Rubio and co-author Russell Moore said the State Department should apply sanctions against governments that oppress religious minorities Rubio and Moore said their concerns go beyond those of Christians, but include other persecuted people of faith Marco Rubio called on the State Department Thursday to provide more funding to help Christians persecuted abroad and to apply sanctions against governments that oppress religious minorities. “Reports suggest that the State Department is ready to designate the Islamic State’s terror against the Yazidis as genocide, which it clearly is, but they might not … do so for equally embattled Christian communities. This is only one part of a refusal to come to grips with the full weight of these facts,” the Florida senator and Republican presidential candidate wrote in a Christmas Eve Washington Post op-ed co-authored by Russell Moore, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. “We’ve all watched the news with horror in recent years as the Islamic State and other jihadist groups have led a ruthless religious cleansing campaign. Their tactics are to bomb churches or convert them to mosques, to violently drive Christians and other minorities from their homes, force conversions to Islam, or require compliance with Islamic apostasy and blasphemy codes. Such violent persecutions come not only from non-state terrorist organizations, but also from repressive governments the world over,” the two wrote. RELATED: Obama says he’s praying for ‘God’s protection for persecuted Christians’ “We need to recognize the importance of U.S. foreign assistance, which comprises less than 1 percent of our federal budget, in helping to support and protect Christian refugees fleeing persecution,” they added. “Some of this assistance needs to be targeted to religious minorities who have been forced to leave their homes and are now seeking safe haven elsewhere in the region.” Rubio and Moore said their concerns go beyond those of Christians, but include other persecuted people of faith. “We, of course, care deeply about defending our fellow Christians, but one does not have to share our religious conviction to see the moral obligation that belongs to us as Americans,” the men wrote. “With our many blessings comes a duty to stand on the side of the oppressed, which is why a pillar of American foreign policy has always been moral clarity. Sadly, today that pillar is crumbling.” Rubio was one of several senators recently to introduce legislation to reauthorize the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, an independent body that monitors religious freedom abroad and makes recommendations to the president and Congress. The bill was signed into law by President Barack Obama in October. “But as important as this commission’s work is, it can only do so much without a president or State Department willing to take its counsel seriously,” Rubio and Moore said in the op-ed. President Obama has also spoken out about persecuted Christians, though not specifically referencing State Department funding. In a statement Wednesday Obama said he is praying for Christians being persecuted this Christmas by ISIS. And Rubio’s rivals for the Republican presidential nomination have also targeted the issue.


Officials in both capitals said the goal was to build a functional working relationship Last month Merkel met Vice President Mike Pence in Munich As German Chancellor Angela Merkel prepared to bid President Barack Obama farewell in November, a reporter asked her to describe her sentiments about watching her American partner of eight years be replaced by Donald Trump. Standing in the German Chancellery on a drizzly Berlin afternoon, the notoriously restrained Merkel – who became Obama’s closest global friend only to see him replaced by a man who lambasted her on the campaign trail – drew on her stolid pragmatism. “Out goes the president, and a new one comes in,” she said. RELATED: Looming snowstorm delays Trump-Merkel meeting On Friday, Merkel presses ahead with the new, arriving in Washington for her first face-to-face encounter with Trump after months of preparation and one postponement due to snow. Analysts and White House officials alike say Friday’s sit-down will be Trump’s most important meeting with a foreign leader since the Republican businessman took office in January. The strength of Washington-Berlin ties, which flourished under Obama, will likely come to define Trump’s relationship not just with Germany but with Europe – and the rest of the West. Merkel is the continent’s longest-serving and most politically assured leader, rendering her the most visible defender of the Western order at a time when both nationalist and populist movements threaten to upend it. Officials in both capitals said there were few concrete goals for the session beyond establishing a functional working relationship between Trump and Merkel, who differ on areas of trade, immigration and climate change. Merkel, who spoke to Trump by phone in January, pushed for an in-person meeting in order to begin developing the personal ties that she hopes will lead to effective cooperation down the road, according to a German official familiar with her planning. “Face-to-face talks are always much better than talking about each other,” Merkel told reporters in Munich recently. Related video Merkel or Putin: Trump called it a draw A deft politician with a nearly unmatched ability to forge relationships with unpredictable counterparts, Merkel has watched Trump’s campaign speeches and closely monitored his public remarks since taking office, according to someone close to her in Berlin. She’s asked visiting world leaders who have met Trump, including Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, about his temperament and style. Last month she met Vice President Mike Pence in Munich, where he was delivering the first major foreign policy address of the Trump administration, and laid the groundwork for Friday’s meeting. Aides said they expected Merkel to appeal to Trump’s sense of businesslike efficiency in an attempt to win over the new US leader. She’s used a workmanlike attitude and droll wit to make inroads with two previous presidents. With George W. Bush, Merkel was able to cooperate on key economic issues, despite Bush’s deep unpopularity in Germany. With Obama, she forged a bond so deep and obvious it was parodied on “Saturday Night Live.” She faces a particular challenge in appealing to Trump, however. Trump has on occasion insulted Merkel in his past public comments, criticizing her decision to allow hundreds of thousands of refugees to enter Germany. That decision was also unpopular in Germany, and Merkel has since said she’ll devote funds to sending refugees who weren’t granted asylum back to their home countries. “I like her, but I think it was a mistake. And people make mistakes, but I think it was a very big mistake,” Trump told the German newspaper Bild in January, suggesting the move allowed potential terrorists into Europe. That was after he derided Merkel a year earlier, contending she was “ruining Germany” while complaining that she was picked as Time’s Person of the Year over him. RELATED: Trump and Merkel ready for tough talk on trade and defense spending And Trump and Merkel’s first phone conversation, while cordial, contained some tense moments. The call occurred the day after Trump enacted his controversial travel ban on some foreigners looking to enter the US, and Merkel explained to him the requirements under the Geneva Convention to allow entry to refugees fleeing war. Trump, according to a person familiar with the call, chafed at the lecture. US officials said the issue of refugees will likely arise in Friday’s meeting. But they insisted that any past critical comments on the issue will have little bearing on the budding diplomatic relationship. “My expectation is that they’ll have a very positive, cordial meeting,” said one senior administration official last Friday. Another administration official said that the President hoped to get Merkel’s advice for dealing with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who, according to US intelligence, ordered cyber-meddling in last year’s presidential election and tried to help Trump. Merkel herself faces German voters in September, and many in Berlin fear Moscow may seek to influence the outcome through similar means. As she prepares to go before German voters, Merkel faces a delicate balance in her relationship with Trump, who is deeply unpopular in Germany, but with whom she must partner on key global issues. “How Chancellor Merkel can maximize her chances in that environment, it’s a tightrope walk,” said Jeffrey Rathke, deputy director of the Europe program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “She wants – she needs – a strong transatlantic relationship (but) doesn’t want to be too close to the US administration.” On Friday, Merkel is bringing with her to Washington the chief executives of Siemens and BMW, two of Germany’s largest businesses, whom she hopes can help her make a good impression on the business-minded Trump. The two companies employ thousands of American workers, a point that Merkel hopes will come through when the pair get to discussing trade issues – including Germany’s trade surplus, which has rankled members of the Trump administration. Related video Pence reassures NATO allies in Munich speech During their talks, Trump and Merkel will also discuss NATO, the defense alliance that Trump bashed on the campaign trail but has since backed. US officials said Trump would pressure Merkel to increase Germany’s defense spending to come in line with NATO’s budget requirements for member states. US officials said that American policy toward the European Union was also likely to arise, with Merkel expected to staunchly defend the bloc as it faces a precarious future. Trump has expressed skepticism about the EU, including supporting Britain’s decision to exit it. Pence’s speech at the Munich Security Conference – in which he vowed support for NATO and reiterated the US call for Russia to abide by a ceasefire in Ukraine – eased some concerns in Europe about US policy going forward. But the relief among German and European leaders is tenuous given the unpredictability of Trump’s policy pronouncements and the apparent disagreements among some of his top advisers. “There is still lingering doubt about how the US sees European security, and whether the US sees its security and Europe’s security as intrinsically linked and inseparable,” Rathke said. “And I think that will be a key point that the chancellor will want to discuss and get a better sense of, and where I think the President speaking publicly on that topic would make an enormous impact.”


