A Korean janitor who found seven gold bars worth $325,000 in the trash could be allowed to keep them
The unidentified male cleaner found the thrown away gold bars at Incheon International Airport on Thursday, according to local media reports.
The owner of the bullion is a Korean man, according to Yonhap News Agency, and two other men ditched the bars out of fear of being searched at customs.
Ryan Browne | @Ryan_Browne_
Published 6:39 AM ET Thu, 3 May 2018 Updated 10:46 PM ET Thu, 3 May 2018
CNBC.com
Gold bars on display in Tokyo on September 27, 2010.
Yoshikazu Tsuno | AFP | Getty Images
Gold bars on display in Tokyo on September 27, 2010.
A janitor in South Korea who discovered seven gold bars in a garbage bin could keep them if no-one else claims ownership.
The unidentified male cleaner found the discarded gold bars, that each weighed 1 kilogram and were wrapped in newspaper, at Seoul's Incheon International Airport on Thursday, according to local media reports. Altogether, the bars are worth 350 million won ($325,000).
The owner of the bullion is a Korean man, according to Seoul-based Yonhap News Agency, and two other men ditched the bars at the request of the owner out of fear of being searched at customs.
According to Yonhap, police said that the men were traveling from Hong Kong to Japan, and went through South Korea in the belief that it would be easier to bypass customs searches.
Whether the owner makes a claim for the discarded gold or not, the janitor will still be able to keep 5 to 20 percent of its market price, amounting to between 17.5 million won ($16,250) and 70 million won ($65,000), in accordance with South Korean law, The Korea Times reported. But he could also lose it all if the items are found to be tainted or linked to criminal activity.
Correction: This report has been updated to reflect a proper conversion of 350 million won into U.S. dollars.
Saturday, June 30, 2018
Canada 'will not back down' over US metals tariffs - BBC News
Canada 'will not back down' over US metals tariffs
29 June 2018
Canada will "not back down" in the face of new US tariffs on steel and aluminium, according to the country's foreign minister.
Chrystia Freeland spoke as officials unveiled a C$2bn (US$1.5bn; £1.15bn) package to support the country's steel and aluminium industries.
Retaliatory tariffs on C$16.6bn worth of US products are due to come into effect on 1 July.
Ms Freeland said US tariffs left Canada "no choice" but to respond.
Canada's tariffs target US steel and aluminium products.
It also includes items such as yoghurt, ketchup and orange juice, which are made in key political battlegrounds such as Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Florida.
Where does Trump's 'America First' leave Canada?
G7 summit: Trump's Trudeau jibes bring Canadians and Americans together
The list of products is intended to match "dollar for dollar" the US tariffs, which came into effect on 1 June, Ms Freeland said.
"Our approach is we will not escalate but equally we will not back down," she said.
'Too much at stake'
The US and Canada are among each other's top trade partners, exchanging nearly US$700bn in goods and services last year.
But trade relations between the two countries have grown tense, amid disputes over issues such as lumber, dairy and wine.
Dairy wars: Why is Trump threatening Canada over milk?
The two countries, with Mexico, are also locked in negotiations over the North American Free Trade Agreement.
In May, when the US said it would not extend exemptions from the tariffs to Canada and Mexico, it said those talks were moving too slowly.
Ms Freeland said the discussions continue and will heat up again after the Mexican election on Sunday. She said she is confident that "common sense" will prevail.
"There's too much at stake," she said.
'A good first step'
The US is the top foreign market for Canada's steel and aluminium, while Canada is the destination for more than half of US steel exports.
In Canada, the steel and aluminium industries employ more than 33,500 people, according to the government.
About 6,000 jobs in Canada are at risk due to the US tariffs, the CD Howe Institute has estimated.
President Donald Trump has complained about Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on Twitter
Ken Neumann, director in Canada for the United Steelworkers union, said the aid package, which includes loan assistance, should help companies, but the support for workers is more "modest".
The package "a good first step that will need to be expanded if the trade dispute continues beyond the short-term", he said.
The US is also exposed to thousands of potential job losses, as higher costs for steel and aluminium hurt US firms and trigger retaliation from Canada and elsewhere.
In addition to Canada, the European Union and Mexico are among those that have announced tariffs on US goods in response.
US tariffs: Allies retaliate with levies on jam, lamps and sleeping bags
Who is losing out from Trump's tariffs?
The Trump administration has said the tariffs are necessary to protect the steel and aluminium industries, arguing that their success is vital to America's national security.
Several countries, including Canada, are challenging that rationale with complaints against the US to the World Trade Organisation (WTO).
29 June 2018
Canada will "not back down" in the face of new US tariffs on steel and aluminium, according to the country's foreign minister.
Chrystia Freeland spoke as officials unveiled a C$2bn (US$1.5bn; £1.15bn) package to support the country's steel and aluminium industries.
Retaliatory tariffs on C$16.6bn worth of US products are due to come into effect on 1 July.
Ms Freeland said US tariffs left Canada "no choice" but to respond.
Canada's tariffs target US steel and aluminium products.
It also includes items such as yoghurt, ketchup and orange juice, which are made in key political battlegrounds such as Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Florida.
Where does Trump's 'America First' leave Canada?
G7 summit: Trump's Trudeau jibes bring Canadians and Americans together
The list of products is intended to match "dollar for dollar" the US tariffs, which came into effect on 1 June, Ms Freeland said.
"Our approach is we will not escalate but equally we will not back down," she said.
'Too much at stake'
The US and Canada are among each other's top trade partners, exchanging nearly US$700bn in goods and services last year.
But trade relations between the two countries have grown tense, amid disputes over issues such as lumber, dairy and wine.
Dairy wars: Why is Trump threatening Canada over milk?
The two countries, with Mexico, are also locked in negotiations over the North American Free Trade Agreement.
In May, when the US said it would not extend exemptions from the tariffs to Canada and Mexico, it said those talks were moving too slowly.
Ms Freeland said the discussions continue and will heat up again after the Mexican election on Sunday. She said she is confident that "common sense" will prevail.
"There's too much at stake," she said.
'A good first step'
The US is the top foreign market for Canada's steel and aluminium, while Canada is the destination for more than half of US steel exports.
In Canada, the steel and aluminium industries employ more than 33,500 people, according to the government.
About 6,000 jobs in Canada are at risk due to the US tariffs, the CD Howe Institute has estimated.
President Donald Trump has complained about Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on Twitter
Ken Neumann, director in Canada for the United Steelworkers union, said the aid package, which includes loan assistance, should help companies, but the support for workers is more "modest".
The package "a good first step that will need to be expanded if the trade dispute continues beyond the short-term", he said.
The US is also exposed to thousands of potential job losses, as higher costs for steel and aluminium hurt US firms and trigger retaliation from Canada and elsewhere.
In addition to Canada, the European Union and Mexico are among those that have announced tariffs on US goods in response.
US tariffs: Allies retaliate with levies on jam, lamps and sleeping bags
Who is losing out from Trump's tariffs?
The Trump administration has said the tariffs are necessary to protect the steel and aluminium industries, arguing that their success is vital to America's national security.
Several countries, including Canada, are challenging that rationale with complaints against the US to the World Trade Organisation (WTO).
Donald Trump gets prank call on Air Force One - BBC News
June 30, 2018
Donald Trump gets prank call on Air Force One
President Trump spoke to a prank comedian while on board Air Force One
US President Donald Trump was fooled by a comedian into taking a prank call while on board Air Force One.
Comedian John Melendez posed as Senator Bob Menendez. He says he spoke to the president's son-in-law Jared Kushner and received a call back from Mr Trump.
Mr Melendez said he claimed to be Senator Menendez and a fake assistant.
