us about college life and the accommodations they're both receiving at their respective schools. Simon, who is President of the Pennsylvania Association of Blind Students, also talks about the jam-packed agenda at the NFB of PA State Convention students meeting. Show notes at https://www.whitecanesconnect.com/012 Adison, a NFB national scholarship winner, is attending Robert Morris University in Moon Township, PA. Simon, who is also a member of the NFB of PA state board and the Secretary of the Keystone Chapter, is attending Chestnut Hill College in Philadelphia. Simon is a regular contributor at Blind Abilities. Listen to the latest interview he conducted with the hosts of Believe You Can!, the talent show for blind and visually impaired performers. Blind Abilities #790. Contact White Canes Connect Do you have an idea for a show or know someone who we should feature on an upcoming podcast? Email us with any suggestions, questions or comments at whitecanesconnect@gmail.com. Follow White Canes Connect Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon  

Alan from Point Area Bicycle Service  discusses the bike shortage, the roll of local bike shops and bike fitting.  

In this week's Tax Credit Tuesday podcast, Michael Novogradac, CPA, Novogradac partner Jim Kroger, CPA, and Novogradac principal Melissa Chung, CPA, discuss the 50% test for affordable rental housing properties financed by private activity bond (PABs) and 4% low-income housing tax credits (LIHTCs). They discuss how the 50% test works, potential complications, what developers can do to avoid failing the test, when to check in and options if failure occurs. They also discuss federal efforts to reduce the 50% test and the implications of that change.

In this week's Tax Credit Tuesday podcast, Michael Novogradac, CPA, Novogradac partner Jim Kroger, CPA, and Novogradac principal Melissa Chung, CPA, discuss the 50% test for affordable rental housing properties financed by private activity bond (PABs) and 4% low-income housing tax credits (LIHTCs). They discuss how the 50% test works, potential complications, what developers can do to avoid failing the test, when to check in and options if failure occurs. They also discuss federal efforts to reduce the 50% test and the implications of that change.