Aspirin can prevent strokes and heart attacks Ancient Egyptians used aspirin and it was first sold over the counter in 1915 An aspirin a day, keeps the doctor away. Or does it? Aside from being a potent painkiller to help with that numbing headache or aching pain in your back, doctors today routinely prescribe a daily regimen of aspirin to help prevent heart attack and stroke. And a number of studies also indicate that they may also be able to decrease your likelihood of certain types of cancer. A 2015 study in plants (read: the science is still a long ways away) finds that it binds to an enzyme called GAPDH which may play a role in fighting neurodegenerative disease. That means aspirin may be a weapon to use to fight Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s and Huntington’s disease. This is not the first time a study has shown that, however. A study about a decade earlier in Utah involving 3,000 people who were near dementia or were developing early signs of Alzheimer’s and who used anti-inflammatory medications like aspirin long-term, showed a 45% risk reduction for developing the disease. But not everyone should be taking the little white pills. Talk to your doctor first about taking it daily. Doctors agree that a low dose – as little as 75 milligrams, which is less than a baby aspirin – can help those patients who have already had (or are at high risk for) a heart attack or stroke. For those with a low risk of heart disease, potential side effects such as internal bleeding and stomach ulcers may outweigh the preventative benefits. While the benefits of aspirin seem strong, always consult your doctor before starting daily usage. While findings on aspirin’s preventative qualities only date back a few decades, aspirin’s pain relieving quality have been used for thousands of years. As the late medical writer Berton Roueche wrote in his anthology, “The Medical Detectives,” “There are no countries in which it is unknown, unappreciated, or unavailable.” But the news on aspirin has evolved since since the merits of the popular pain reliever became known long ago. Let’s take a look at the timeline. In fact the word aspirin is derived from the name Spiraea – the genus of shrubs that are all natural sources of the drug’s natural pain relieving ingredient, salicylic acid. According to Dairmuid Jeffreys, author of “Aspirin: The Remarkable Story of a Wonder Drug,” the ancient Egyptians would use willow bark to alleviate their aches and pains, without every knowing that it was salicylic acid – the natural version of aspirin – that reduced body temperatures and inflammation. Hippocrates, the famous Greek physician, wrote about using willow leaves and bark to relieve pains and fever. It wouldn’t be until the 19th century that researchers began understanding how salicylic acid actually worked. In 1874, Hermann Kolbe discovered synthetic salicylic acid, the active ingredient in aspirin,  but found that in large doses it would cause nausea and vomiting. In the 1890s, chemist Felix Hoffmann of Bayer used acetylsalicylic acid to help his father’s rheumatism, and by 1899, Bayer began handing out a powdered version of the acid to doctors. By 1915, it was sold over the counter. It wouldn’t be until 1948 when aspirin would be used for its preventative benefits. A California doctor named Dr. Lawrence Craven started recommending an aspirin a day to reduce heart attack risk to his patients, based on what he saw. Researchers wouldn’t understand why aspirin was able to do this until several decades later. In 1982, the Nobel Prize in medicine was awarded to researchers who discovered that aspirin inhibits the production of a hormone called prostaglandins, which are responsible for forming the clots that lead to heart attacks and strokes. In 1993, the American Heart Association endorsed using aspirin as a preventative measure against cardiovascular risks.  Four years later, they estimated as many as 10,000 American lives could be saved each year if everyone took a single 325 milligram tablet of aspirin at the first signs of a severe heart attack. A study in Utah involving 3,000 people who showed early signs of Alzheimer’s or were likely candidates for dementia and who regularly took anti-inflammatory meds like aspirin, showed a 45% risk reduction for developing the disease.  This was only after taking it for more than two years. A large analysis from 2010 found that daily aspirin use could lower cancer risks by at least 20% over 20 years. The largest decrease in risk was for gastrointestinal cancers. While aspirin may be a great painkiller, the verdict is still out on some of its other benefits. The decades long push to use aspirin to prevent heart attacks came to an end  in May of this year, when the Food and Drug Administration  warned against anyone using aspirin as a preventative measure. Instead it said daily use should only be limited to those who already suffer from cardiovascular disease. And the verdict is still out on cancer, even though aspirin seems to have particular benefits for digestive cancers.  A new study in this week’s Annals of Internal Medicine backs that up – finding that daily low-dosage usage for five or more years was associated with a 27% less likelihood of having colorectal cancer. Eric Jacobs, an epidemiologist with the American Cancer Society said the strongest benefit appears to be for digestive track cancers.  “The evidence is fairly strong for esophageal and stomach cancer. But for other cancers, like breast and lung, there are hints but the data is still inconsistent.” Elizabeth Landau


Editor’s Note: Frida Ghitis, a former CNN producer and correspondent, is a world affairs columnist. She is a frequent opinion contributor to CNN and The Washington Post and a columnist for World Politics Review. The opinions expressed in this commentary are her own. If America’s allies in South Korea were already worried that President Donald Trump was about to unleash fire and fury like the world has never seen in their neighborhood, they will find the latest news of Trump’s head-snapping reversal on North Korea far from soothing. The President announced Thursday that he would accept North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un’s invitation to meet by May. It is conceivable that Trump could wring positive results from such a meeting. But it is just as possible that he will agree to a deal to reduce America’s presence in the region in exchange for North Korean concessions. That would be a disaster for America’s allies and highly gratifying for China and Russia, who would delight in seeing Washington’s global footprint shrink, particularly in that part of the world. Related video Tillerson: Trump decided on his own to meet Kim But it would also be terrible news for South Korea. It would not only please US rivals at the expense of its friends, but it would constitute a huge loss for America’s role as guarantor of global stability, while sparking a new nuclear arms race. When Trump was running for president, South Korea was already alarmed by what he was saying. After he won, then-acting South Korean President Hwang Kyo-ahn said, “We have been preparing for all possibilities,” adding that a worried Seoul contacted the Trump team more than 100 times during the campaign. They had reason for concern. In January 2015, before the official launch of his campaign, Trump told an Iowa audience about how disturbing he found it that every time he bought television sets they came from South Korea. In rambling remarks he juxtaposed trade and defense: “Whenever they [South Korea] have a problem we send the battleships…What are we doing; why aren’t they paying us?” Once the campaign started, Trump cast doubt on his commitment to South Korea’s defense, suggesting that South Korea and Japan should consider developing their own nuclear weapons, and stating that if they didn’t he would be willing to withdraw US forces defending them. The words propelled the debate in Japan about whether it makes sense, amid a growing threat from North Korea and an increasingly assertive China, to preserve the country’s pacifist constitution and rely on the US for defense. Related video South Korea: Trump will meet with Kim Jong Un In South Korea, the push to develop nuclear weapons also gathered steam. In a recent Gallup Korea poll, 60% of South Koreans said it’s time to build nuclear weapons. A similar percentage says it opposes a pre-emptive American strike on the North, even as Kim continues building up his nuclear arsenal. Once in office, Trump reassured South Korea of his commitment, as he launched his bizarre barrage of insults at Kim, warning that he has the bigger “nuclear button” and that negotiating with North Korea is a waste of time. For months the two have sniped, with Trump calling Kim “Little Rocket Man,” and Kim parrying with “Old lunatic, mean trickster and human reject” from the North. South Korean voters elected President Moon Jae-in in hopes that he will be able to help avert war, but that doesn’t mean they are reassured by Trump’s brash move. Trump has not projected the image of a cautious leader. On the contrary, this new move looks like a risky long-distance throw, flying over the heads of the experts. It could surprise everyone, or fail spectacularly. For some time now, his over-the-top rhetoric against Kim and his mockery of his own secretary of state’s efforts at diplomacy have given South Koreans sleepless nights. Now Trump’s unpredictable style, combined with the statements he has made in the past, raise the possibility that South Korea could end up as the biggest loser when the two leaders hold their unprecedented summit. Kim has already won one round by convincing the President of the United States to grant him the rare honor of a  face-to-face meeting. For decades he has sought exactly that, and he achieved it this time for almost nothing in return. Plan for the meeting immediately strengthens Kim’s position at home. With this victory he is even less likely to face a challenge, even though his regime is one of the world’s most brutally repressive. Human rights are about to take an even smaller role in North Korea negotiations, if that is even possible. Related video WH: No meeting until NK fulfills its promises What matters most, of course, is what kind of a deal Trump might make. One troubling sign is that Trump has lost some of the best minds who could advise him on what is an extraordinarily complex problem. Incredibly, the US doesn’t yet have an ambassador in South Korea. The highly respected Victor Cha, formerly of the Bush administration, was withdrawn from consideration. And the State Department’s top Korea expert, Joseph Yun – the man who brought Otto Warmbier home – recently retired, depriving Trump of one the country’s most knowledgeable authorities. Trump, of course, is supremely confident in his negotiating skills. We should all wish him success for the sake of the country and the world, because failure could prove disastrous. The matter of North Korea is deadly serious. The Korean Peninsula was divided at the end of World War II, with the North and South taking sharply different political paths on their respective sides of the 38th parallel. Since then, the North has repeatedly broken across that boundary. The North’s invasion of the South in 1950 triggered the all-out war Americans call the Korean War.  And after the war, the Kim dynasty maintained a belligerent stance, trying to assassinate the South Korean President, repeatedly  attacking South Korean targets, and emerging as a threat to the world, while brutalizing its own population. Sign up for CNN Opinion’s new newsletter.Join us on Twitter and Facebook The North’s development of nuclear weapons is a grave threat, not only because it makes it possible for Pyongyang to hit other countries, but because it makes defending the South much more difficult. It also perpetuates Kim’s vile rule. Perhaps Trump will pull off some version of a deal of the century, but the odds don’t look good. He will be reluctant to walk away without something concrete that he can label a victory. But if a deal involves weakening America’s ties with South Korea, he will be ushering in a world order where the US is no longer trusted by its allies, where it is no longer the guarantor of security; one where Russia and China are more powerful, and where the people of South Korea have more reason to lie awake at night.