"Sometimes the [President's] channels are open too widely and mistakes like this happen," a White House official told CNN.
Senator Menendez is a Democratic senator from New Jersey and a long-time campaigner for immigration reform.
The US government has come under fire in recent weeks over its policy of separating migrant children from their parents at the border with Mexico.
Mr Melendez, who goes by the stage name Stuttering John, recorded his conversations with the US president and uploaded on his podcast.
On the recording, the voice that is purportedly Mr Trump congratulates Mr Menendez for his 2017 acquittal in a bribery case.
He was accused of accepting gifts from a Florida eye doctor in exchange for political influence.
The two voices on Mr Melendez's podcast recording also talked about the Supreme Court vacancy following Anthony Kennedy's decision to step down next month.
The voice said to be Mr Trump says he will nominate a new judge to the Supreme Court in "10 to 14 days".
Trump narrows down Supreme Court candidates
Why is the US Supreme Court so important?
When the White House made inquiries with Mr Menendez's office about the conversation Mr Trump thought he had with him on Thursday, the senator's staff were befuddled, US media report.
The prank caller said that his plan could have easily gone wrong.
"All they had to ask me is what party affiliation is Senator Menendez, or what state is he a senator of, and I would not have known. But they didn't ask me any of this," Mr Melendez told CNN.
Donald Trump gets prank call on Air Force One
President Trump spoke to a prank comedian while on board Air Force One
US President Donald Trump was fooled by a comedian into taking a prank call while on board Air Force One.
Comedian John Melendez posed as Senator Bob Menendez. He says he spoke to the president's son-in-law Jared Kushner and received a call back from Mr Trump.
Mr Melendez said he claimed to be Senator Menendez and a fake assistant.
"Sometimes the [President's] channels are open too widely and mistakes like this happen," a White House official told CNN.
Senator Menendez is a Democratic senator from New Jersey and a long-time campaigner for immigration reform.
The US government has come under fire in recent weeks over its policy of separating migrant children from their parents at the border with Mexico.
Mr Melendez, who goes by the stage name Stuttering John, recorded his conversations with the US president and uploaded on his podcast.
On the recording, the voice that is purportedly Mr Trump congratulates Mr Menendez for his 2017 acquittal in a bribery case.
He was accused of accepting gifts from a Florida eye doctor in exchange for political influence.
The two voices on Mr Melendez's podcast recording also talked about the Supreme Court vacancy following Anthony Kennedy's decision to step down next month.
The voice said to be Mr Trump says he will nominate a new judge to the Supreme Court in "10 to 14 days".
Trump narrows down Supreme Court candidates
Why is the US Supreme Court so important?
When the White House made inquiries with Mr Menendez's office about the conversation Mr Trump thought he had with him on Thursday, the senator's staff were befuddled, US media report.
The prank caller said that his plan could have easily gone wrong.
"All they had to ask me is what party affiliation is Senator Menendez, or what state is he a senator of, and I would not have known. But they didn't ask me any of this," Mr Melendez told CNN.
US ambassador to Estonia resigns 'over Trump comments' - BBC News
June 30, 2018
US ambassador to Estonia resigns 'over Trump comments'
James D Melville is a career diplomat who has held senior posts in several European countries
The US ambassador to Estonia is resigning, reportedly in frustration at remarks made by President Donald Trump about America's European allies.
James D Melville revealed in a Facebook post that Mr Trump's comments had brought forward his decision to retire, Foreign Policy magazine reported.
The US president has imposed trade tariffs on some EU industries and strongly criticised Nato allies.
Other US diplomats have also left their posts early in recent months.
In January, US ambassador to Panama John Feeley resigned saying he was no longer able to serve under President Trump.
A month earlier, Elizabeth Shackelford resigned from her post in Nairobi where she worked for the US mission to Somalia.
In her letter of resignation to then Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, she said she was quitting because the US had abandoned human rights as a priority, Foreign Policy reported.
US tariffs a dangerous game, says EU
Trump lashes out at key US allies
In the private Facebook post seen by Foreign Policy, Mr Melville reportedly told friends: "For the president to say the EU was 'set up to take advantage of the United States, to attack our piggy bank', or that 'Nato is as bad as Nafta [the North American Free Trade Agreement]' is not only factually wrong, but proves to me that it's time to go."
Mr Melville is a career diplomat and took up his position as ambassador in Estonia in 2015 after being nominated by then President Barack Obama.
He had previously held senior diplomatic posts in several European countries and speaks Russian, German and French, according to his biography on the US State Department website.
A State Department spokesperson confirmed Mr Melville's departure on Friday, saying: "Earlier today, the United States' Ambassador to Estonia, Jim Melville, announced his intent to retire from the Foreign Service effective July 29 after 33 years of public service."
President Trump reiterated his criticism of fellow Nato members on Friday while on a flight from Washington to his private golf club in New Jersey.
He told reporters on board Air Force One that countries including Germany, Spain and France had to increase their financial contributions to the bloc.
"It's not fair what they've done to the United States," he said. "The United States is paying much more disproportionately to anyone else."
His remarks come less than two weeks before a Nato summit in Brussels.
US ambassador to Estonia resigns 'over Trump comments'
James D Melville is a career diplomat who has held senior posts in several European countries
The US ambassador to Estonia is resigning, reportedly in frustration at remarks made by President Donald Trump about America's European allies.
James D Melville revealed in a Facebook post that Mr Trump's comments had brought forward his decision to retire, Foreign Policy magazine reported.
The US president has imposed trade tariffs on some EU industries and strongly criticised Nato allies.
Other US diplomats have also left their posts early in recent months.
In January, US ambassador to Panama John Feeley resigned saying he was no longer able to serve under President Trump.
A month earlier, Elizabeth Shackelford resigned from her post in Nairobi where she worked for the US mission to Somalia.
In her letter of resignation to then Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, she said she was quitting because the US had abandoned human rights as a priority, Foreign Policy reported.
US tariffs a dangerous game, says EU
Trump lashes out at key US allies
In the private Facebook post seen by Foreign Policy, Mr Melville reportedly told friends: "For the president to say the EU was 'set up to take advantage of the United States, to attack our piggy bank', or that 'Nato is as bad as Nafta [the North American Free Trade Agreement]' is not only factually wrong, but proves to me that it's time to go."
Mr Melville is a career diplomat and took up his position as ambassador in Estonia in 2015 after being nominated by then President Barack Obama.
He had previously held senior diplomatic posts in several European countries and speaks Russian, German and French, according to his biography on the US State Department website.
A State Department spokesperson confirmed Mr Melville's departure on Friday, saying: "Earlier today, the United States' Ambassador to Estonia, Jim Melville, announced his intent to retire from the Foreign Service effective July 29 after 33 years of public service."
President Trump reiterated his criticism of fellow Nato members on Friday while on a flight from Washington to his private golf club in New Jersey.
He told reporters on board Air Force One that countries including Germany, Spain and France had to increase their financial contributions to the bloc.
"It's not fair what they've done to the United States," he said. "The United States is paying much more disproportionately to anyone else."
His remarks come less than two weeks before a Nato summit in Brussels.
Political War Over Replacing Kennedy on Supreme Court Is Underway - New York Times
Political War Over Replacing Kennedy on Supreme Court Is Underway
The Supreme Court building in Washington. A battle for the future of the court is underway after Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s announcement on Wednesday that he will retire.CreditErin Schaff for The New York Times
By Michael D. Shear and Thomas Kaplan
June 28, 2018
WASHINGTON — A political war over replacing Justice Anthony M. Kennedy roared to life on Thursday in Washington, the start of an election-season clash over a Supreme Court retirement that will reshape the country’s judicial future.