On this week's Government Affairs Update, we are joined by Rodney Slater, former Transportation Secretary under the Clinton Administration and Bill Shuster, former Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Both are now with Washington, DC lobbying firm Squire Patton Boggs. In a wide ranging conversation, we cover the status of infrastructure in Congress, how Secretary Buttigieg is doing, and the what lies ahead for Speaker Pelosi in the House as it returns from the August recess.     Transcript: Host: Welcome to the Government Affairs Update from American Council of Engineering Companies. Today, we are very pleased to bring you two experts when it comes to infrastructure to get some interesting perspectives on what's happening right now in Washington, as the bipartisan agreement on infrastructure moves from the Senate over to the House. And I'm joined today by Secretary Rodney Slater and former Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Bill Shuster, both of whom are right now with Squire Patton Boggs in Washington, DC. Secretary Slater was Transportation Department Secretary under President Bill Clinton, and Chairman Shuster, in full disclosure, I used to work with Chairman Shuster while he was Chairman of the T&I Committee. Both bring extensive experience here. And I thank you both for joining us today on the program. Thank you very much for coming on. Secretary Slater: Thank you. Host: I want to start off actually with you Chairman Shuster, because this is, this is kind of an interesting situation we find ourselves in because you spent a significant amount of time and energy as both a member of T&I, and then also as Chairman in pushing a long-term, substantive infrastructure bill beyond just highway authorization. How does it feel seeing this now to be so close to such a generational investment in infrastructure? Chairman Shuster: Well, I think it's good. The bill is, is this large -  a trillion dollars, it has some positive, real positive things in it. Like for instance, taking the cap off the PABs, that is one thing they've done. They've done some procurement reforms in it. That's positive. And they've also put in a section, I think it's a hundred million dollars that goes to states and locals to help them analyze a big job, big projects, to see if it makes more sense to use the private sector dollars or to or to stay with traditional government programs. And I think that's a thing because I think they're going to find in many cases it may be a little bit cost higher up front, but when you get the private sector involved over a period of time, it usually drives the cost down because the private sector is very much focused on that. Chairman Shuster: They did some things in there that I wish they would have eased up on. Some of them, they put some regs in there too, and I believe it's going to make it a little more difficult to build roads and bridges because of some of the things that they put back in or increased. But I think overall the fact that it's a bipartisan bill, it's got a pretty big number. It includes some things that haven't been traditional like broadband, which I think is is something that you've got Republican support for. I just wish my good friend, Peter DeFazio, he didn't, he wasn't able to get a bipartisan bill out of the house. And, and I think we've seen over the last 20, 30 years at Secretary Slater knows transportation bills when they come out on a bipartisan way they pass. And that's what we've seen in the Senate. And I think the House will take it up to pass it also. Host: And Secretary Slater, I mean, looking at this bill and how expansive it is and how it goes beyond your traditional roads, bridges and highways and rail systems and the like, you know, what, how, what do you think this means, you know, for the economy? Secretary Slater: Yeah. Well, first of all, Jeff, I'm excited about the bill. I mean, it's taken them a long time to make infrastructure week something other than, you know, a tagline to a conference without the action to go along with it. And so I applaud the President, you know, I know the Vice President was involved, and clearly other members of this team Steve Richetti in particular and the entire Congress for really working hard to pull this off. Now I say the entire Congress. So you know, I'm being cautiously optimistic here, but I think with the momentum built by the action of the Senate, that that's a real possibility and I'm, I'm excited about it. I echo the sentiments that the chairman noted about the differences in this bill as relates to bills in the past. You know, this focus on broadband is just essential in this day in time. Secretary Slater: And especially in this post pandemic era that we're trying to bring online, but I also applaud the leaders for really giving us a bill that has a lot more resilience focus to it, sustainability focused dealing with some of the climate challenges we face and then issues as relates to equity. And so I think that it's a bill that is future oriented future leaning. There are those who might argue that more needs to be done clearly the Democrats and any Republican that might have that belief will have an opportunity to deal with that with the with the other measures that are being put forward. But when it comes to really doing something that is akin to what we've done in the past, and then sort of building back better, I think that this is an answer to that to that challenge, Host: You know, Secretary, you bring up a good point because one of the words has been used a lot is the question of resiliency, and it's just not resiliency against extreme weather, but it's also resiliency for critical infrastructure against external threats. I mean, we're seeing a significant increase in the number of cyber-attacks on computer systems and just critical hard infrastructure. And Chairman you also did a lot of work at T& I on pre-disaster mitigation getting the dollars there and getting things done before the next storm hits before the next tropical storm turns into a hurricane. Do you think the bill does enough? If not, you think that, that, what, what do you think needs to be done in addition, you know, to really what we're looking at here in this bipartisan agreement to really strengthen our infrastructure? Let's start with the Chairman. Chairman Shuster: I think the bill does. A good bit in it to help with resiliency, which, you know, as we were talking about back on the committee of how do we build things before they collapse or hurricane blows them down or whatever the case may be. And at the end of the day, you save money by building these things stronger, being able to withstand a catastrophic weather event. So I think it's positive. I think that there, there needs to be more streamlining to get these things done because I just, I feel that as we did in the past, we run into these hurdles to build these things faster and more effectively. But I think overall, it's, it's a, it's a positive thing. It isn't enough, probably not, but it all depends on what if the hurricanes and the tornado seasons and the earthquake seasons and the fire seasons over the next coming years looks like. But I, I think it's definitely a step in the right direction. Secretary Slater: I agree with that. And Jeff, if I may, I, I think that the members of the Council really have a big role to play here. I mean, this is not something that's across the finish line just yet, but you know, engineering companies that are in the business of giving us the kind of system we need and deserve going forward, actually spending the