President Donald Trump's North Korea policy


In the wake of the Sandy Hook school shooting in late 2012, a new saying became popular among gun rights advocates: “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” (The phrase is widely credited to National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre.) The logic behind the saying goes like this: In an era of mass shootings, the best (only?) defense is to be armed yourself. Shooting back at a shooter may be your only chance at living through such an incident. We need more good people with guns – not fewer. Which brings us to Tuesday afternoon in Seoul, South Korea where President Donald Trump was asked by a reporter whether he might support “extreme vetting for people trying to buy a gun” in the wake of the Texas church shooting on Sunday that left 26 people dead. Here’s how Trump responded: “You’re bringing up a situation that probably shouldn’t be discussed too much right now. We could let a little time go by. It’s OK if you feel that’s an appropriate question even though we’re in the heart of South Korea. I will certainly answer your question. If you did what you’re suggesting, there would have been no difference three days ago, and you might not have had that very brave person who happened to have a gun or a rifle in his truck go out and shoot him, and hit him and neutralize him. I can only say this: If he didn’t have a gun, instead of having 26 dead, you would have had hundreds more dead. So that’s the way I feel about it. Not going to help.” This is, quite literally, the “good guy with a gun” argument. And Trump is right that a man living near the church grabbed his gun and fired at the shooter, wounding him in the leg and torso and then chasing him in a car – with another bystander – until the shooter crashed in a ditch. The problem for Trump’s argument is that, outside of a handful of anecdotes here and there, there is very little empirical evidence that suggests the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. A study of data on gun violence that was released this summer by Stanford Law professor John Donahue makes this case in stark terms. “There is not even the slightest hint in the data that (right to carry) laws reduce overall violent crime,” wrote Donohue, concluding that violent crime was somewhere between 13-15% higher in states that have right to carry laws than if that same state had not passed that sort of legislation. Related video Family's message to Trump: No more guns According to the Harvard School of Public Health, “case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at a higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.” The United States is a clear leader in the number of guns owned by civilians – almost 90 guns per 100 people, according to a 2007 study. (At that time, 270 million of the world’s 875 million known firearms were owned by American civilians.) There is also lots and lots of evidence that for the large number of guns in the country, very few are actually used in self defense. A 2013 study by the Department of Justice showed that in less than 1% of all victimizations between 2007 and 2011 did the victim use a gun to defend him or herself. Those numbers run directly counter to the reasons gun owners give for owning a gun, however. Pew Research Center polling on guns and American gun culture conducted over the summer showed that more than two-thirds of gun owners say “protection” is a major reason why they own a weapon. As the Washington Post’s Chris Ingraham has documented, for every one “justifiable” gun homicide, there are 34 criminal gun homicides, 78 gun suicides and two accidental gun deaths. (Ingraham used data from this 2015 report from the Violence Policy Center.) That’s a lot of numbers. But the point here is simple. While anecdotes – like the Texas shooting Trump cited – seem to affirm the “good guy with a gun” theory, according to the large majority of the available data, more guns in the hands of civilians lead to more gun deaths, not fewer.

gun rights advocacy and the 'good guy with a gun' argument


If the government shuts down the military would still report for duty Personnel will be paid for the first pay period after the shutdown ends Secretary of Defense James Mattis warned Friday that a government shutdown will have “a terrible” impact on the US military, just hours before a deadline for the Senate to pass a bill to keep the government open. However, he made clear that the military would continue to function and perform critical missions despite a shutdown. “It’s got a terrible impact,” Mattis told an audience at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies at an event to unveil the administration’s new National Defense Strategy. But Mattis gave no indication that the military’s capacity to protect the American people will be compromised: “We will continue what we are doing but the value of the military is grossly enhanced by the sense that the American model of government, of the people, by the people, for the people, can function and carry out its governmental responsibilities.” If the government shuts down, the military is considered essential and would still report for duty, US officials have said. Related article Trump's defense strategy sees China and Russia as biggest threats Military personnel must report to work and will be paid for the first pay period after the shutdown ends. In the 2013 shutdown, Congress passed a bill that paid military personnel through the shutdown. While making clear that US troops would continue to perform their duties at home and deployed overseas, Mattis said that over 50% of the civilian workforce would not come to work and that maintenance operations and the training of reservist troops would be affected. “I would just tell you our maintenance activities will probably pretty much shut down. We will not be able to induct any more of our gear that need maintenance,” Mattis said. Related article Trump: 'Worst thing' about shutdown would be effect on military Mission critical maintenance directly supporting operations overseas will likely continue despite a shutdown but US-based maintenance would likely be affected. “Over 50% altogether of my civilian workforce will be furloughed, and that’s going to impact our contracting. It’ll impact obviously our medical facilities. It’s got a huge morale impact, I’ll just tell you, and how long can you keep good people around when something like this happens,” Mattis added. The Department of Defense employs approximately 750,000 civilian personnel. Mattis also said that the majority of training for US military reservists would be canceled during a shutdown. “Training for almost our entire reserve force will stop, and you must understand the critical importance of our reserves. They’re the only shock absorber we have,” Mattis said. The secretary also said that “intelligence operations around the world” would stop due to their cost. However, it was not clear what operations he was referring to as mission critical operations are likely to continue. While he warned of the impacts of a shutdown, during his speech Mattis slammed the types of temporary funding measures, known as continuing resolutions, that have been used to avert shutdowns in the past. “As I stand here this morning, watching the news off the Hill, we’re on the verge of a government shutdown or, at best, yet another debilitating continuing resolution,” Mattis said, adding that such continuing resolutions wasted “copious amounts of precious taxpayer dollars.” “I am optimistic that Congress will do the right thing and carry out their responsibility,” Mattis added. But an internal Department of Defense memo sent Friday made it clear that while a continuing resolution was not ideal, it was preferred over a shutdown. “The Secretary and I hope that the Congress will pass a (Continuing Resolution) or an annual appropriations bill for defense activities,” Deputy Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan wrote in the contingency planning memo. “However, prudent management requires that the Department be prepared for a lapse in appropriations,” he added.


U.S. officials say China has deployed fighter jets to island in disputed waters China says it is allowed to deploy defense systems on its territory China has deployed fighter jets to a disputed island in the South China Sea, a U.S. official told CNN on Tuesday. U.S. officials said it’s not the first time China has placed J-11 and J-7 fighter jets on Woody Island, part of the Paracel island chain in the hotly disputed region, after expanding the runway there in 2014. “The specifics of a recent deployment of fighter aircraft to Woody Island would be less an issue than the signal it sends of how far out of step China’s actions are with the aspirations of the region,” a Pentagon spokesman said in a statement. The placement of missiles on the island, which appear to be permanently placed in concrete, is of greater concern, according to the officials. China controls the Paracel chain, but Taiwan and Vietnam also claim it; Brunei, Malaysia and the Philippines are also embroiled in disputes with China over regional islands and their surrounding waters. Lt Col Yang Zhiwei, Taiwan’s Defense Ministry spokesperson, also confirmed the deployment and called on all parties to the dispute to avoid escalating tensions. The move comes as Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi met with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry in Washington on Tuesday. China deployed surface-to-air missiles on Woody Island, according to Taiwan and U.S. officials last week, in a move that has alarmed the country’s Asian neighbors. Chinese state media said defenses had been in place on the island for years, and denied it was militarizing the island. Satellite images taken on February 14 appeared to show several missile batteries and support vehicles, according to ImageSat International, which took the images. Taiwan’s Defense Ministry said it had confirmed that surface-to-air missiles had been deployed. U.S. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told CNN that commercial satellite imagery showed the deployment of missile batteries. The news ratcheted up tensions in the volatile region, already home to messy territorial disputes, with a senior Japanese Cabinet member labeling China’s actions unacceptable. Showdown in the South China Sea: How did we get here? China’s Defense Ministry has said defense facilities had existed on the islands for years, according to the government-run Global Times. It wasn’t clear whether the report was referring to the surface-to-air missiles identified by Taiwan officials, which satellite imagery suggested had been deployed this month. Related gallery China's island building in the South China Sea China has occupied Woody Island for 50 years. China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Hong Lei told reporters last week that the “deployment of defense facilities in our own territory is appropriate and reasonable.” “It’s aimed at improving our national defense capabilities and has nothing to do with so-called militarization,” he told a press briefing. Greg Poling, head of the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative at the Washington-based CSIS, told CNN that China was also developing radar capabilities on islands in the South China Sea, allowing more effective control of the sea and airspace. CNN’s Katie Hunt and Kevin Wang contributed to this report.