Hours after Justice Kennedy’s announcement on Wednesday that he will step down July 31, conservative organizations were mobilizing to support the Republican-controlled Senate in a quick confirmation of a justice who would be expected to vote against the court’s liberal precedents. One group, the Judicial Crisis Network, has already started a $1 million ad campaign urging people to support the president’s choice.
Democrats and liberal advocacy organizations face enormous challenges if they hope to prevent President Trump and the Republicans from installing a conservative justice who would shift the ideological balance of the court for generations. Mr. Trump has promised to pick from a list of highly conservative jurists, and Republicans control the Senate, which can confirm the president’s choice by a simple majority.
Mr. Trump began wooing senators late Thursday night, meeting at the White House separately with three Republicans and with the three Democrats — Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Manchin III of West Virginia — who broke party ranks last year and voted to confirm Judge Neil M. Gorsuch, the president’s first Supreme Court pick.
After the meeting, Ms. Heitkamp said in a statement that she urged the president to appoint someone who is “pragmatic, fair, compassionate, committed to justice, and above politics.”
But the effect of Justice Kennedy’s departure has already ignited opposition from many Democratic lawmakers, party strategists and liberal activists, who vowed a fierce battle to try to preserve decades of liberal court precedents on abortion, civil rights, gay rights, affirmative action and the death penalty.
“I think it has sunk in very quickly that this is the biggest fight of them all,” said Brian Fallon, a veteran Democratic operative whose organization, Demand Justice, is leading the charge against Mr. Trump’s pick. “If we don’t succeed in this fight, Trumpism will be here for 40 years, not just four years.”
Democratic strategists say the party needs to model its resistance to the successful fight Democratic senators waged in 1987 against Judge Robert H. Bork, President Ronald Reagan’s pick for the Supreme Court. After they defeated Judge Bork, Mr. Reagan eventually settled on Justice Kennedy, who was seen as a more moderate choice.
If they can mobilize Democrats and liberals, lawmakers say they hope to demand a more moderate justice from the current president, as well.
“There are people who have had to withdraw over the years because you get information out and you question them and the public is focused on it and galvanized by it,” said Senator Amy Klobuchar, Democrat of Minnesota and a member of the Judiciary Committee.
Demand Justice has begun running online ads against three of Mr. Trump’s possible picks and expects to spend more than $1 million on television ads once the president selects a nominee.
One ad targets Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who is on the president’s list of possible justices, for saying that the Affordable Care Act should have been held unconstitutional. Another ad is aimed at Judge Brett Kavanaugh, another possible pick, for saying that a president should be able to “decide whether and when he can be investigated.”
Democrats say they will focus on two main issues, abortion and health care. Mr. Fallon, who worked for President Barack Obama and was a top spokesman for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, said the challenge will be convincing people that a Trump justice poses a threat to both issues.
“We have to do the work and spend the money to communicate the consequences of what a 5-4 court with a newly installed justice looks like,” Mr. Fallon said.
Democratic lawmakers gathered on the steps of the Supreme Court Thursday morning, flanked by members of progressive groups, to declare their opposition to all of the potential candidates on Mr. Trump’s public list of 25 possible jurists.
Video
Senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, both moderate Republicans who favor abortion rights, are facing pressure from liberal activists to defend Roe v. Wade in the impending confirmation battle over President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee.Published OnJune 28, 2018CreditImage by Tom Brenner/The New York Times
At the Capitol, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House Democratic leader, warned of the high stakes in filling the vacancy.
“Make no mistake: Republicans now have the opportunity to erase a generation of progress for women’s rights, L.G.B.T.Q. rights, civil rights, workers’ rights and health care,” Ms. Pelosi declared.
Strategists say Democrats must demand that Mr. Trump’s pick for the court affirmatively say whether he or she would uphold Roe v. Wade, the landmark case establishing a right to abortion. Saying that it is “settled law,” as some conservatives concede, is not enough, the strategists say.
Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, has vowed to move swiftly once Mr. Trump announces his choice, but Democratic lawmakers are demanding that a replacement for Justice Kennedy not be confirmed until after the midterm elections in the fall. They argue that voters should be given the opportunity to select the members of Congress they want to vote on the vital selection.
Democrats have angrily pointed out that Republicans, led by Mr. McConnell, used exactly that argument in 2016, before the presidential election, as they blocked Judge Merrick B. Garland, President Barack Obama’s pick to fill the seat left vacant after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.
With Kennedy’s Retirement, the Supreme Court Loses Its Center
The swing vote in many decisions, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy shifted toward more conservative opinions in the final months of his 30-year justice tenure.
June 27, 2018
On Thursday Mr. McConnell defended his decision to move forward with filling the vacancy this year.
“This is not 2016,” he said on the Senate floor. “There aren’t the final months of a second-term constitutionally lame-duck presidency with a presidential election fast approaching. We’re right in the middle of this president’s very first term.”
Mr. McConnell pointed to the Supreme Court confirmations of Justices Elena Kagan in 2010, Stephen G. Breyer in 1994 and David H. Souter in 1990 — all midterm election years in a president’s first term.
“To my knowledge, nobody on either side has ever suggested before yesterday that the Senate should only process Supreme Court nominations in odd-numbered years,” Mr. McConnell said.
Chad Griffin, the president of the Human Rights Campaign, said that “the 2018 midterm elections just became the most consequential election of our lifetime.”
“We must keep organizing, mobilizing and holding lawmakers to account every single day — and then we need turn out like never before this November,” he said.
Conservatives in Charge, the Supreme Court Moved Right
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s last Supreme Court term contained hints of his retirement and foreshadowed a lasting rightward shift.
June 28, 2018
Senator Tim Kaine, Democrat of Virginia, echoed that message in an email to his supporters seeking signatures on a petition.
“We should not vote on a new Supreme Court Justice before the American people vote in November,” Mr. Kaine wrote. “Sign my petition if you agree: No Supreme Court vote until the American people vote.”
There is little chance of that happening, given that Mr. Trump and his allies in Congress want to make sure to act on the court vacancy before the fall elections, when Democrats could regain control of the Senate.
To that end, conservative organizations are planning campaigns to support a speedy confirmation.
“Concerned Women for America is gearing up for our biggest and perhaps most important confirmation battle in our almost 40-year history,” said Penny Nance, the group’s president. “We plan to devote considerable resources to this effort, and we expect to win. Our happy warrior/activist ladies relish the fight and shine in these historic moments.”
Carrie Severino, the chief counsel and policy director of the Judicial Crisis Network, said her organization is already running ads targeting Democratic senators in states where Mr. Trump won during the presidential election.
One ad says: “Like they did before, extremists will lie and attack the nominee. But don’t be fooled. President Trump’s list includes the best of the best.”
Ms. Severino said that she expects liberals to aggressively criticize the president’s pick for the court, no matter who that person is.
“It’s the war on women. Or this person hates the little guy,” she said. “Without even knowing the nominee, we know the directions they will go. Some of these scaremongering tactics have been used since Reagan’s appointees. We are expecting that and we are absolutely prepared.”
Carl Hulse and Sheryl Gay Stolberg contributed reporting.
The Supreme Court building in Washington. A battle for the future of the court is underway after Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s announcement on Wednesday that he will retire.CreditErin Schaff for The New York Times
By Michael D. Shear and Thomas Kaplan
June 28, 2018
WASHINGTON — A political war over replacing Justice Anthony M. Kennedy roared to life on Thursday in Washington, the start of an election-season clash over a Supreme Court retirement that will reshape the country’s judicial future.