resources in a proper way. You have a lot to say about this bill about it's, I mean, people may say shortcomings. I just think it's to be applauded the fact that we've gotten it done. There are other things that could have been done. Maybe a bit more here or there that can be done later. We shouldn't allow the perfect to sort of distract us from the, from the good, and this is a good, good start. Secretary Slater: And when it comes to the issue of you know, security and cyber concerns, I mean, we, there's a report in today's paper about the rail system in Iran, possibly being attacked by cyber-attacks. And then just a few months ago some pipeline here in the US and also a ferry system up in the in the Northeast. So we've got these issues to be concerned about, and I'm very pleased, and we're starting to really come to grips with this, both the public and the private sectors to do something about it. Host: Yeah. You raise a good point, especially with the rail system in Iran. I mean as some of our larger firms and actually a lot of our medium-sized firms as well, you know, it's a question of designing the best infrastructure possible. And usually today, that means with the rise of AI and machine learning and the like, intelligent transportation systems, which are networked, which are, you know, have to talk to each other that are open up to potential external threat. So the question is designing it in such a way where it's hardened. Host: And you're correct to the point that it's good, that we're having the conversation that, that this has to be. And also the fact that our firms are designing not for what is today, but what will be 20 years, 30 years down the line, the bridge is going to last a hundred years for the building on a shore that's going to potentially see a sea level you rise or, or erosion from the beach. Host: And those are all things that, of course our members are very concerned about. On the question to pay-fors because this is something which is interesting because when we got the framework, when everybody's wondering, okay, how are we going to pay for this thing? And then through the debate and the amendment debate, you know, they really considered everything from unspent COVID dollars to changing regulations on reporting requirements on cryptocurrencies, but what wasn't really talked about a lot with the user fee and, and, you know, Chairman Shuster, I know, you know, from my experience with you, it was always that simple, very basic argument of saying that if you use the roadways, you should pay into keeping them in good repair, and that user fee consideration. Secretary Slater, you were with the Clinton administration. Of course I was the last time the tax, the gas tax was actually addressed. It seems like we're getting further away from the idea of that user fee model. What do you both see as the future of, of infrastructure funding chairman you know, where do you see things moving? Chairman Shuster: Think it's, first of all, look, we made a mistake when the Republicans controlled the house in 2005, I guess when we passed safety loo we, when we were doing this big tax bill, I, you know, what the leadership and try to convince them, instead of giving the average American a $2,000 cut in their taxes, let's do $1,800 or $1,750 and, and deal with the gas tax because that is a user fee. And again, I think they missed the opportunity not to do the user or the gas tax forever, but to do it for a period of time that they can't implement, implement something that's different. And that would be miles travel tax. And they, they, they put some big, they expanded the pilot program, but I really think they were going to be dealing in five years with how are we going to fund the next transportation bill? Chairman Shuster: And with this bill, they had to back fill the highway trust fund shortage. It's like $120 billion, and that's going to just keep growing. So, you know, and it's, I believe as a conservative that as you pointed out at the beginning, if you're going to use the system, you need to pay into the system. And I'll just say this for rural America, where I come from, the average, every dollar that a rural community puts in, they get back about a $1.70. So it's a pretty good benefit for rural America for roads and bridges being built across their communities. Host: And we also saw last year the number of states that took it upon themselves to increase their own state gas tax that state after state, you know, did something to improve the amount of revenue that was coming in to their own coffers. And no one seemed to pay that political price that everybody expected, that, that idea that boogeyman of saying, if you raise the gas tax, you're going to lose an election. At least the state level never actually materialized. Right? Chairman Shuster: I was going to add, I think that number's up to about 35. Yeah. Have done it. And then the real test case was California. Two years ago, I guess was two years ago. Was it less than a year, I guess was a year ago they had it on the ballot and they rejected repealing the gas tax, something like 57 to 43. So, you know, people understand, they want the roads and bridges to be uncongested and they don't want to bust their tires, break a tire, damage their vehicles. So I think people get it if you, if you pitch it in the right way. Secretary Slater: Yeah. You know, I, I agree with the Chairman on this. And I, I would say, I was thinking about actually Kentucky, Arkansas, some of the other Southern states in particular where Southern governors, you know, have stepped forward to move these measures. Secretary Slater: I was pleased to hear about the reference to California. I mean, I think it makes the case that it's happening across the country. I would offer this in defense of the of the Biden administration in this regard. I think what the president is attempting to do is to sort of rebalance things. And he recognizes that there has been this inequity in the system where frankly, the burden of progress is placed on the shoulders all too often of those who can, you know, either least pay or have the hardest time paying. And I think what he's trying to do here is to say, look, we're not going to raise the tax burden of anyone making less than 400,000 as a couple. That's, that's pretty significant. And so he did not want to raise the gasoline tax for that purpose. Secretary Slater: Did not want to go with vehicle miles traveled for that purpose. And I think where he finds himself at this point, it probably is a policy. That is a good one. Now I don't think that it closes the door always to an increase in use of fees. I think it probably such it up where it, at a time in the future, it'll be a lot fairer to maybe do some of that. And I see that, that time coming, but I can see why the president would want to, at this point have significant lines in the sand about what he would and would not want to see. And then, you know, frankly keep his powder drive when it comes to negotiating at an end point where, you know, you have to find closure on these things. And so I think that's a pretty good position to take. Secretary Slater: I will note this too, that Jeff you're right, that during the early days of the Clinton Administration, the gasoline tax was raised but the president would note that he made the case that it should be raised to deal with the deficit to put our economic house in order in balance. And then four years later was actually when we had the resources transferred from the general fund to the highway fund. So as to take advantage of that 4.3% increase in