WASHINGTON — They called themselves "crusaders" for a reason. The three Kansas militiamen planned to blow up an apartment complex housing Somali refugees during the 2016 presidential election, unleashing what one of them called "Crusades 2.0." But their plan was foiled after their arrest just weeks before the election, highlighting the changing enemy list of a movement founded on the back of anti-government activism a generation ago. And with the election of a president whose policies many militia members support, the urge to confront the government appears to have lost some of its urgency. Instead of railing at the government, they have in recent years turned their venom against new-found foes: Muslims, immigrants, the Antifa. "Some of the militia groups have been refocusing their attention on secondary enemies for the movement," said Mark Pitcavage, who researches extremism at the Anti-Defamation League civil rights group. Often lumped together with other right-wing groups, the anti-government movement comes in different forms. There are the "preppers," so called because they stockpile water, food and other essentials in preparation for civil unrest. There are the "survivalists," people who learn skills to “live off the land” in case of a disaster. There are “sovereign citizens” such as the suspect in the recent shooting at a Waffle House in Tennessee who are opposed to paying taxes and believe they should decide which laws to follow. And then there are the militiamen who conduct regular military-style training to resist a government they see as engaged in a global plot to take away their guns and constitutional rights. The modern militia movement dates back to a series of events in the early 1990s, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. Among them: the 1992 election of Democratic President Bill Clinton and an FBI attack the following year on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, an event seen as "evidence of an out of control government willing to attack citizens." Under Clinton, the number... What is probably true about Mark Pitcavage?  A. He is fearful of militia men  B. He is less afraid of preppers than sovereign citizens  C. He knows a lot about anti-government extremism  D. not enough information
C
Apologies again that it’s been a while since I last posted. You may recall that I’d been helping out a local charity with their website? Well that is all completed now but I’ve had some other family stuff going on and with looking after my baby daughter spare time for blogging is pretty scarce at the moment. I haven’t lost my enthusiasm though and am busy planning all sorts of new posts for the future, so watch this space! Today I wanted to tell you all about a fantastic natural brand, Moogoo. Regular readers of Beauty Best Friend may recall that I reviewed their Full Cream Moisturiser last year, but having received this Oil Cleansing Method* cleanser in a goody bag from a blogger event a couple of months ago it fired up my love for them all over again! MooGoo is an Australian natural skincare brand that was first created when the founder adapted a cream used in dairy farms to help a family member with a skin problem. Their products contain lots of natural oils and are not tested on animals – well, apart from the very first of their products that was created for cows! Moogoo Oil Cleansing Method is an all natural cleansing oil that can be used in two ways…. you can use it like a wash-off cleanser by applying a few drops to the face then rinsing it off with warm water, or my favourite method is to massage the oil into the skin then place a warm flannel or muslin over the face to allow the oil to draw any impurities out of the skin, before wiping away the oil. This is a great way of starting off a DIY facial at home! There are four varieties of Oil Cleansing Method, I’ve been using the one for Oily Skin but it’s also available in Normal, Combination and Dry too. The ingredients include ‘drawing oils’ that help to lift dirt and germs off the skin so they can be washed away, plus the Oily one contains Juniper Oil which helps to prevent bacteria on the skin, great for helping keep spots at bay. The author probably believes in  A. natural beauty products  B. local websites  C. not enough information  D. family members with animals
A
Q: I think that one of the people who caused me the most misery for the longest was someone that I’ll call “Luna”. So, most people have probably met that person that acts all suicidal and then uses that against you. For example, you’re talking to someone like that and you’re having some sort of argument and the moment they realize they aren’t winning they send you pictures of their bloodied wrists and say “This is your fault”. Well, that person was my friend for a long time. Every time I would try to leave her to go to sleep she would threaten to do “something bad” and I knew what she meant, and me, first meeting her when I was around 9 or 10, and I was still extremely naive. So most of the time, I ended up staying awake til 3 AM on school nights and I would get only a few hours of sleep, and she’d be happy because her life wasn’t worsened at all. But I think the thing that made me the most miserable, was the fact that it never got better. No matter how much I talked to her, or how sympathetic I tried to be, or how much I tried to convince her to be happier, it never got better. She still acted super depressed, but like it was a joke. All of these things combined to make me completely miserable because it seemed like it was all for nothing. But I just let it happen, because she was the only person I had and she was really my only “friend” at that point, and all the way up to seventh grade. So for that entire period of time, she certainly wasn’t the only source of misery for me, but she made me feel way worse than I would have if I hadn’t been friends with her. How long did the person stay friends with the person who acted depressed?  A. until after college  B. the writer is still friends with the person  C. until 7th grade  D. not enough information
A: C
(Q).
U.S. President Donald Trump is sending a $4.4 trillion budget request to Congress that includes money for a southern border wall and building up the military, but is projected to increase the federal deficit by more than $1 trillion. White House officials all but acknowledged the proposal unveiled Monday has little chance of becoming law — Congress alone controls federal government spending. But the White House insisted the budget proposal still sends an important message about Trump's priorities. "This is a messaging document," White House budget director Mick Mulvaney told reporters at a briefing Monday. The Trump budget calls for major cuts to domestic programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and food stamps. But the plan would still not balance the federal budget, in part because of reduced federal revenue due to tax cuts passed last year. Democrats widely rejected the plan. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called the proposal a "brutal collection of broken promises and staggering cuts." The proposal's failure to eliminate debt is also likely to upset some Republicans, who have traditionally opposed budget deficits. "It's simply adjusting to the Washington, D.C., we live in," Mulvaney said, stressing that the new budget plan would help "turn the tide" on national debt. The White House proposal builds on the massive, two-year spending bill passed last week by Congress and signed by the president. That bill includes a major boost for the military, as well as domestic programs. Mulvaney, a former lawmaker and long-time opponent of federal debt, has acknowledged he likely would not have supported the bill were he still in Congress. But he said the new White House proposal does not mean that all of the money approved by Congress must be spent. "These are spending caps, these are not spending floors," he said. Under the two-year budget deal reached last week by Congress, the Pentagon will get a record-high $700 billion for 2018 — fulfilling a Trump campaign pledge. "We took care of the military like it's never... Mulvany probably thinks that:  A. he should still be in congress  B. this is a step in the wrong direction  C. not enough information  D. The caps are too high
(A).

B