Hours after Justice Kennedy’s announcement on Wednesday that he will step down July 31, conservative organizations were mobilizing to support the Republican-controlled Senate in a quick confirmation of a justice who would be expected to vote against the court’s liberal precedents. One group, the Judicial Crisis Network, has already started a $1 million ad campaign urging people to support the president’s choice.
Democrats and liberal advocacy organizations face enormous challenges if they hope to prevent President Trump and the Republicans from installing a conservative justice who would shift the ideological balance of the court for generations. Mr. Trump has promised to pick from a list of highly conservative jurists, and Republicans control the Senate, which can confirm the president’s choice by a simple majority.
Mr. Trump began wooing senators late Thursday night, meeting at the White House separately with three Republicans and with the three Democrats — Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Manchin III of West Virginia — who broke party ranks last year and voted to confirm Judge Neil M. Gorsuch, the president’s first Supreme Court pick.
After the meeting, Ms. Heitkamp said in a statement that she urged the president to appoint someone who is “pragmatic, fair, compassionate, committed to justice, and above politics.”
But the effect of Justice Kennedy’s departure has already ignited opposition from many Democratic lawmakers, party strategists and liberal activists, who vowed a fierce battle to try to preserve decades of liberal court precedents on abortion, civil rights, gay rights, affirmative action and the death penalty.
“I think it has sunk in very quickly that this is the biggest fight of them all,” said Brian Fallon, a veteran Democratic operative whose organization, Demand Justice, is leading the charge against Mr. Trump’s pick. “If we don’t succeed in this fight, Trumpism will be here for 40 years, not just four years.”
Democratic strategists say the party needs to model its resistance to the successful fight Democratic senators waged in 1987 against Judge Robert H. Bork, President Ronald Reagan’s pick for the Supreme Court. After they defeated Judge Bork, Mr. Reagan eventually settled on Justice Kennedy, who was seen as a more moderate choice.
If they can mobilize Democrats and liberals, lawmakers say they hope to demand a more moderate justice from the current president, as well.
“There are people who have had to withdraw over the years because you get information out and you question them and the public is focused on it and galvanized by it,” said Senator Amy Klobuchar, Democrat of Minnesota and a member of the Judiciary Committee.
Demand Justice has begun running online ads against three of Mr. Trump’s possible picks and expects to spend more than $1 million on television ads once the president selects a nominee.
One ad targets Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who is on the president’s list of possible justices, for saying that the Affordable Care Act should have been held unconstitutional. Another ad is aimed at Judge Brett Kavanaugh, another possible pick, for saying that a president should be able to “decide whether and when he can be investigated.”
Democrats say they will focus on two main issues, abortion and health care. Mr. Fallon, who worked for President Barack Obama and was a top spokesman for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, said the challenge will be convincing people that a Trump justice poses a threat to both issues.
“We have to do the work and spend the money to communicate the consequences of what a 5-4 court with a newly installed justice looks like,” Mr. Fallon said.
Democratic lawmakers gathered on the steps of the Supreme Court Thursday morning, flanked by members of progressive groups, to declare their opposition to all of the potential candidates on Mr. Trump’s public list of 25 possible jurists.
Video
Senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, both moderate Republicans who favor abortion rights, are facing pressure from liberal activists to defend Roe v. Wade in the impending confirmation battle over President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee.Published OnJune 28, 2018CreditImage by Tom Brenner/The New York Times
At the Capitol, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House Democratic leader, warned of the high stakes in filling the vacancy.
“Make no mistake: Republicans now have the opportunity to erase a generation of progress for women’s rights, L.G.B.T.Q. rights, civil rights, workers’ rights and health care,” Ms. Pelosi declared.
Strategists say Democrats must demand that Mr. Trump’s pick for the court affirmatively say whether he or she would uphold Roe v. Wade, the landmark case establishing a right to abortion. Saying that it is “settled law,” as some conservatives concede, is not enough, the strategists say.
Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, has vowed to move swiftly once Mr. Trump announces his choice, but Democratic lawmakers are demanding that a replacement for Justice Kennedy not be confirmed until after the midterm elections in the fall. They argue that voters should be given the opportunity to select the members of Congress they want to vote on the vital selection.
Democrats have angrily pointed out that Republicans, led by Mr. McConnell, used exactly that argument in 2016, before the presidential election, as they blocked Judge Merrick B. Garland, President Barack Obama’s pick to fill the seat left vacant after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.
With Kennedy’s Retirement, the Supreme Court Loses Its Center
The swing vote in many decisions, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy shifted toward more conservative opinions in the final months of his 30-year justice tenure.
June 27, 2018
On Thursday Mr. McConnell defended his decision to move forward with filling the vacancy this year.
“This is not 2016,” he said on the Senate floor. “There aren’t the final months of a second-term constitutionally lame-duck presidency with a presidential election fast approaching. We’re right in the middle of this president’s very first term.”
Mr. McConnell pointed to the Supreme Court confirmations of Justices Elena Kagan in 2010, Stephen G. Breyer in 1994 and David H. Souter in 1990 — all midterm election years in a president’s first term.
“To my knowledge, nobody on either side has ever suggested before yesterday that the Senate should only process Supreme Court nominations in odd-numbered years,” Mr. McConnell said.
Chad Griffin, the president of the Human Rights Campaign, said that “the 2018 midterm elections just became the most consequential election of our lifetime.”
“We must keep organizing, mobilizing and holding lawmakers to account every single day — and then we need turn out like never before this November,” he said.
Conservatives in Charge, the Supreme Court Moved Right
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s last Supreme Court term contained hints of his retirement and foreshadowed a lasting rightward shift.
June 28, 2018
Senator Tim Kaine, Democrat of Virginia, echoed that message in an email to his supporters seeking signatures on a petition.
“We should not vote on a new Supreme Court Justice before the American people vote in November,” Mr. Kaine wrote. “Sign my petition if you agree: No Supreme Court vote until the American people vote.”
There is little chance of that happening, given that Mr. Trump and his allies in Congress want to make sure to act on the court vacancy before the fall elections, when Democrats could regain control of the Senate.
To that end, conservative organizations are planning campaigns to support a speedy confirmation.
“Concerned Women for America is gearing up for our biggest and perhaps most important confirmation battle in our almost 40-year history,” said Penny Nance, the group’s president. “We plan to devote considerable resources to this effort, and we expect to win. Our happy warrior/activist ladies relish the fight and shine in these historic moments.”
Carrie Severino, the chief counsel and policy director of the Judicial Crisis Network, said her organization is already running ads targeting Democratic senators in states where Mr. Trump won during the presidential election.
One ad says: “Like they did before, extremists will lie and attack the nominee. But don’t be fooled. President Trump’s list includes the best of the best.”
Ms. Severino said that she expects liberals to aggressively criticize the president’s pick for the court, no matter who that person is.
“It’s the war on women. Or this person hates the little guy,” she said. “Without even knowing the nominee, we know the directions they will go. Some of these scaremongering tactics have been used since Reagan’s appointees. We are expecting that and we are absolutely prepared.”
Carl Hulse and Sheryl Gay Stolberg contributed reporting.
Supreme Court: Trump to name nominee on 9 July - BBC News
June 30, 2018
Supreme Court: Trump to name nominee on 9 July
President Trump spoke to journalists during a flight to his private golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey
US President Donald Trump says he plans to announce his nominee for a new Supreme Court judge on 9 July.
He told reporters on board the presidential aircraft Air Force One he had narrowed the choice down to "about five" candidates, including two women.
The vacancy arose when Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement earlier this week.
It gives President Trump the opportunity to solidify a conservative majority on the top court.
His nominee will need to be confirmed by the Senate where the president's Republican Party holds a narrow majority.