NEW: "We didn't know when we would be going," British vacationer Nicky Bull says The first flight of U.K. tourists returning from Sharm el-Sheikh touched down Friday A large backlog of tourists is still expected, with limited flights out of the resort The increased security at Sharm el-Sheikh Airport turned into a mixed blessing for British vacationer Nicky Bull, one of tens of thousands whose travel plans became uncertain after Metrojet Flight 9268 crashed. She felt safer but had to stand in line for hours before boarding a plane. “At the airport today it was absolutely dreadful,” Bull said Friday after returning to the United Kingdom. “I appreciate all the extra security but they just couldn’t cope with it. … When we tried to go home on Wednesday the security was non-existent. Now it is as it should be but I don’t think they’ve got enough people to deal with it.” Even worse was the uncertainty. Bull said she supported her government’s decision to temporarily suspend flights from Egypt but said officials didn’t supply much information about what to do. “We didn’t know when we would be going, if it would be one day, two days,” said Bull, a human resources manager from Bath. “We felt like we were on our own.” Jonathan Hughes, another British vacationer, is still in limbo. “I’m guessing we’ll be in the queue,” the 28-year-old management accountant told CNN, as he awaited further information on whether his flight home to Manchester, northern England, would operate as scheduled Saturday. “Not knowing if tomorrow is going to be another day on holiday, or if we’re coming home, is a bit frustrating,” he said. Later Friday he sent a Twitter message saying the situation at the airport was very confusing. “Very frustrating, reps have gone awol now, sign on the board still listing 9 Thomson flights as leaving today. Just need a bit of decisiveness,” he said. Flights from the resort to the United Kingdom resumed Friday after having been grounded over fears that a bomb planted by an airport worker may have brought down the Russian airliner Saturday. EasyJet Flight 9854 landed at London’s Gatwick airport with 180 passengers Friday afternoon, the first of the so-called rescue flights to touch down. The airline said it was able to return 359 passengers to the United Kingtom in the two flights it was allowed to operate from Sharm el-Sheikh. The low-cost carrier said it expects to repatriate an additional 445 passengers Saturday on two aircraft from the Egyptian resort to London Luton Airport. But with Egyptian Civil Aviation Minister Hossam Kamel saying only eight flights to the United Kingdom were scheduled to leave Friday, instead of the usual 29, a heavy backlog was anticipated. Flights for carriers Thomas Cook and Monarch that were scheduled to land were diverted, with Thomas Cook saying three flights had been canceled because of a limited number of departure slots. Turkish Airlines announced it was suspending flights to and from Sharm el-Sheikh until Sunday, after the arrival of its specialist team to assess security procedures at the resort’s airport. And, remarkably, Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday agreed to suspend Russian air traffic with Egypt until the reasons for the Metrojet airliner crash were known, the Kremlin said. There are believed to be about 50,000 Russian tourists in Egypt, according to preliminary data, the Russian Association of Tour Operators said Friday. Earlier, Russian vacationers expressed on social media their relief to be aboard a homeward-bound flight. “We are (on) the plane and feel great,” posted Instagram user @senejskayafox. A post shared by Ксения (@solomatina_ksenia) The British government estimates that 20,000 Britons are in Sharm el-Sheikh, and that it could take 10 days to get all of them out. Those who leave will be allowed to travel with only carry-on luggage, leaving checked baggage behind to be returned separately on cargo flights arranged under special security measures ordered by the British government. In a statement, Kamel said that the luggage left behind was expected to affect the operation of the airport, but that the bags would be sent on cargo planes on the same day the passengers’ flights departed. Hughes, who was on vacation with girlfriend Rebecca Ward, a 27-year-old math teacher, said that despite the uncertainty, his vacation had not been too negatively affected. The mood among vacationers at his hotel was “mostly relaxed,” he said, in contrast to the scenes of long queues and weary travelers emerging from Sharm el-Sheikh airport. A post shared by Erin McLaughlin (@erinnbcnews) “There’s a few people talking about it, but not losing any sleep over it,” said Hughes. “A lady was getting very worked up about it this morning. (Her) main gripe seemed to be, bizarrely, that she couldn’t bring makeup home, so that’ll all need replacing.” He said he expected there to be a backlog and his travel operator had said their costs would be covered at the hotel as long as they were stranded, so “we certainly can’t complain.” Stranded, apparently. #sharmelsheikh #couldbeworse pic.twitter.com/A9ELcHxJSY His main complaint was the uncertainty. The planes in the sky, visible from his hotel, were a welcome sight, but he had been told that flights faced at least a three-hour delay. Bull said she was ebullient to land on home soil. “The pilot got a round of applause,” she said. “We all cheered and it was obviously great.” She said she may not go back to Egypt again. “Not because of the terrorism because that could happen anywhere,” she said. “It was how we were dealt with afterward. … I was very put out by the way it was handled by the Egyptians, I’m sorry to say.” CNN’s Olga Pavlova, Don Melvin, Alexander Felton, Vasco Covotio, Justin Lear, Sarah Sirgany, Phil Black, Lucy Pawle and Christina Zdanowicz contributed to this report.


Russia said Thursday that it has “concrete proof” that Western nations have attempted to interfere in its presidential election next month. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova offered no proof but said that “destructive interference” had taken place “within the context of the presidential election campaign.” Zakharova said the government’s accusations were based on solid evidence, “unlike unsubstantiated allegations of all-powerful Russian hackers and some Russian influence on elections in other countries.” Related video Can House Intel fix its partisanship problem? She warned that Russia would take “tough countermeasures, including a public reaction” if the interference did not stop. Russia has been accused of meddling in the 2016 US presidential election as well as Britain’s referendum on the European Union. It has denied those allegations. Earlier this week, Dan Coats, US director of national intelligence, told the Senate Intelligence Committee that “there should be no doubt” Russia also sees the 2018 midterm elections as a target. Related article Trump still unconvinced Russia meddled in 2016 election Coats, who was testifying along with other top national security officials, said he expects “Russia to continue using propaganda, social media, false-flag personas, sympathetic spokesmen and other means to influence, to try to build on its wide range of operations and exacerbate social and political fissures in the United States.” On Wednesday, US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said the Trump administration is “actively working” on imposing sanctions on Russia over its interference in the 2016 election. Russia has called the threat of US sanctions a “direct and obvious attempt” to interfere in its March 18 presidential election. “We do think that this is a direct and obvious attempt to time some sort of action to coincide with our elections in order to influence them,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told journalists on a telephone conference call last month. “We disagree with this, and we are sure this will have no influence.”


Kidnapping suspect Brendt Christensen makes his first court appearance The FBI says his phone was linked to a forum about "Abduction 101" The crowd of demonstrators who rallied behind Yingying Zhang’s family included hundreds of students, professors and concerned strangers. It also included the man suspected of kidnapping her, officials say. A photo taken by CNN’s Kaylee Hartung at Thursday’s rally shows Brendt Christensen, the man who would later be identified as the suspect, in the upper right corner, the University of Illinois and campus police said. University police confirmed the man standing by himself in a dark T-shirt with his left hand on a railing as Christensen, said Robin Kaler, associate chancellor for public affairs at the University of Illinois. The day after the rally, Christensen was arrested on suspicion of kidnapping. And while many were surprised Christensen would show up to the rally, the suspect had actually been under surveillance for weeks. A spate of bizarre circumstances led to Christensen’s arrest. Among those cited by FBI Special Agent Anthony Manganaro in a criminal complaint: – Christensen’s unusual car, a black Saturn Astra, had a sunroof and a cracked front passenger hubcap, just like the vehicle that picked up Zhang the day she disappeared. Facebook post not found. Post has been removed or is no longer public. – The suspect changed his story about what he was doing the afternoon of June 9, the day of the disappearance, Manganaro wrote. Related article Kidnapping suspect linked to abduction fantasy web page, FBI says Christensen said he was probably sleeping or playing video games “at his residence all day,” the FBI agent wrote. A few days later, Christensen told investigators he was “driving around the UI campus when he observed an Asian female with a backpack standing at a corner appearing distressed,” Manganaro wrote. Christensen told authorities he dropped the woman off a few blocks away, the complaint said. – An investigation into Christensen’s phone revealed a visit to the fetish website FetLife, where the user visited a forum called “Abduction 101,” Manganaro wrote. Threads on that forum included “Perfect abduction fantasy” and “planning a kidnapping,” the complaint said. – Investigators sought search warrants and started “continuous surveillance” on Christensen around June 16. On June 29, the day before he was arrested, Christensen “was captured on audio recording … explaining how he kidnapped Y.Z.,” or Yingying Zhang, the FBI agent wrote. “Christensen stated that he brought Y.Z. back to his apartment, and otherwise held her in his apartment against her will,” Manganaro said. The agent said Zhang is still missing and presumed dead. Yuan Ziwen, a roommate and close friend of Zhang’s boyfriend, said he was frightened when he saw the video released by police. “My scalp was tingling. Yingying is a really cautious and reasonable person, I don’t believe she will enter some stranger’s car unless there is an emergency or she is in a rush,” Yuan told CNN. As Chinese news outlets continue to provide extensive coverage on the Zhang case, public interest in the story shows no sign of abating. While sympathy for the victim appears universal, heated debates have also broken out on social media platforms on topics ranging from personal safety in America to the efficiency of US law enforcement agencies. A commentary in the Global Times, a provocative but state-sanctioned tabloid that often takes hard-line positions, concluded the FBI mishandled the investigation because “police were overwhelmed” by the high crime rate in the United States. “In fact, the FBI’s inefficiency is not by accident, yet difficult to avoid; this is tied to the high crime rate and judicial system in the US, also, the problems of FBI itself,” the paper said. Many current and former US-based Chinese students and scholars have also brushed aside the notion that the Zhang case highlights the danger of living in America – in sharp contrast to major Chinese cities where violent crimes are still relatively uncommon. “I’m not afraid of going to the States at all,” said Zhong Siqi, a 22-year-old recent college graduate in southern China who will attend Northeastern University in Boston in the fall. Related article School rallies behind family of missing student Christensen appeared in a magistrate’s court for an arraignment hearing Monday, but said very little. He did not enter a plea for the kidnapping charge. Another hearing will take place Wednesday to determine whether the 28-year-old should remain in custody, said Sharon Paul, spokeswoman for the US Attorney’s Office for the Central District of Illinois. Christensen’s defense attorney, Evan Bruno, urged the public to avoid jumping to conclusions. “There’s a long road ahead,” Bruno said. “I encourage everyone to be patient, to keep an open mind and wait until the evidence comes in.” In an interview Tuesday with CNN, Guofang Miao, Zhang’s colleague, said she was “sad and angry” when she saw the man in court charged with kidnapping her friend. Miao, a post-doctoral student at the university, worked closely with Zhang for more than a month on a project with the university’s College of Agriculture. They called themselves field ecologists and were concerned about the environment, said Miao, who holds a Ph.D. in forestry and environmental resources from North Carolina State University. The pair used new technology to develop methods to predict crop yield and studied how new crops adapted to climate change, Miao said. “The work is really tough but we enjoyed (the work) a lot,” Miao said, standing in the university corn field where the two worked. Zhang was talented and passionate about her work, Miao said. But she also recalled the lighter side of her friend. They talked about the corn stalks that sprang up quickly and the beautiful fireflies at night that fascinated Zhang, said Miao, a native of China. Zhang didn’t see fireflies where she studied in China. “When she started to see those she was so excited,” Miao said. “I said ‘okay, if you really like, I can drop you here and you can stay until night. … Then I can come to pick you up later.’ “ “I still hope she can make it back to see those,” Miao added. “She will love that.” Holly Yan reported and wrote from Atlanta, and Kevin Conlon and Kaylee Hartung reported from Urbana, Illinois. CNN’s Dakin Andone, Nanlin Fang, Steven Jiang and Serena Dong also contributed to this report.