the gasoline tax. So it was done in a two-step kind of fashion. And it may be that with the passage of time, we may get to a point where we can support more funding for infrastructure through user fees. I agree with that. But I also think we should test any number of other options too. And I know the chairman agrees with this because we've talked about things like an infrastructure bank. We've talked about other public private financing techniques. I mean, putting it all on the table and then selecting those that best fit the moment is the proper course, I believe. Host: It seems like today with the amount of innovative financing available that there are a lot more opportunities to break away from the paradigm of just a simple, you know, either a lockbox highway trust fund, or just all always pulling from the general fund to instead look at other options - P3's whether it's capture or that investment, the reinvestment of potential, you know, I forget exactly what was called chairman, but it was something that you were talking about when you were chairman. It was, it was when, when we bring somebody in to buy something or to lease out an airport.... Chairman Shuster: Asset recycling. Host: Yeah, exactly. How a P3 or asset recycling, something like that. In your conversations with people in government in and out, is that something which seems to be gaining some traction? Chairman Shuster: I think you're always going to have to have some kind of governmental component, whether it's a fed state putting money into it, because these deals we're seeing around the beltway here in Washington, DC, I think the Virginia invested about 20% of the money into it to get a cost down where they wouldn't have enormous tolls on those, on those hot lanes or fast lanes. But so I think there's always that component that will always be there, but I think yes, looking at things like an infrastructure bank and because we look at an infrastructure bank and we've been pushing this during this bill, they almost had a piece. It was a very scaled back version of, there was a infrastructure finance financing agency was small and they, they finally pulled it out the end, unfortunately, but I think, you know, folks in your community the ACEC they deal with these TIFIA and RIFF programs. Chairman Shuster: And every time I talked to a contractor engineer, they tell me it takes 14 to 16 months to get through this process and it's painful and it's cost a lot of money. And so I think having a true infrastructure bank based on the federal home loan bank, it's a real bank, it's independent chartered by the federal government. They're going to be, they can make loans in 90 to 120 days. And if it's a good project or not, and it's only going to be a component of the, just like a P3 is a component of the financing package. So I think it's time for us to really look at these other ideas, asset recycling where it makes sense. And again, as the Secretary said, what comes next is probably a vehicle miles traveled, but we've got all kinds of barriers and hurdles because folks don't want somebody tracking them. But as far as my son, when he was in his early twenties, he held up his iPhone and said, they're tracking every moment of the day. Host: You're being tracked one way or another. Secretary Slater: And Jeff, Jeff, can I just say this, I should have mentioned earlier that even when we increased the gasoline tax and the chairman's father was actually in the Congress along with a former secretary and Congressman Norman Mineta. I mean Jim Oberstar, I mean, just a wonderful group of individuals on the House side. I mentioned the House because I want to put the heat on the House to do what the Senate has done that. But, but they also really gave us tools to create some of these innovative financing programs. The chairman mentioned the TIFIA program, the RIFF program, all of that came into being at that time. And again, it was because of a good piece of legislation that gave federal highways and federal transit and all the Department of Transportation and others, the Treasury the ability to, with the private sector to gain insights about how we might fashion programs that resulted in those programs. I think that there are likely to be some measures that can be used in this bill. Even though, you know, it may not be as clear now that will help us to tap some of those private sector dollars and the private sector ingenuity that you just have to have as a part of an effort like this. And I think ACEC can be a really big part of that of that effort going forward. Host: That's, that's a really good point. And thanks for bringing that up because that's something which, you know, our members need to be pretty strong advocates for this, and they need to take, take their own experience from the private sector, work, working with public sector clients and explaining how they can be more efficient. And that's one of the things we always talk about, qualification space selection. It's kind of that idea of saying that Secretary Slater: We are at the lowest price exactly. Qualification over, over cost. Host: Secretary Slater, let me, let me ask you as a former Secretary of the Department Transportation, right now, how would you, how would you rate the job that Secretary Buttigieg is doing on selling the agenda? Secretary Slater: Well, I don't think it could have been express better than in the post today. That was a, a love piece. Although I thought it was, was balanced as well, because it's all teed up. He still has to deliver it. And yet I've talked about that too. I said, you know, it's great to have a president. Who's talking about infrastructure is great to have, you know, the conduit team that you've got with Polly Totenberg and others there to help you make it happen. But at the end of the day, you gotta make it happen. And I thought what was very telling in the article today, and this is what I really want to underscore is the way that he's made himself available. I mean, to Republicans and Democrats this was actually, I thought set up in his hearing where there were so many members who, you know, they had their issues with him and they, you know, they would take him on, I mean, that's the responsibility I think of the Congress to test the administration. Secretary Slater: That's what our three branches of government separation of powers. That's what that's all about. But then almost invariably at the end of the round, you would have a member saying, and I hope that you will be able to come to mind my state. I know that the chairman has had that experience and, and, and to have a, a secretary or a member of the administration say that not only am I willing to do it, I look forward to doing it so that we together can be on the ground with your constituents, looking at challenges you face that's what really gets a member's attention. And that's what gains their respect, that rate. And throughout the article, you could just see just any number of people mentioned in that way. And you know, that they don't all have this, that they don't all agree on everything. Secretary Slater: And so I think that he is doing a tremendous job. I think that the article was correct in saying that there was always the likelihood that he would be in the president's cabinet or a member of his team where he selected because of the endorsement and the warm endorsement that he gave to Mr. Biden at a very critical time in his campaign. And then the president saying just off the cuff that he reminded him of his son. I mean, all of those things sort of lining up. And then it was noted that