In other comments to reporters on Friday, Mr Trump:
Said he would discuss allegations of election tampering when he met Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki next month
Called on Germany and other European nations to spend more on Nato, adding: "The United States is paying much more, disproportionately to anyone else"
Said the World Trade Organization (WTO) had treated the US "very badly" but insisted he was "not talking about pulling out"
'I like them all'
Speaking on a flight from Washington to New Jersey on Friday, President Trump said he would not ask Supreme Court candidates about their position on the landmark 1973 Roe v Wade decision which legalised abortion across the US.
During his campaign, Mr Trump promised to deliver "pro-life" judges to the Supreme Court - a prospect that has alarmed women's rights groups.
Women fear abortion rights under threat
Analysis: Why a fight over US abortion law looms
Why is the US Supreme Court so important?
"I've got it narrowed to about five [candidates]," he told reporters, adding: "I like them all."
Mr Trump said he planned to interview one or two of the candidates over the weekend while staying at his golf club in Bedminster.
Justice Kennedy, 81, is the second-oldest justice on the nine-member US Supreme Court.
The court plays a key role in US society and is often the final word on highly contentious laws, disputes between states and the federal government, and final appeals to stay executions.
In recent years it has expanded gay marriage to all 50 states, stopped President Barack Obama's immigration orders and delayed a US plan to cut carbon emissions while appeals went forward.
Justice Anthony Kennedy will retire on 31 July
Although a conservative, Justice Kennedy has sided with liberals on previous decisions, including the 5-4 rulings that decided same-sex marriage and upheld abortion rights.
US media have reported several front runners who could replace him:
Brett Kavanaugh, who is at the top of most lists, is an appeals court judge in Washington DC and was a former clerk to Justice Kennedy
Amul Thapar, a Kentucky judge handpicked by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Amy Comey Barrett, a former professor at Catholic university Notre Dame, are both likely nominees
Raymond Kethledge, a judge on the 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals and also a former clerk to Justice Kennedy, is another possible contender.
Meet the Supremes - the nine judges on US top court
Putin summit agenda
In other remarks to reporters, President Trump said he would raise the issue of alleged Russian election meddling when he met President Putin in Finland on 16 July.
"We'll be talking about elections... we don't want anybody tampering with elections," he said.
US intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia tried to sway the 2016 US election in Mr Trump's favour, a claim the Kremlin has consistently denied.
US punishes Russians over vote meddling
All you need to know about Trump Russia story
Russia's annexation of Crimea from Ukraine in 2014, which led to US and EU sanctions, and the war in Syria, would also be discussed, Mr Trump confirmed.
A short guide to the Syrian civil war
He refused to rule out accepting the annexation when he met Mr Putin, saying: "We're going to have to see."
When asked whether US sanctions on Russia might be lifted, he said: "We'll see what Russia does."
Supreme Court: Trump to name nominee on 9 July
President Trump spoke to journalists during a flight to his private golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey
US President Donald Trump says he plans to announce his nominee for a new Supreme Court judge on 9 July.
He told reporters on board the presidential aircraft Air Force One he had narrowed the choice down to "about five" candidates, including two women.
The vacancy arose when Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement earlier this week.
It gives President Trump the opportunity to solidify a conservative majority on the top court.
His nominee will need to be confirmed by the Senate where the president's Republican Party holds a narrow majority.
In other comments to reporters on Friday, Mr Trump:
Said he would discuss allegations of election tampering when he met Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki next month
Called on Germany and other European nations to spend more on Nato, adding: "The United States is paying much more, disproportionately to anyone else"
Said the World Trade Organization (WTO) had treated the US "very badly" but insisted he was "not talking about pulling out"
'I like them all'
Speaking on a flight from Washington to New Jersey on Friday, President Trump said he would not ask Supreme Court candidates about their position on the landmark 1973 Roe v Wade decision which legalised abortion across the US.
During his campaign, Mr Trump promised to deliver "pro-life" judges to the Supreme Court - a prospect that has alarmed women's rights groups.
Women fear abortion rights under threat
Analysis: Why a fight over US abortion law looms
Why is the US Supreme Court so important?
"I've got it narrowed to about five [candidates]," he told reporters, adding: "I like them all."
Mr Trump said he planned to interview one or two of the candidates over the weekend while staying at his golf club in Bedminster.
Justice Kennedy, 81, is the second-oldest justice on the nine-member US Supreme Court.
The court plays a key role in US society and is often the final word on highly contentious laws, disputes between states and the federal government, and final appeals to stay executions.
In recent years it has expanded gay marriage to all 50 states, stopped President Barack Obama's immigration orders and delayed a US plan to cut carbon emissions while appeals went forward.
Justice Anthony Kennedy will retire on 31 July
Although a conservative, Justice Kennedy has sided with liberals on previous decisions, including the 5-4 rulings that decided same-sex marriage and upheld abortion rights.
US media have reported several front runners who could replace him:
Brett Kavanaugh, who is at the top of most lists, is an appeals court judge in Washington DC and was a former clerk to Justice Kennedy
Amul Thapar, a Kentucky judge handpicked by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Amy Comey Barrett, a former professor at Catholic university Notre Dame, are both likely nominees
Raymond Kethledge, a judge on the 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals and also a former clerk to Justice Kennedy, is another possible contender.
Meet the Supremes - the nine judges on US top court
Putin summit agenda
In other remarks to reporters, President Trump said he would raise the issue of alleged Russian election meddling when he met President Putin in Finland on 16 July.
"We'll be talking about elections... we don't want anybody tampering with elections," he said.
US intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia tried to sway the 2016 US election in Mr Trump's favour, a claim the Kremlin has consistently denied.
US punishes Russians over vote meddling
All you need to know about Trump Russia story
Russia's annexation of Crimea from Ukraine in 2014, which led to US and EU sanctions, and the war in Syria, would also be discussed, Mr Trump confirmed.
A short guide to the Syrian civil war
He refused to rule out accepting the annexation when he met Mr Putin, saying: "We're going to have to see."
When asked whether US sanctions on Russia might be lifted, he said: "We'll see what Russia does."
Friday, June 29, 2018
11 quotes from US politicians who are not fans of socialism - Independent
11 quotes from US politicians who are not fans of socialism
Posted on June 27, 2018 by Greg Evans in news
UPVOTE
Tuesday saw one of the most surprising political results in American history as 28-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez defeated veteran Democrat Joe Crowley in the party's congressional primary in New York City.
Ms Ocasio-Cortez, who is of Puerto Rican descent, is a former Bernie Sanders volunteer and describes herself as a socialist Democrat. She was also the first person from the part to challenge Crowley in 14 years.
She received a huge amount of support from the ethnic minority districts in the Bronx and Queens, receiving 42.5 per cent of the vote from that particular demographic, winning with an overall 57.5 per cent of the vote.
According to BBC News, Crowley had been tipped as a potential leader for the Democrats in the future, or even Speaker of the House, but now he'll have to look on as his younger successor will now face Republican Anthony Pappas in the November mid-terms.
Should she win, she'll become the youngest woman to ever be elected to Congress.
This could be a significant moment for American politics, especially on the left, which Ocasio-Cortez echoed in a Twitter thread.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
✔
@Ocasio2018
Almost two years ago, I started what was then a completely ‘impossible’ bid for Congress.
Since then, everything has changed.
Now, there’s only 20 minutes left.
And it feels great.
10:47 AM - Jun 27, 2018
61.7K
7,008 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
✔
@Ocasio2018
Replying to @Ocasio2018
I have spent today criss-crossing the district my family has called home for generations. I have met strangers who knew my dad, and knew stories about my loved ones.
I have touched the hands of people who have felt ignored and invisible for a long, long time. And they felt seen.