Editor’s Note: Traders highlights the business of global trading by showcasing extraordinary individuals worldwide who are trading goods and services across borders. In China, the demand for luxury goods has never been bigger, but connecting Chinese shoppers with designer goods isn’t always easy, says Jacqueline Lam, cofounder of Mihaibao, a company that’s looking to bridge the gap between the top Western designer brands and hungry consumers in the East. “It’s very difficult for people to buy from Western websites in China,” explained Lam. “It’s not just the language barrier, the shopping experience is entirely different: the foreign servers slow things down, you can’t pay in Yuan and that’s before you face customs and import duty.” And demand for expensive goods in China is growing exponentially, with one report suggesting that China will account for 20% of the global luxury sales in 2015. You might think it’s already been done, with Chinese online retailer Xiu and the host of glitzy designer shops that have opened in China’s large cities. But last year, there were reports that those same shops were slashing their exorbitant prices as consumers favored making trips abroad to buy direct and avoid the high taxes at home. In addition, Mihaibao doesn’t have the expense of foreign buyers shopping for a set list of products, like Xiu does. Instead, Lam’s company has no inventory to speak of, just a group of software and data engineers. “We’re a tech company,” Lam clarified. “Our engineers manage data on currency so people can pay in Yuan, the latest trends so customers can keep up with the latest fashion and all the placement and orders are done automatically.” 馬上上覓海寶購買屬於您的 Alexander Wang 迷你包SHOP NOW for your Alexander Wang Mini Bags on Mihaibaohttp://t.co/eF1C6ngF18 pic.twitter.com/qC5YMU0dUU Chinese consumers can now pick the products they want directly from the website and the rest is done automatically by the systems Lam put in place – from calculating live prices and import costs to arranging the delivery. On top of that, Mihaibao believes its data knowledge has enabled it to exploit key trends not just for consumer demand but also to help the big-name brands market the right products to Chinese customers. “We have studied the online shopping experience in China – it’s nothing like the West,” Lam said. “We’ve changed it by making it transparent, easy to use and adapting our website to the way China shops.” She continued: “Not only can we tailor the Chinese shopper’s experience but we can also help brands target the people that have created demand for a particular product – we know how the Chinese shopper thinks.” Lam, 28, was born in China and later moved to Denmark as a teenager. She continued her university studies in the United Kingdom and went on to work for retail data giant Dunnhumby, before starting Mihaibao in 2014. Whether it can fill the gaps the luxury brands and e-commerce sites have missed remains to be seen but expansion is on the cards with a fresh round of investment and help from the UK government’s Trade and Investment department. “We started with luxury handbags but we’re going to meet the demand for other luxury goods in beauty, baby care, wine, art and furniture,” Lam said. “People in China want Western goods – they associate it with a better life and sophistication – and if you have the money you’ll buy from the West, not from China.” Lam also hopes to help eradicate the “gray market,” where Chinese people come into the country with products they’ve bought abroad – something the Chinese government is working hard to stop. She said: “This trend of people coming back with gifts from overseas trips has been going on for ages … we want to take out the hassle so people can buy cost-effectively without having to bother their family members in the West.” MORE: Beautiful retro cars sell vintage British cool to the world The juicy story of Florida’s orange trade


Suspect also had a career as an actor in gay pornographic movies, a source says He had worked for the German domestic intelligence service since April, officials say A German domestic intelligence service employee arrested as a suspected Islamist plotting against the state also had a career as an actor in gay pornographic movies, a source with knowledge of the case said. The source confirmed reports in German media that the man had roles in those movies but added that the development did not appear to be related to the alleged terrorist plot. The prosecutors’ office in Duesseldorf said Wednesday it had opened a criminal investigation against the man, a 51-year-old German citizen, on suspicion of “preparing a serious violent act endangering the state.” He had worked for the German Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution since April, it said. He was arrested November 16 over allegations of sharing protected materials and making Islamist statements online. According to the statement from the prosecutors’ office, the intelligence service employee “was tasked with the observation of the potentially violent Salafist scene” – referring to an ultrafundmentalist branch of Islam. “The investigation is based on the following points: suspicion of preparing a serious violent act endangering the State, the attempted violation of intelligence secrets and the readiness to commit a crime,” it said. “The suspect is accused as identifying himself as an intelligence employee in an internet chat and to have revealed accurate information of operations including content and locations.” The man is also accused of offering his chat partner access to the domestic intelligence agency “to commit violent acts against ‘non-believers’ which ‘were surely the wish of Allah’ and that ‘he was prepared to do anything to help his brothers,’ ” the prosecutors’ office statement said. However, the suspect’s chat partner was an employee of the same intelligence agency and was able to uncover the man’s identity, it said. “The suspect – who describes himself as a ‘convert’ – has confessed his goal as infiltrating the domestic intelligence service and warning his ‘brothers’ of current investigations.” Further allegations may be made against the man once confiscated data storage has been examined, the statement said. This would determine whether the case is handed to the federal prosecutor. “As of now, there is no evidence that the suspect managed to reveal any security-related secrets to people in the violent Salafist scene, or has committed any other crime,” the statement said. The case has raised questions over how the man, who has been in custody since November 17, came to be recruited to the intelligence agency in the first place. “The security vetting of applicants needs to be examined,” Social Democrat lawmaker Burkhard Lischka said. Related video German police arrest 3 ISIS militant suspects Last month, German authorities banned an Islamist organization they said was responsible for inspiring more than 140 young people to join the conflict in Syria. Federal police in September said 800 German nationals had traveled to Syria to join the conflict. German Chancellor Angela Merkel in July vowed to boost security and improve counterterrorism measures following three attacks allegedly carried out by refugees. Merkel has come under criticism for her open-door refugee policy, which saw more than 1 million asylum seekers enter the country in 2015. Germany has banned several Islamist associations in recent years, including ISIS in 2014 and the jihadist group Tauhid Germany in 2015. CNN’s Stephanie Halasz contributed to this report.