he had some interests, but, you know, the president gets a chance to choose. And he said, look, I think that you can best help me and help the country serving in this capacity. And I would say that that the former mayor Pete now, secretary Pete has not disappointed. I'm very, very pleased with the way he's gone about his work. And I think all of these relationships, they're going to pay dividends in the short term and the longterm, and they'll pay dividends for him or his team, and clearly for the the president as well. And so I'm, I'm very, very pleased Host: Chairman. You've worked with a number of secretaries. Where would you put him? Chairman Shuster: I, well, first I think the, you know, Secretary Slater is right on target saying, I think he's done a pretty good job. He's measured when he speaks to, you know, to the media. He's not, you know, throwing bombs out there, which I think is important, especially on an issue like transportation and infrastructure. I think, I think he's also, he's, he's obviously bright. I think we did. He demonstrate that in the debates, I was always impressed with them. Didn't always agree with where his policies were, but I smart he's young, hopefully that makes him want to think outside the box. It says to the secretary of Slater's point, you got to get it done, man. It's great. You got to having a bill here, but you're the guy that's going to have to make that department start to hum. Chairman Shuster: And I think too, that, and this is, I forget who said this - might have been Secretary Slater, or maybe Secretary Skinner said, this is the first time I can remember that the Secretary of Transportation was a presidential candidate. So he's got his own platform of followers. They're saying, Hey Secretary, Pete, you know, we love the guy we were with him when he was running for president. So I think that gives you a whole different platform to be able to get out there and go around the country, but to Secretary Slater's point, he's absolutely right. Going into members' districts, talking to members. I think I think what I've heard from a number of the, at least the moderate Republicans that said, he's great, great access to him, he would call them up. He would, you know, talk, talk through the issues, what they thought were important. So I think that's really important. I know the Secretary Slater did it. I know Ray LaHood did it. You know, through the years I named Sam Skinner, when he would have him out on a conference, he said, he sat down with a members' leadership of the House and the Senate different committees once a month and had breakfast with him. So he, you know, he stayed in touch with him. So I think that's important. Host: And I mean, if this does, if he does land this and like you said, you gets it done. He's going to be sitting on, I mean, Jeff Davis from Eno, kind of doing a rack up on Twitter. And it seems like he would have in competitive grant funding, almost the amount will be quadrupled over what is, what is, what has been in the past almost about 24 to $33 billion, depending on exactly what gets through appropriations. I mean, that's a massive war chest to sit on. That's a political weapon as well. Now I think you meet that point, you know, being a former candidate, he's young, he's got aspirations. I, you know, for the Secretary, I mean, how, how, what advice would you give to sit on that record amount of competitive grant funding? Secretary Slater: Well, I, I would say it a little differently. I would say Jeff, don't sit on it. Host: Yeah. Send it, spend it. Chairman Shuster: I would agree the secretary - right out the door. Secretary Slater: You know, all of the meetings up to this point where you go out and you say, oh man, this would be a great project to fund, that's one thing. When you can go back a little later with all of those resources and say, this is a great project to fund and we're going to fund it. That's a lot better. First of all, you basically say I'm here with the Congressman who is going to make an important now, because it's all about continuing to build those relationships. And I think that I think the secretary is going to really have a wonderful time with members of his team doing just that. And, and, and frankly, I think he'll be creating opportunities really for the president, the vice-president, you know, maybe even a secretary of grand home and others to do that same thing as well. Because the, the key is to not, you know, it's, it's not to sit on it and it's also not to gloat in it. I mean, it's all about really doing the business of the American people and getting everybody involved. And I, I think as a mayor, he's going to understand a former mayor. He's going to just understand that instinctively. Host: And Chairman, I mean, you were great at this. I mean, you made sure both as Chairman and then also back in the ninth district of making sure that everyone at every level of government was included in those announcements, because to underscore the fact that everybody from county commissioner all the way up to member of Congress had a part to play. Chairman Shuster: Well and that's the Secretary's point with the department that the Secretary of Transportation, he may not go down to that granular. When you're a member of the House, you need to go to the township supervisors, have them sit in there with you or whoever it is because it's you know, it, it helps it helps everybody out. And so I think this is, as the Secretary said, you get the stuff out the door. And I believe he's going to get it in places that need like rural Pennsylvania, if he does some good work in rural Pennsylvania, the next time around in elections. I mean, the Democrats win Philadelphia and Pittsburgh big, but if they can diminish how big they lose in the, in the center of the state than it, it's better for their candidates. And again, there's, there's good projects out there for everybody to be able to participate. Secretary Slater: Yeah. And Jeff before, before we go on, I just thought about this. I do think that that Senator Schumer should be given some credit here as well. And I think it was very significant that you had, you know, 19 Republicans, including the minority leader. And I just think you know Majority Leader Schumer and Minority leader McConnell. I just think that they, they deserve a lot of credit here. And I know when the chairman was in office, these were the kinds of victories that you really relish where it was not just the chairman, but it was the ranking member and, you know, the other members of the committee and leadership and really down to the last person coming on because of seniority coming on the committee. Secretary Slater: So I think that manifested itself on the, on the Senate side as well. And, and look, you've got that Brent Spence bridge in the Ohio Kentucky area on I-75 that's going to get some attention now, much needed attendance. And that's very important to the constituents in that region. Chairman Shuster: And it won't be lost on anybody that Rob Portman was the chief, negotiator. Secretary Slater: No doubt about it. Chairman Shuster: And he's from the Southwestern and Cincinnati area. Secretary Slater: We were honored at one point that he was a member of Squire Patton Boggs too. I think I should, we should say that, you know, years ago, Host: Well, I have two final questions. One, I want to ask the Chairman, because now we're looking at the house, we've got the INVEST Act. You made the point that, that it wasn't as bipartisan as previous bills have been at least on the vote total coming out. You