10:50 AM - Jun 27, 2018
8,980
1,132 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
✔
@Ocasio2018
Replying to @Ocasio2018
Today I saw people voting that are almost never seen in an off-year midterm primary.
Just now, as I’m typing this with 8 minutes left, two young men of color, 20 years old, just walked up to me and said they just voted.
2 yrs ago, the “experts” told me not to bother with them.
10:55 AM - Jun 27, 2018
28.8K
5,303 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
✔
@Ocasio2018
Replying to @Ocasio2018
But I knew that in refusing to engage with non-voters, we were churning a cycle of neglect and cynicism.
So I reached out. And we have been embraced. We have built power. We have organized.
What we have built is permanent. No. Matter. What.
11:00 AM - Jun 27, 2018
21.2K
3,409 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
✔
@Ocasio2018
This is the start of a movement.
Thank you all.
2:21 PM - Jun 27, 2018
226K
35K people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Although Bernie Sanders was ultimately unsuccessful in his attempts to become the Democrat's presidential candidate in 2016, his philosophy seems to have continued to resonate with the American people - or at least those in New York.
Ocasio-Cortez's victory might seem minor at the moment, but it flies in the face of what many US politicians would want their public to believe socialism is about.
For instance, the current President, Donald Trump has gone on record to unsurprisingly denounce socialism with a bad 'joke'.
Last year, during a speech at the United Nations, Trump highlighted countries like Venezuela and Cuba as examples of where socialism has failed. He said:
The problem... is not that socialism has been poorly implemented but that socialism has been faithfully implemented.
From the Soviet Union to Cuba to Venezuela, wherever true socialism or communism has been adopted, it has delivered anguish and devastation and failure.
Trump's comments were met with silence and laughter from his fellow world leaders.
Luckily for him, Sarah Sanders was there to back him up.
Sarah Sanders
✔
@PressSec
"The problem in Venezuela is not that socialism has been poorly implemented, but that socialism has been faithfully implemented." @POTUS
12:41 AM - Sep 20, 2017
16K
6,725 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
It would appear that a firm grasp of the ideals of socialism does not run deep in the Trump family as Donald Trump Jr proved with this tweet on Halloween.
View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter
Donald Trump Jr.
✔
@DonaldJTrumpJr
I’m going to take half of Chloe’s candy tonight & give it to some kid who sat at home. It’s never to early to teach her about socialism.
8:53 AM - Nov 1, 2017
89.3K
108K people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Trump's vice president Mike Pence has also said a few choice words about socialism in the past too.
At a presidential campaign rally at Georgia State Fairgrounds in August 2016, he quoted Margaret Thatcher when criticising Hillary Clinton.
We should probably point out that Hillary Clinton almost never defined herself as a socialist, or at least not as broadly as Sanders did.
Earlier this year, the former First Lady spoke at the Shared Values Leadership Summit, where she admitted that being a capitalist probably hurt her position among Democrats.
I mean, it’s hard to know, but if you’re in the Iowa caucuses and 41 per cent of Democrats are socialists, or self-described socialists, and I’m asked, ‘Are you a capitalist’, and I say ‘Yes, but with appropriate regulation and accountability,’ that probably gets lost in the ‘Oh my God, she’s a capitalist!’
Her husband, former president Bill Clinton, also shares these values. Speaking at a health care rally in Greensburg, Pennsylvania, Clinton highlighted his belief in a private health care system in America.
He said:
Socialism is when the government runs a health care system.
We don't have socialized medicine in this country, and my plan is for private insurance and private doctors.
[The 20 century marked] the victory of democracy over totalitarianism, of free enterprise over state socialism.
This isn't a current trend, however.
Back in 2008, then-Republican presidential candidate John McCain referenced the infamous Joe the Plumber incident in a speech about Barack's Obama's proposed policies.
He said:
Joe, in his plainspoken way, said this sounded a lot like socialism.
And a lot of Americans are thinking along those same lines. In the best case, ‘spreading the wealth around’ is a familiar idea from the American left.
And that kind of class warfare sure doesn't sound like a ‘new kind of politics'.
McCain's former vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin also branded Obama a socialist during the 2008 campaign.
Citing the same Joe the Plumber incident, she said:
Obama is a socialist/Marxist. Joe suggested that that sounded a little bit like socialism.
Whatever you call it, I call it bad medicine for an ailing economy, and it's what Barack Obama will do to those who want to create jobs, and we're willing to call Barack Obama on it.
Another one of Barack Obama's opponents, Mitt Romney, also criticised the former President's seemingly socialist approach.
In a September 2011 speech, the Republican said:
Barack Obama is a big-spending liberal. He takes his inspiration from Europe and the socialist democrats in Europe.
Europe isn't working in Europe. It's not going to work here. I believe in America.
I believe in the opportunity and the freedom that is American opportunity and freedom. I believe in free enterprise and capitalism.
That being said, Obama was hardly an outstanding advocate for socialism.
Speaking at the 2013 CEO Council, Obama addressed the claims that he was a socialist. He said:
People call me a socialist sometimes, but you've got to meet real socialists, you'll have a real sense of what a socialist is. I'm talking about lowering the corporate tax rate, my health care reform is based on the private marketplace, the stock market is doing pretty good the last time I checked and it is true that I am concerned about growing inequality in the system, but nobody questions the efficacy of a market economy in terms of producing wealth and innovation and keeping us competitive.
In addition in a speech made in Argentina in March 2016, Obama encouraged young people to find their own way in politics and not feel like they have to conform to either a socialist or capitalist theory.
[S]o often in the past there’s been a sharp division between left and right, between capitalist and communist or socialist.
And especially in the Americas, that’s been a big debate, right? Oh, you know, you’re a capitalist Yankee dog, and oh, you know, you’re some crazy communist that’s going to take away everybody’s property.
And I mean, those are interesting intellectual arguments, but I think for your generation, you should be practical and just choose from what works.
You don’t have to worry about whether it neatly fits into socialist theory or capitalist theory — you should just decide what works.
Melania Trump makes second solo trip to border - CBS News
June 28, 2018, 2:17 PM
Melania Trump makes second solo trip to border
Last Updated Jun 28, 2018 2:17 PM EDT
First Lady Melania Trump is making her second solo trip to the southern border to visit immigration facilities. The first lady, who visited children and federal immigration authorities in Texas last week, landed in Tucson, Arizona, Thursday.
The first lady, her spokeswoman said, is eager to see what has changed since her last visit. Melania Trump — who President Trump said raised the issue of family separation with him — continues to discuss the border situation with the president, said her communications director, Stephanie Grisham. Grisham did not elaborate on those discussions.
"This is a complex issue. She recognizes that," Grisham told reporters, according to the White House press pool.
While in Tucson, Melania Trump is touring a U.S. Customs and Border Protection facility, where she is expected to have a roundtable discussion with officials from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the U.S. Marshals Service. Then, according to the White House press pool, she will tour the Tucson Coordinating Center, a short-term holding facilities. The first lady will also do a closed-press tour of an intelligence center.
Grisham said the trip to Tucson was planned last week, after the first lady's trip to Texas was cut short due to flooding.
"She wasn't able to visit a DHS facility, and she wants to learn from the people on the front lines at the border," Grisham told reporters.
On her last trip to the border, the first lady made headlines when she sported a jacket that said, "I don't care, do you?" The first lady didn't wear the jacket when she was with the children, and although her spokesperson said there was no "hidden message," President Trump claimed the jacket was an attempt to hit back at the media. On Thursday when she boarded the plane in D.C., the White House press pool observed nothing unusual about her attire.