Trump called the attacker an "animal" The diversity visa has been a point of contention for years President Donald Trump, during a White House Cabinet meeting Wednesday, said he wants to terminate the Diversity Visa Lottery, a program that distributes around 50,000 visas to countries where there is a low rate of immigration to the US. “I am, today, starting the process of terminating the diversity lottery program,” Trump said, seated next to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis. “I am going to ask Congress to immediately initiate work to get rid of this program, diversity lottery, diversity lottery. Sounds nice, it is not nice, it is not good. It hasn’t been good and we have been against it.” He added: “We’re going to quickly as possible get rid of chain migration and move to a merit-based system.” Trump added that based on preliminary information, the attacker in New York “was the point of contact, the primary point of contact for, and this is preliminarily, 23 people, that came in or potentially came in with him and that is not acceptable.” Related gallery Manhattan truck attack The comments follow Trump’s tweets on Wednesday morning that blamed Sen. Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, for the program. “The terrorist came into our country through what is called the ‘Diversity Visa Lottery Program,’ a Chuck Schumer beauty,” Trump tweeted. “I want merit based.” Schumer was a key shaper of the 1990 legislation that created the program, but also played a lead part in the 2013 Gang of Eight bill that that passed the Senate on a bipartisan basis and included removing the diversity lottery program. The bill would have moved those visas elsewhere in the system and introduced a merit system that took into account multiple factors like family and work skills. The diversity visa has been a point of contention for years. The 50,000 visas, distributed by random selection among countries where there is a low rate of immigration to the US, were originally designed to diversify the pool of immigrants to the US. The visas offer immigrants green cards, permanent legal residence and a path to citizenship. Republican Sens. Tom Cotton and David Perdue have introduced a bill, endorsed by Trump, that would eliminate the diversity lottery and certain categories of family-based green cards, and then would transform the remaining employment-based visas into a point system that favors heavily highly skilled, highly educated, English-speaking immigrants. But while there is consensus around needing to reform the process, limited support exists even within the GOP for Cotton and Perdue’s bill. Sen. Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican who has been an ardent critic of Trump, noted in a tweet Wednesday that the Gang of Eight bill, had it been signed into law, would have done away with the diversity visa program. The Cotton-Perdue bill would roughly halve the number of green cards overall per year, a point of contention for many Democrats and Republicans alike, and wouldn’t easily allow for low skilled immigrants to come to the US permanently, another sticking point for many. Related article New York terror suspect was radicalized domestically, governor says Trump also labeled the alleged attacker an “animal” to reporters Wednesday, and said the United States must “get much tougher” with terror suspects. Trump called for “quick justice” and “strong justice” for terror suspects. “What we have right now is a joke and it is a laughing stock and no wonder so much of this stuff takes place,” Trump said. The President’s initial Twitter response to the attack labeled the attacker a “very sick and deranged person” and offered his “thoughts, condolences and prayers to the victims and families of the New York City terrorist attack.” Trump later tweeted that he was ordering his Department of Homeland Security to “step up our already Extreme Vetting Program.” It was not clear what program the President was referring to. Reached Tuesday night, DHS referred all questions on the “vetting” order to the White House, which did not respond to questions. Soon after Trump tweeted Wednesday morning, Schumer responded with a tweet of his own: “I guess it’s not too soon to politicize a tragedy.” Schumer also accused the President of “politicizing and dividing America” and urged him to focus “on the real solution – anti-terrorism funding – which he proposed cutting in his most recent budget.” New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, said at a Wednesday morning news conference that the President’s tweets were “not helpful.” “I don’t think they were factual. I think they tend to point fingers and politicize the situation,” he said. “You play into the hands of the terrorist to the extent that you disrupt, divide and frighten people in the society. The tone now should be the opposite – on all levels.” Trump’s decision to address immigration policy hours after the terrorist attack is markedly different than the tack the White House took after a shooter in Las Vegas opened fire on a concert last month, killing 58. White House press secretary Sarah Sanders, asked about gun control policy the day after the shooting in Las Vegas, dismissed the idea of talking about policy so soon after a shooting. “We haven’t had the moment to have a deep dive on the policy part of that,” Sanders said. “We’ve been focused on the fact that we had a severe tragedy in our country. And this is a day of mourning, a time of bringing our country together, and that’s been the focus of the administration this morning.” Pressed on why Trump brought up the travel ban hours after shootings in Orlando and San Bernardino, Sanders added at the time, “I think there’s a difference between being a candidate and being the President.” Tuesday’s terror attack in New York was the city’s deadliest since 9/11. Sayfullo Habibullaevic Saipov drove a rented van down a bike path, law enforcement sources have said. The attack killed six victims instantly, while two others died later. New York politicians and officials quickly labeled the incident a terror attack. Right-wing blogs and publications began blaming Schumer’s immigration policies on Tuesday night and Trump’s comments track with much of what was written. “Blame Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer,” read a post from the Gateway Pundit. Breitbart, the right-wing publication run by Steve Bannon, Trump’s former chief strategist, was leading with a story about the Diversity Visa Lottery Program, citing an ABC New York story that reported Saipov came to the United States through the program. Turning to immigration politics shortly after a terrorist attack has become a pattern for Trump. After a deadly mass shooting in San Bernardino, California, in 2015, then candidate-Trump called for the “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.” Trump ran on hard-line immigration policies in 2016, pledging to build a wall along the US-Mexico border, cut down the number of refugees coming into the United States and deporting undocumented immigrants currently in the United States. After stepping into the Oval Office in January, Trump proposed a sweeping travel ban that banned immigration from a series of countries. The ban, which has been repeatedly altered and fought in court, currently puts increased screening on nationals from Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Venezuela and Yemen. Immigration from North Korea and Syria is suspended entirely. Democrats slammed Trump on Wednesday for quickly turning to immigration after the terror attack. “This has become the pattern for President Trump, dating back to the campaign,” Rep. Adam Schiff, D-California, told MSNBC. “No matter where an attack happens around the world, whether it’s in the United States, Europe, he immediately goes to questions about immigration.”


Haley: "we've cut over half a billion $$$ from the UN peacekeeping budget " In March the White House instructed the State Department to cut their budgets for UN programs nearly in half US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley cheered cuts to the UN’s peacekeeping budget Wednesday, adding that “we’re only getting started.” “Just 5 months into our time here, we’ve cut over half a billion $$$ from the UN peacekeeping budget & we’re only getting started,” Haley tweeted. The UN struck a deal on Wednesday that cuts $600 million from the annual peacekeeping budget of more than $7.5 billion–slicing 7.5 percent off America’s bill, Reuters reported. Initially the US had proposed more budget slashing, which would have dropped its contributions by more than 10 percent. In March, the White House instructed the State Department and the US mission to the United Nations to cut their budgets for UN programs nearly in half, including US peacekeeping and development assistance, two senior US officials told CNN at the time. The proposed cuts reflected a desire by the Trump administration to reduce US commitments to international organizations. Since the former South Carolina governor was appointed to the Cabinet-level diplomatic post by President Donald Trump, Haley has, in conjunction with other countries, overseen major cuts from the UN peacekeeping efforts. In just her first week as US ambassador, Haley made reform of the United Nations’ peacekeeping operations a top priority. The program, which last fiscal year cost almost $8 billion, was something Haley said needed to be looked at and reconsidered during her Senate confirmation hearing. Under former President Barack Obama, the US paid for about 30% of the UN’s peacekeeping budget. China was the second highest contributor paying just over 10%. At her confirmation hearing, Haley stressed that the UN needed to look at whether countries were simply sending their forces to missions “just to make money” because the United Nations pays for peacekeepers. “The last thing we want is for UN peacekeepers to go into a country and for people to be scared and for people to be vulnerable,” Haley told a Senate committee. The peacekeeping department – which has been rocked by sex abuse cases and often unending missions – was a clear target for slashing. But the UN said in May that the US’s cuts would make continuing its work “impossible.” “The figures presented would simply make it impossible for the UN to continue all of its essential work advancing peace, development, human rights and humanitarian assistance,” Stephane Dujarric, spokesman for Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, said in a statement. CNN’s Richard Roth and Elise Labott contributed to this report


Been busy? Just now realize a big solar eclipse is coming? Don’t worry; here’s our guide for slackers. And here’s what else you need to know to Get Up to Speed and Out the Door. (You can also get “5 Things You Need to Know Today” delivered to your inbox daily. Sign up here.) Surprising no one, President Trump doubled down on his tough talk with North Korea, saying that his earlier threat to hit the North with “fire and fury” probably didn’t go far enough. Trump responded to the regime’s threat to attack Guam with a threat of his own, vowing “an event the likes of which nobody has seen before.” Our experts considered how that might unfold. But Trump’s bombastic barbs weren’t just for the North Koreans. He saved some for his predecessors, too, saying past US presidents didn’t do enough to stand up to the North. We know the President has no qualms about going after his own people (Hello, James Comey and Jeff Sessions). So, it wasn’t a shock to find Mitch McConnell in Trump’s crosshairs. Still, McConnell is the Senate majority leader, the husband of one of Trump’s Cabinet members and the man who can make it easier – or really hard – for Trump to get his agenda through Congress. But Trump, clearly miffed that the Obamacare repeal effort died in the Senate, went after McConnell on Twitter and in comments to reporters, ordering him to get back to work on health care and demurring when asked if he should resign. McConnell this week said Trump has “excessive expectations” about the “democratic process.” The opioid crisis is officially a national emergency. President Trump finally made that declaration, which his own bipartisan commission recommended. Trump called the opioid crisis a serious problem “the likes of which we have never had” (yes, you’ve heard that phrase before). Trump compared the current crisis to the days of his youth, saying, “When I was growing up, they had the LSD and they had certain generations of drugs.” The national emergency designation means more resources will be made available to state and federal agencies to fight the opioid epidemic. Just two days ago, the administration said declaring a national emergency was not necessary. Rain’s in the forecast today for the Crescent City, and that’s very bad news. Regular, run-of-the-mill rainstorms have flooded parts of New Orleans recently, because a handful of key pumps that drain the city – some of which sits below sea level – aren’t working. A turbine that helps power some of those pumps also was damaged in a fire. In anticipation of today’s rain and possible flooding, some schools are closed, and residents are being warned to stay indoors and off the roads. Rainwater flooding did not wreck the city in Hurricane Katrina, when breaches in federal levees let a nearby lake spill into the streets. Pop superstar Taylor Swift took the stand in her civil suit against a former DJ she said groped her during a meet-and-greet. Swift said David Mueller, a radio host in Denver, grabbed her backside when they took a picture together four years ago. Mueller denies this and says it’s all a misunderstanding. Swift was having none of that: “What Mr. Mueller did was very intentional,” she testified. She later told Mueller’s lawyer, “I’m not going to allow you or your client to make me feel in any way that this is my fault, because it isn’t.” Writer Peggy Drexler said Swift spoke for all women and highlighted the sexual harassment they endure daily. And CNN legal analyst Paul Callan said Swift sent a strong message to men, too: Get your groping hands off us. 1 in 8 The number of Americans struggling with alcohol abuse, according to a new study People are talking about these. Read up. Join in. Look at this As if you don’t spend enough time on social media, Facebook now wants you to watch videos on its new service called … Watch. Croc rock A prehistoric crocodile – known for crushing prey with its massive jaw and teeth – has been named for heavy metal legend Lemmy. They’re so fly We don’t know much about China’s Hainan Airlines, other than it’s got the coolest cabin crew uniforms on the planet. Only in California A marijuana company bought a small California town and plans to turn it into, what else, a pot paradise. Panda power You’ll probably find it hard to wind down from this stressful week. But 70 seconds of cute pandas falling down should do the trick. (Click to view)