know, there's, there's some argument being made about, okay, take the Senate bill up and just get it done. Your experience working across from Chairman DeFazio for a number of years. I mean, he's been very vocal on some areas of policy that are not in the bill, dealing with climate, also dealing with resiliency, do you see him letting leadership kind of move this forward or use without the opportunity to amend it. Or do you think he's going to want to have that formal conference, he's going to want to have the opportunity for the house to put his stamp on it? Chairman Shuster: Well, he's already, he's already given up on a conference because he realizes you go to conference and this thing will never get done. So I think it's going to come over. I think there's the potential for being a couple of amendments, but they're going to be very few and they've got to be something that's agreed to by the, basically the 69 senators that voted for it. So it can be things that, you know, are correcting things and maybe the Senate didn't do right. Because that always occurs, but I don't think you're going to see anything major. And I think the DeFazio, Chairman of DeFazio is going to now focus on getting more dollars to put in these different areas that he has that he, that he supports very much. And that'll be some of these things like resiliency. And, but again resiliency and some of the climate change policies, but he can't change the policy and budget reconciliation, but he can plus up plus up the money or pick the money from one to another, but he can't change policy. So I think he's going to be very focused on that. Host: And just a state of play question for you both to kind of round out the conversation. So right now the current state of play in the House Speaker Pelosi has floated a dear colleague letter, but essentially says that she wants to try to twin both the budget resolution to the infrastructure bill in the rules package, which means that voting on one is voting on both. That's gotten some pushback from moderate Democrats. How do you see this playing out? Do you think that it is going to be a twofer or do you think that you know, there's going to be an agreement to allow infrastructure to go first and then the budget reconciliation? I mean, how do you see the state of play in the House coming at the end of the month? Chairman Shuster: I think she's in a very tough spot. She's got her progressives, they're saying they're not voting for it unless they vote on the big package. And she's got her moderates saying, we're not going to vote on that big package, you need to pair it down. And by the way, we also want to vote on this thing. So I think she's in a really tough spot. She can't afford to lose more than what, three votes, four votes? So she's in a tough spot and I'm not sure how to work out. I don't think it's going to happen. Well, I know for sure it's not going to happen at the end of this month because they're just coming back in the House, to vote for the budget, which will pass. And then they they're coming back September 20th. But I think if she's got this fight to keep them paired some way somehow you know, one goes, first, one goes second kind of thing. Chairman Shuster: She'd probably be, I would bet on Nancy to get it done, but I don't think it's going to look the same you know, at the end of August as it does at the end of October. I mean for these two bills. The infrastructure is going to stay basically the same. It's how big the other package will be. Secretary Slater: Yeah. You know, I'd pick up on the comments of the Chairman in that regard. I think that if I were going to bet on anyone getting it done, I would bet on the Speaker. But that doesn't mean that you cannot acknowledge that it's going to be a heavy, heavy, heavy lift. I, you know, I just think that first of all, I, I just, I don't think we, and I think, I think she took note of this. Secretary Slater: I, I don't think you can just dismiss the significance of the bipartisan vote in the Senate and the size of that vote. I mean, that was, that was very significant. I didn't know that the numbers would be that high. I mean, I would, I was basically counting on 10, 11 maybe. Yeah. But that was it signaled that they would, because I think the highest we got with those who were sort of saying, well, maybe it was about 11. And so I think it bodes well for a number of things that are important to a number of people beyond infrastructure. I mean, I think you've got a criminal justice reform opportunity here. I think you might have something on voting. And I think that you know, the, the Speaker has all of that to navigate and to balance and to negotiate. Secretary Slater: And I just think she ultimately gets it done, but it'll be very, very difficult. I'd also like to say just in support of a Chairman DeFazio, I think he's done a tremendous job as well. I think that his effort was necessary, even though it was a little partisan. And I think, you know, it cut against what his natural tendency was. I mean, and that was to work with your Ranking Member to kind of work through, you know, the process in a way that is, you know, institutionally sound and, and frankly an effort, a way that he'd been a part of for so many years. But I think that what he recognized was that he had to really help the Speaker in speaking to the progressive wing of the party in a way that would keep it engaged. And you know, and I think engaged is probably the best way to say it and they are engaged. Secretary Slater: Now you've got this process going now where the various you know, parts of the party will express itself and she'll have to hear all of that, not dismiss any of it. And then carefully, you know, bind it all together with, I think the ultimate argument and that is don't let perfect get in the way of the good, I really think that it comes down to that and let us survive for another fight. And, you know, it's, it's acknowledged that some of that fight in the future will have her being supportive of others who will be at the helm. And I think she will say, look, stay with me. And you know, I've just tried to be as open as possible to make sure that all opinions are heard, all arguments are given an airing and I believe this is the best we can do. And I think that's what it ultimately is. That's what the final question is. And then the votes are counted and I don't think you take a breath until the last vote is cast, you know, so, and as, as the chairman said, it's a three vote - I mean, she's got three votes to [inaudible]. Host: Yeah. Well, it's going to be an interesting end of August. It's been an interesting August to begin with. I mean, so let's, let's get it done. Hopefully this can get this voted on and passed before the beginning of September. And, and that would be a great thing. So I really appreciate your time and your insight because you both been there you've worked on these issues. You have great insight that I know our audience of member firm executives loves to hear. So thank you for taking the time both of you. And of course, Rodney Slater former Secretary of Transportation is a partner at Squire Patton Boggs now. And of course, Chairman Bill Shuster, former Chairman of the House Transportation Infrastructure Committee, and representative of the of the ninth congressional district or the ninth as it were before redistricting - a Senior Policy Advisor at a Squire Patton Boggs as well. And again, this has been the government affairs update from American Council of Engineering Companies. Thanks for being with us. We'll going to see you next time.