Melania Trump makes second solo trip to border
Last Updated Jun 28, 2018 2:17 PM EDT
First Lady Melania Trump is making her second solo trip to the southern border to visit immigration facilities. The first lady, who visited children and federal immigration authorities in Texas last week, landed in Tucson, Arizona, Thursday.
The first lady, her spokeswoman said, is eager to see what has changed since her last visit. Melania Trump — who President Trump said raised the issue of family separation with him — continues to discuss the border situation with the president, said her communications director, Stephanie Grisham. Grisham did not elaborate on those discussions.
"This is a complex issue. She recognizes that," Grisham told reporters, according to the White House press pool.
While in Tucson, Melania Trump is touring a U.S. Customs and Border Protection facility, where she is expected to have a roundtable discussion with officials from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the U.S. Marshals Service. Then, according to the White House press pool, she will tour the Tucson Coordinating Center, a short-term holding facilities. The first lady will also do a closed-press tour of an intelligence center.
Grisham said the trip to Tucson was planned last week, after the first lady's trip to Texas was cut short due to flooding.
"She wasn't able to visit a DHS facility, and she wants to learn from the people on the front lines at the border," Grisham told reporters.
On her last trip to the border, the first lady made headlines when she sported a jacket that said, "I don't care, do you?" The first lady didn't wear the jacket when she was with the children, and although her spokesperson said there was no "hidden message," President Trump claimed the jacket was an attempt to hit back at the media. On Thursday when she boarded the plane in D.C., the White House press pool observed nothing unusual about her attire.
Bill Gates: Everyone should know these 3 facts - CNBC
June 29, 2018
Bill Gates: Everyone should know these 3 facts
Catherine Clifford
Bill Gates
Adam Galica | CNBC
Bill Gates
Billionaire Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates says you need to know three facts to better understand the world.
Those statistics are the global rate of childhood deaths, the fertility rate and the number of people who escape extreme poverty.
The facts come from Oxford economist Max Roser, the founder of the data and statistics website, OurWorldInData.org.
“One of my favorite websites is OurWorldInData.org. Based at the University of Oxford, it uses statistics — on everything from health and population growth to war, the environment, and energy — to give you phenomenal insight into how living conditions are changing around the world,” says Gates in a post published on his blog Tuesday. “I asked its founder, Oxford economist Max Roser, to share three facts from the site that everyone should know.”
Roser says memorizing a few statistics gives you a framework to more accurately understand the world.
“Yes, for some details, it makes sense to just search for them when you need them. But for the large global developments, it is important to know some basic statistics that describe living conditions currently and the direction of change that we have seen over the past few decades,” says Roser in a piece published on the Gates Notes blog.
“Knowing the facts on global changes gives you the context for the daily news and allows you to make sense of new information that you learn. And it must be the basis for political debate, so that we can discuss what we should and shouldn’t do as a society.”
Here's what Gates and Roser say you need to know:
1. Annual childhood deaths have fallen by more than half since 1960
Each year, 5.6 million children under the age of five die. That’s 15,500 deaths per day and 11 deaths of children per minute, according to data from the UN. In the 1950s and 1960s, 20 million children were dying every year, according to the same data set.
“One key reason why we struggle to see progress in the world today is that we do not know how very bad the past was. Both are true at the same time: The world is much better than in the past and it is still awful,” says Roser.
Bill Gates
✔
@BillGates
· 27 Jun
Replying to @BillGates
Here are three facts from the site that Max thinks everyone should know…
Bill Gates
✔
@BillGates
Fact #1: Fewer children are dying before the age of 5. pic.twitter.com/RNcCNcBTFz
3:21 AM - Jun 27, 2018
“To bring this to mind I need to know both statistics: When someone says we can sit back and relax because the world is in a much better place, I point out that 11 children are still dying every minute. We cannot accept the world as it is today. And when I feel hopeless in the face of this tragedy, I remember that we reduced annual child deaths from 20 million to 5.6 million in the last 50 years," writes Roser.
2. The average number of children born per woman per year is falling
In the last 50 years, the global fertility rate, or the average number of children every woman in the world has, has fallen from five to less than 2.5, Roser says. That means the rate of population growth has gone from 2 percent a year to just over 1 percent per year.
Availability of contraceptives and access to education and higher quality jobs affect fertility rates, says Roser. So too does child mortality rates.
Bill Gates
✔
@BillGates
· 27 Jun
Replying to @BillGates
Fact #1: Fewer children are dying before the age of 5. pic.twitter.com/RNcCNcBTFz
Bill Gates
✔
@BillGates
Fact #2: Since 1960, the number of children born per woman has fallen by half. pic.twitter.com/BzCFzdwdWE
3:21 AM - Jun 27, 2018
“Improvements in conditions for women and the health of children have driven a rapid reduction in fertility rates across the world,” says Roser. “The statistic that I remember on population growth is the one that tells me that rapid population growth is coming to an end in this century.”
Why is that important? "The problem is that the population is growing the fastest where people are less able to deal with it," Gates explained in a 2012 blog post, so there is an inability to feed, educate, employ and protect the environment.
3. More than 100,000 people a day have escaped extreme poverty in recent decades
Between 1990 and 2015, 137,000 people left “extreme poverty” each day, says Roser.
Someone is defined as living in "extreme poverty" if they live on the equivalent of less than about $1.90 per person per day, as determined by the World Bank.
Today, 706 million people in the world live in extreme poverty. In 1990, 1.86 billion people lived in extreme poverty. That means the number of people living in extreme poverty has fallen to one in 10 people from one in three.
Bill Gates
✔
@BillGates
· 27 Jun
Replying to @BillGates
Fact #2: Since 1960, the number of children born per woman has fallen by half. pic.twitter.com/BzCFzdwdWE
Bill Gates
✔
@BillGates
Fact #3: The world is making progress against extreme poverty. pic.twitter.com/PCH6aMzxfd
3:21 AM - Jun 27, 2018
“When you ask people whether the world is making progress against extreme poverty, the majority of us believe things are getting worse — that the number of people in extreme poverty in the world is rising,” says Roser. “The opposite is true. Both the number and the share of people in extreme poverty is falling.”
Though the number of people living in extreme poverty is still “unacceptably large," says Roser, "we should also know that the trend is moving in the right direction. The number of people in extreme poverty is falling. It is possible to end extreme poverty.”
Knowing these statistics is a reason feel optimistic, says Roser. “The statistics on global change over time tell us that it is possible to work for a better world. The number of child deaths is dropping. The challenges of rapid population growth will not continue indefinitely. And the number of people in extreme poverty is falling,” he says. “Our past successes should encourage us to work for more progress.”
Gates also advocates holding onto an optimistic view of the world.
“I’m not trying to downplay the work that remains. Being an optimist doesn’t mean you ignore tragedy and injustice. It means you’re inspired to look for people making progress on those fronts, and to help spread that progress,” Gates wrote as the guest editor for Time magazine in January.
“To some extent, it is good that bad news gets attention. If you want to improve the world, you need something to be mad about," he said. "But it has to be balanced by upsides. When you see good things happening, you can channel your energy into driving even more progress."
Bill Gates: Everyone should know these 3 facts
Catherine Clifford
Bill Gates
Adam Galica | CNBC
Bill Gates
Billionaire Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates says you need to know three facts to better understand the world.
Those statistics are the global rate of childhood deaths, the fertility rate and the number of people who escape extreme poverty.
The facts come from Oxford economist Max Roser, the founder of the data and statistics website, OurWorldInData.org.
“One of my favorite websites is OurWorldInData.org. Based at the University of Oxford, it uses statistics — on everything from health and population growth to war, the environment, and energy — to give you phenomenal insight into how living conditions are changing around the world,” says Gates in a post published on his blog Tuesday. “I asked its founder, Oxford economist Max Roser, to share three facts from the site that everyone should know.”