It was vintage Benjamin Netanyahu, but with a surprising twist. The Israeli Prime Minister castigated United Nations delegates for hounding the Jewish state on Thursday in a speech bursting with rhetorical pyrotechnics, apocalyptic warnings and a haunting pause of silence. But easy to miss in his tirades against Iran and boilerplate lines on the Palestinian conflict was something unexpected – an apparent peace offering to the Israeli leader’s White House nemesis, President Barack Obama. It’s not that Netanyahu has experienced a sudden conversion on the Iranian nuclear deal, which he desperately tried – and failed – to thwart. In fact, he warned Iran was more dangerous than ever Thursday, comparing the country to an “unmuzzled” tiger. But there were also the first signs of a new strategy from Netanyahu to begin to repair relations with the White House ruptured by the long tug of war over the Iran nuclear deal that Obama’s foes in Congress, enthusiastically backed by the Israeli leader, have failed to derail. The strategy seemed to include holding out an olive branch to Obama and Capitol Hill Democrats by expressing a pragmatic willingness to live with the accord – for now – and identifying places of agreement on enforcement, which will be in both nations’ interests over the deal’s duration. If Netanyahu’s speech does end up easing some of the hard feelings between the U.S. and Israeli governments, however, there is no sign that any breakthroughs are likely soon on another issue that has divided Obama and Netanyahu – the elusive search for an Israeli-Palestinian peace. In fact, the situation appears to be deteriorating, amid tensions on the sacred Temple Mount in Jerusalem, simmering violence in the West Bank and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ declaration at the United Nations on Wednesday that he would no longer honor the Oslo Accords, the 1993 deal with Israel that was supposed to lead to a permanent peace and a Palestinian state. Abbas’ dramatic statement, however, didn’t get the attention he might have hoped for on the international stage amidst the intense focus on Iran, not to mention the chaos in Syria and the Russian attempt to shore up ally President Bashar al-Assad. It was another sign that while the Palestinian issue was once a cause celebre and at the center of U.S. foreign policy and U.N. gatherings, it has now slipped well down a crowded list of American and international priorities. Indeed, Netanyahu felt no compulsion to pay any more than scant attention to the issue, while Obama skipped it entirely. The topic, on which the two leaders have starkly divergent approaches, has been a source of friction longer than the Iran deal has been, and the Israeli leader and his White House outreach only benefits from it being consigned to the back burner. In his comments on Iran on Thursday, for the first time that close Middle East watchers could remember, Netanyahu uttered a sentence that was not uniformly critical of the Iran nuclear pact. Related video Netanyahu: Iran deal makes war more likely “This deal does place several constraints on Iran’s nuclear program, and rightly so,” Netanyahu admitted, focusing his dire warnings that the “militant Islamic terror regime” would be “weeks away” from amassing an entire arsenal of nuclear bombs only on the period after the deal’s restrictions sunset in 10 or 15 years – rather than repeating his claim that the deal itself would facilitate Iran getting a bomb in the near future. Netanyahu also called on the United Nations to keep Iran’s feet to the fire and fully implement the deal he decried, offering at least the prospect of some common ground that Israel could share with the administration, as the latter also wants to see the world body remain resolute on the issue. “Make sure that the inspectors actually inspect. Make sure that the snapback sanctions actually snap back. And make sure that Iran’s violations aren’t swept under the Persian rug,” Netanyahu said. “Of one thing, I can assure you: Israel will be watching closely.” He also had plenty of harsh words for the agreement: “This deal doesn’t make peace more likely. By fueling Iran’s aggression with billions of dollars in sanctions relief, it makes war more likely,” Netanyahu said, before angrily accusing the United Nations of greeting Tehran’s threats to destroy Israel with silence and pausing for a chilling 45 seconds in his own speech – glaring out at the chamber at the General Assembly. But he also hinted at conciliation with the United States, and Netanyahu went out of his way to detail all the places where he and Obama agree. He said they both wanted to keep arms away from “Iran’s terror proxies” and to stop Tehran from destabilizing the Middle East, and he thanked Obama for helping to bolster Israeli security and its military edge. He even reached out to Democrats, who blocked Republican attempts to kill the Iran deal and who remain furious that Netanyahu used an address to Congress earlier this year to openly criticize the President during the premier’s re-election bid. “Israel is grateful that this sentiment is widely shared by the American people and its representatives in Congress, by both those who supported the deal and by those who opposed it,” Netanyahu said. While the headlines will be grabbed by Netanyahu’s invective against Iran, it could turn out that the more subtle parts of his speech could be the most significant ahead of planned talks at the White House between Obama and Netanyahu in November. Former U.S. Middle East peace negotiator Aaron David Miller told CNN that the passage of the speech about the constraints on Iran was “curious” and a new development. “I think that reflects a measure of acquiescence – not to Iran, he made it very clear that was not going to be the case – but in essence to the agreement itself,” he said. “In many respects, this was an effort I think to move on, and to move on in partnership with President Obama,” Miller continued. “We will see if that is going to be possible.” Another former U.S. official, David Makovsky, who worked on the administration’s unsuccessful effort to broker a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians in Obama’s second term, also agreed that Netanyahu was reaching out to the President. “I think that he extended an olive branch to President Obama and, for the first time, I heard him talk about both sides of the aisle,” he said. “I think it was a way of Netanyahu pivoting to say … ‘I am not an ostrich putting my head in the sand, but we want to work with the U.S. on implementation.’ “ Netanyahu’s speech came four days after Obama spoke in the U.N. chamber and defended the Iran deal as vindication for his strategy of pursuing hard-nosed diplomacy even with America’s enemies. But there was one big omission from Obama’s remarks, and that was any mention of his frustrated efforts to forge a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians. Given that it was at the United Nations in 2010 that Obama predicted an agreement could be reached on a Palestinian state within a year, his swerve was especially striking – appearing to reflect frustration with Abbas and Netanyahu and signal that a new U.S. Middle East peace bid is unlikely during his final year in office. Abbas’ vow, meanwhile, to ignore the Oslo Accords threatens to further deepen antagonism between the Palestinians and Israel. But it remains unclear whether Abbas’ move was a symbolic measure born of desperation – and a desire to placate domestic critics of his leadership – or will be acted upon by cutting coordination with Israel over security and other key arenas. “It was really, at the end of the day, a very convoluted statement that does not amount to going all the way to abrogating Oslo,” said Ghaith al-Omari, a former Palestinian Authority official now with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. The worsening security situation in Jerusalem and on the West Bank has led to some warnings of a new Intifada, or uprising, similar those that raged in the Palestinian territories between 1987 to 1993 and 2000 to 2005. While some analysts believe tensions could ease in the coming weeks, al-Omari said it was impossible to say whether a crisis would be sparked that could spin out of control. “Things are very, very volatile and anything could trigger it – but by the same token, things could continue to be stable for a time,” he said. “We will not know what the trigger is until it happens.” If that trigger is pulled, Obama’s efforts to remain aloof will likely prove futile. The administration may have to resume its frustrating role as middleman between Israel and the Palestinians, in a new test for the bruised relations with Israel that Netanyahu tried to at least start repairing on Thursday.