Listen as Kim and Pabs, both millennials, struggle to understand the GenZ language (with special guest Geo Racela). Our funniest episode yet.

This week we share part two our interview with Pabs Carela. This was originally on our Patreon, but we decided to share it with you all as a taste of what we got going on there. In this episode we go in-depth about the American vs. Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, grappling history, crack dispensaries, and a whole lot more. 

In this week's Tax Credit Tuesday podcast, Michael Novogradac, CPA, Novogradac partner Jim Kroger, CPA, and Novogradac's Melissa Chung, CPA, discuss the increasing competition for private activity bonds (PABs) for affordable housing, which pair with 4% low-income housing tax credits to provide equity for properties. They discuss why and when the increase in use of PABs started, factors that have dramatically increased competition in California, approaches taken by states in light of the increased demand, what developers should be doing to improve their ability to compete, Novogradac services to assist developers and tips to be more effective.

In this week's Tax Credit Tuesday podcast, Michael Novogradac, CPA, Novogradac partner Jim Kroger, CPA, and Novogradac's Melissa Chung, CPA, discuss the increasing competition for private activity bonds (PABs) for affordable housing, which pair with 4% low-income housing tax credits to provide equity for properties. They discuss why and when the increase in use of PABs started, factors that have dramatically increased competition in California, approaches taken by states in light of the increased demand, what developers should be doing to improve their ability to compete, Novogradac services to assist developers and tips to be more effective.

On Side B of Episode 1 of the first ever episode of 4Thangs we make room for Petey Pabs (@peteypabsfut) & Tony Grands (@Tony_Grands). Petey Pabs stops by to talk about the current state of EA Sports FIFA 21 (& the issue of Pay2Win) as we head late into the football season. GM takes the time to air some grievances about the current state of (ranked) Apex Legends and why the system is currently broken in a lot of ways.In Segment 2, Side B of 4Thangs Episode 1, the homie Tony Grands stops by to talk about a whole lot of randomness but mostly about what it's like picking up a new hustle only to land on your feet in a somewhat new position (Go check out Tonystees.online when you got the time). We also talk some crypto thangs (spoiler alert: we were right about some .... extremely wrong about others...but that's how it goes when you're human, right?) Tony drops gems, pull up a seat and take notes. You never know when you'll need them... (Thank You to everyone involved in this episodes skits & bits: @LyMoula, @_PatrickPryor, @The_CSJR)

How did you and Pabs meet? Who made the first move? Which one of you was a virgin when you met? :O After months of wanting to share this, I finally sat down and recorded this very personal episode. In it, I share my "origin story" (lol) with my now Husband, Pablo (aka Pabs). Make sure to listen until the end, where I share some truth bombs about our sexual life - not that anybody asked but i'm all about keeping it real. I hope this is the start of some open and honest conversations about relationships, sex and non-monogamy. Intro/outro music by the talented @melirodriguez13 @nativalderrama www.nativalderrama.com

In this Episode, I talk about my latest obsession: Astrology! I could talk about this subject for hours, but for time's sake, I cover three main topics: My “astrology story” and how I went from not knowing anything about Astrology other than my sun sign to becoming completely and utterly obsessed with it. Basic 101 Astrology Info for those of you who don't know much about Astrology. I cover the Big 3, aka your sun, moon and rising sign, and the four elements (water, air, earth and fire). And lastly, I share how Astrology has become an amazing tool of Self-Awareness for me and how it can become one for you too! I even share a big more about my relationship with Pabs and how learning about Astrology has helped us know each other better. I had so much fun recording this episode and I hope you enjoy it! Please let me know if you'd like to see and hear more Astrology Content from me :)

It almost feels like the Cryptoverse is a desolate planet of intellectuals, where intelligence runs scarce and stupid rome rampant. In times like this the PABs all tend to look to the most intelligent person in the room, rather than think for themselves. Right now, that person is Jimmy Song. With fake news and FUD fueling FOMO, it's a refreshing change of pace to see bitcoin enthusiasts like Jimmy Song staying cool, keeping calm and relaxing in a burning building. Why hasn't Coinbase integrated Segwit? What effects can the loss of Net Neutrality have on decentralized cryptocurrencies? Can our ISP censor the blockchain? Press play and jam out to everyone's favorite Song to find out more!

I invite the main host Cello of The Bitcoin Podcast Network on my show to speak on Common Misconceptions About Bitcoin. Starting from the basics and working our way to the more difficult misconceptions, Cello helps break down the mental barriers around the traditional thought processes these PABs bring into the crypto space with them. This show is for the newbies and for the vets. It has a little something something for everyone. So press download or hit the stream button, either way tune in and get the update on bitcoin conceptions.

It saddens us how many people don't understand the difference between the maximum block size, and the actual block size. We dive into this and try not to get TOO excited about Litecoin. But it is hard not too. No guests this week, just a short fireside chat, PABs!

It came to me when I was sitting in the shower, and I couldn't stop laughing about it. The juxtaposition of an educational website with an egregious grammatical error is immensely satisfying, and also acts as a reminder that seriousness doesn't help you to learn anything. That is the explanation of our guest today, Greg Walker a.k.a. inersha, about why he started a Bitcoin website. Bitcoin is currently the biggest possible challenge at this moment in time for explaining how something works, so here we go, PABS!