Editor’s Note: Bruce Schneier is a lecturer at the Harvard Kennedy School and a fellow at the Berkman-Klein Center for Internet and Society. He blogs at www.schneier.com. The views expressed in this commentary are his own. This week, the TSA announced a large electronics ban on travel from eight Muslim countries Bruce Schneier: When faith in government is at an all-time low, many Americans are skeptical this is a justified security measure On Monday, the TSA announced a peculiar new security measure to take effect within 96 hours. Passengers flying into the US on foreign airlines from eight Muslim countries would be prohibited from carrying aboard any electronics larger than a smartphone. They would have to be checked and put into the cargo hold. And now the UK is following suit. It’s difficult to make sense of this as a security measure, particularly at a time when many people question the veracity of government orders, but other explanations are either unsatisfying or damning. So let’s look at the security aspects of this first. Laptop computers aren’t inherently dangerous, but they’re convenient carrying boxes. This is why, in the past, TSA officials have demanded passengers turn their laptops on: to confirm that they’re actually laptops and not laptop cases emptied of their electronics and then filled with explosives. Forcing a would-be bomber to put larger laptops in the plane’s hold is a reasonable defense against this threat, because it increases the complexity of the plot. Both the shoe-bomber Richard Reid and the underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab carried crude bombs aboard their planes with the plan to set them off manually once aloft. Setting off a bomb in checked baggage is more work, which is why we don’t see more midair explosions like Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988. Security measures that restrict what passengers can carry onto planes are not unprecedented either. Airport security regularly responds to both actual attacks and intelligence regarding future attacks. After the liquid bombers were captured in 2006, the British banned all carry-on luggage except passports and wallets. I remember talking with a friend who traveled home from London with his daughters in those early weeks of the ban. They reported that airport security officials confiscated every tube of lip balm they tried to hide. Related video How airline electronic ban affects travelers Similarly, the US started checking shoes after Reid, installed full-body scanners after Abdulmutallab and restricted liquids in 2006. But all of those measure were global, and most lessened in severity as the threat diminished. This current restriction implies some specific intelligence of a laptop-based plot and a temporary ban to address it. However, if that’s the case, why only certain non-US carriers? And why only certain airports? Terrorists are smart enough to put a laptop bomb in checked baggage from the Middle East to Europe and then carry it on from Europe to the US. Why not require passengers to turn their laptops on as they go through security? That would be a more effective security measure than forcing them to check them in their luggage. And lastly, why is there a delay between the ban being announced and it taking effect? Even more confusing, The New York Times reported that “officials called the directive an attempt to address gaps in foreign airport security, and said it was not based on any specific or credible threat of an imminent attack.” The Department of Homeland Security FAQ page makes this general statement, “Yes, intelligence is one aspect of every security-related decision,” but doesn’t provide a specific security threat. And yet a report from the UK states the ban “follows the receipt of specific intelligence reports.” Of course, the details are all classified, which leaves all of us security experts scratching our heads. On the face of it, the ban makes little sense. Sign up for CNN Opinion’s new newsletter.Join us on Twitter and Facebook One analysis painted this as a protectionist measure targeted at the heavily subsidized Middle Eastern airlines by hitting them where it hurts the most: high-paying business class travelers who need their laptops with them on planes to get work done. That reasoning makes more sense than any security-related explanation, but doesn’t explain why the British extended the ban to UK carriers as well. Or why this measure won’t backfire when those Middle Eastern countries turn around and ban laptops on American carriers in retaliation. And one aviation official told CNN that an intelligence official informed him it was not a “political move.” In the end, national security measures based on secret information require us to trust the government. That trust is at historic low levels right now, so people both in the US and other countries are rightly skeptical of the official unsatisfying explanations. The new laptop ban highlights this mistrust.


U.S. drone strikes are part of a larger strategy to provide direct military support to African peacekeepers Until now, most U.S. military actions in Somalia have focused on airstrikes or raids by special operations forces The Pentagon has quietly expanded its military operations in Somalia against Al-Shabaab militants in recent weeks. U.S. drone strikes are now part of a larger U.S. military strategy to provide direct military support to African peacekeepers – mainly Kenyans – under attack from Al-Shabaab, two U.S. defense officials told CNN. Drones, armed with Hellfire missiles, have been flying from a U.S. military site in Djibouti on the strike missions. Other drones conducting intelligence-gathering, surveillance and reconnaissance have been operating out of Ethiopia, according to one of the officials. The missions are specifically targeting militants in the field who are directly attacking or threatening African Union Mission in Somalia peacekeepers. AMISOM is staffed by troops from nearly a dozen countries, but the bulk come from Kenya and Ethiopia on a regular basis. Until now, most U.S. military actions in Somalia have focused on airstrikes or raids by special operations forces aimed at capturing or killing specific individuals linked to al Qaeda and other terrorist groups in the region. But in June, Al-Shabaab militants attacked and overran a peacekeeper base in southern Somalia. A spokesperson for the terror group claimed at the time that the group killed 50 soldiers. It was after that incident that the U.S. military mission to provide overhead protection began to take shape, the officials said. The U.S. assessment is that Al-Shabaab sees a potentially successful strategy in being able to attack and overrun specific targets. The U.S. strikes are aimed at preventing those types of attacks. In the last 10 days, the U.S. has conducted at least seven drone strikes, and more are expected. On July 14, the U.S. conducted a strike against Al-Shabaab militants to prevent what officials said was an imminent attack on Kenyan peacekeepers. Immediately after that drone strike, African forces on the ground conducted a barrage of artillery strikes leading to more than 50 militants being killed. U.S. intelligence analysts are also trying to confirm that one of the recent strikes killed two terrorists, Mohamed Kuno and Ismail Jabhad, said to be planners behind the April 2 attack on Kenya’s Garissa University that left nearly 150 dead, mostly students. Small numbers of U.S. special forces continue to operate inside Somalia, based mainly at the airport in Mogadishu to help with intelligence-sharing and the training of AMISOM forces. What is Al-Shabaab?


On the campaign trail in 2015 and 2016, Donald Trump railed against the Iraq War (never mind his support for the 2003 invasion), beat up on the Bush family political dynasty and, with three words that pulled together all that and more, promised to “drain the swamp” in Washington. A couple years on, the bog remains thick with the creatures Trump promised to drive out. He’s even introduced some new breeds. But there is nothing that Trump or his lieutenants have done that comes close, in sheer fetid swampiness, to pardoning the criminal former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, Lewis “Scooter” Libby, a move the White House made official on Friday. Americans have tragically short memories. For certain sorts of politicians, that can be a great gift. For Trump, it probably means the pardon will go down without much of a sustained uproar from even the liberal provinces. That’s thanks in part to the sizable number of Democrats who have come to regard Bush-era malfeasance and scandal as petty or low-stakes when held up against Trump’s behavior. Inside the Beltway, the real prospect of a Libby pardon – from when it was first reported on Thursday – immediately became a Rob Mueller-related parlor game. The big question: Was Trump considering the move as a way of signaling to Paul Manafort and others caught up in the special counsel investigation that he will reward them for keeping mum? “So what’s the message here?” former Bush White House ethics chief and ubiquitous Trump critic Richard Painter asked in a tweet. “Lie to a grand jury to protect political superiors and you will get a full pardon?” Maybe so. That Trump would send up a flare to his old allies, some of them already cooperating with Mueller, makes some tactical sense. He’s also expressed sympathy in the past for Libby, telling CNN’s Wolf Blitzer in 2007 that Cheney’s man “probably took a bullet for the administration.” But again, that’s all speculation – and, for now at least – beside the point. What we know for sure – because his conviction capped off a years-long scandal – is that Libby was found guilty in 2007 of obstruction of justice, twice perjuring himself before a grand jury, and lying to FBI agents during their probe into who leaked the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame in 2003, shortly after the Iraq War began. That summer, Plame’s husband, the former diplomat Joe Wilson, accused the administration in a New York Times op-ed that summer of twisting “intelligence related to Iraq’s nuclear weapons program … to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.” Concluding that Cheney’s office had dismissed evidence, turned up by Wilson, that dented the case for invading Iraq, Wilson concluded his piece by writing: “The act of war is the last option of a democracy, taken when there is a grave threat to our national security. More than 200 American soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq already. We have a duty to ensure that their sacrifice came for the right reasons.” Fifteen years on, nearly 5,000 US service members are among the Iraq War dead. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were killed. The violence continues to this day, most notably as part of the fight to permanently uproot ISIS. Libby was one of the leading proponents of the war. President George W. Bush spared him from serving prison time, commuting a 30-month sentence, deeming it “excessive.” From there, a long campaign – spearheaded by Libby’s powerful friends in Washington’s permanent ruling class – began its work. Among the more vocal Libby defenders, according to The New York Times, is new Trump national security adviser John Bolton. Hours after word came down on Friday, a spokesman for Bush said of the pardon, “President Bush is very pleased for Scooter and his family.” In its own statement, the Trump White House set out its reasoning, then offered this instructive coda – emphasis mine. “Before his conviction, Mr. Libby had rendered more than a decade of honorable service to the Nation as a public servant at the Department of State, the Department of Defense, and the White House. His record since his conviction is similarly unblemished, and he continues to be held in high regard by his colleagues and peers.” On this latter point, there should be no doubt. They’ll be partying in the swamp tonight.