Roser says memorizing a few statistics gives you a framework to more accurately understand the world.
“Yes, for some details, it makes sense to just search for them when you need them. But for the large global developments, it is important to know some basic statistics that describe living conditions currently and the direction of change that we have seen over the past few decades,” says Roser in a piece published on the Gates Notes blog.
“Knowing the facts on global changes gives you the context for the daily news and allows you to make sense of new information that you learn. And it must be the basis for political debate, so that we can discuss what we should and shouldn’t do as a society.”
Here's what Gates and Roser say you need to know:
1. Annual childhood deaths have fallen by more than half since 1960
Each year, 5.6 million children under the age of five die. That’s 15,500 deaths per day and 11 deaths of children per minute, according to data from the UN. In the 1950s and 1960s, 20 million children were dying every year, according to the same data set.
“One key reason why we struggle to see progress in the world today is that we do not know how very bad the past was. Both are true at the same time: The world is much better than in the past and it is still awful,” says Roser.
Bill Gates
✔
@BillGates
· 27 Jun
Replying to @BillGates
Here are three facts from the site that Max thinks everyone should know…
Bill Gates
✔
@BillGates
Fact #1: Fewer children are dying before the age of 5. pic.twitter.com/RNcCNcBTFz
3:21 AM - Jun 27, 2018
“To bring this to mind I need to know both statistics: When someone says we can sit back and relax because the world is in a much better place, I point out that 11 children are still dying every minute. We cannot accept the world as it is today. And when I feel hopeless in the face of this tragedy, I remember that we reduced annual child deaths from 20 million to 5.6 million in the last 50 years," writes Roser.
2. The average number of children born per woman per year is falling
In the last 50 years, the global fertility rate, or the average number of children every woman in the world has, has fallen from five to less than 2.5, Roser says. That means the rate of population growth has gone from 2 percent a year to just over 1 percent per year.
Availability of contraceptives and access to education and higher quality jobs affect fertility rates, says Roser. So too does child mortality rates.
Bill Gates
✔
@BillGates
· 27 Jun
Replying to @BillGates
Fact #1: Fewer children are dying before the age of 5. pic.twitter.com/RNcCNcBTFz
Bill Gates
✔
@BillGates
Fact #2: Since 1960, the number of children born per woman has fallen by half. pic.twitter.com/BzCFzdwdWE
3:21 AM - Jun 27, 2018
“Improvements in conditions for women and the health of children have driven a rapid reduction in fertility rates across the world,” says Roser. “The statistic that I remember on population growth is the one that tells me that rapid population growth is coming to an end in this century.”
Why is that important? "The problem is that the population is growing the fastest where people are less able to deal with it," Gates explained in a 2012 blog post, so there is an inability to feed, educate, employ and protect the environment.
3. More than 100,000 people a day have escaped extreme poverty in recent decades
Between 1990 and 2015, 137,000 people left “extreme poverty” each day, says Roser.
Someone is defined as living in "extreme poverty" if they live on the equivalent of less than about $1.90 per person per day, as determined by the World Bank.
Today, 706 million people in the world live in extreme poverty. In 1990, 1.86 billion people lived in extreme poverty. That means the number of people living in extreme poverty has fallen to one in 10 people from one in three.
Bill Gates
✔
@BillGates
· 27 Jun
Replying to @BillGates
Fact #2: Since 1960, the number of children born per woman has fallen by half. pic.twitter.com/BzCFzdwdWE
Bill Gates
✔
@BillGates
Fact #3: The world is making progress against extreme poverty. pic.twitter.com/PCH6aMzxfd
3:21 AM - Jun 27, 2018
“When you ask people whether the world is making progress against extreme poverty, the majority of us believe things are getting worse — that the number of people in extreme poverty in the world is rising,” says Roser. “The opposite is true. Both the number and the share of people in extreme poverty is falling.”
Though the number of people living in extreme poverty is still “unacceptably large," says Roser, "we should also know that the trend is moving in the right direction. The number of people in extreme poverty is falling. It is possible to end extreme poverty.”
Knowing these statistics is a reason feel optimistic, says Roser. “The statistics on global change over time tell us that it is possible to work for a better world. The number of child deaths is dropping. The challenges of rapid population growth will not continue indefinitely. And the number of people in extreme poverty is falling,” he says. “Our past successes should encourage us to work for more progress.”
Gates also advocates holding onto an optimistic view of the world.
“I’m not trying to downplay the work that remains. Being an optimist doesn’t mean you ignore tragedy and injustice. It means you’re inspired to look for people making progress on those fronts, and to help spread that progress,” Gates wrote as the guest editor for Time magazine in January.
“To some extent, it is good that bad news gets attention. If you want to improve the world, you need something to be mad about," he said. "But it has to be balanced by upsides. When you see good things happening, you can channel your energy into driving even more progress."
BAE wins multi-billion pound Australian warship contract - BBC News
June 29, 2018
BAE wins multi-billion pound Australian warship contract
British defence giant BAE Systems has won a multi-billion pound contract from the Australian government to build nine new warships, marking a significant victory for British military exports.
BAE beat Italian and Spanish rivals to win a large slice of the £19.6bn ($25.7bn; A$35bn) spending programme.
The ships will be based on anti-submarine frigates that BAE is building for the UK's Royal Navy.
However, the new warships will be built in Australia by a local workforce.
BAE's Australian arm said the construction of the ships locally would make a significant contribution to Australia's economy "creating thousands of jobs, supporting new industries and boosting the national supply chain for decades to come".
"We are proud to have been selected as preferred tenderer to provide the Royal Australian Navy with a world-class ship, equipped with the latest technologies and designed specifically to meet its needs," BAE Systems Australia chief executive, Gabby Costigan said.
UK Prime Minister Theresa May said the deal was also an "enormous boost" for the UK economy and reflected the government's strategy to "build on our close relationships with allies like Australia" as the UK prepares to leave the EU.
It is the first export of a British design for new-build frigates since the 1970s, the UK government said.
The ships to be built will be based on BAE Systems' Type 26 frigate, and will be called the "Hunter class".
Production in Australia is expected to commence in 2020.
Australian jobs
The Hunter class ships will be built in Adelaide, South Australia, by government-owned ASC Shipbuilding and the programme is expected to create at least 5,000 local jobs across about 30 years.
"The Hunter class will provide the Australian Defence Force with the highest levels of lethality and deterrence our major surface combatants need in periods of global uncertainty," the Australian government said.
The ships will be fitted with long-range anti-missile defence systems.
The Type 26 currently being built for the Royal Navy forms the basis of the design sold to the Australian government
While the overall budget is £19.6bn, only a part of that will come to BAE Systems for the design and build of the frigates.
BAE Systems chief executive Charles Woodburn said: "I am proud that our world class anti-submarine warfare design and our approach to transferring technology and skills to the nations in which we work is expected to contribute to the development of an enduring world-class naval shipbuilding industry in Australia."
Italy's Fincantieri SpA and Spain's Navantia also bid for the contract.
'Deal of the century'
BAE's shipyards on the Clyde in Glasgow are unlikely to see a significant boost to jobs.
Gary Cook of the GMB union criticised the deal, saying: "The inconvenient truth is that we're not exporting ships, only manufacturing jobs that should be going to British shipbuilding communities.
"And had the UK government and BAE invested in the promised frigate factory at Scotstoun, those frigates could easily be built here.
"Instead, there is a rubble pile where that factory should be, while 4,000 jobs and significant prosperity will be enjoyed in Australia and not the UK."
Nevertheless, defence analysts said the deal represented a significant success for British naval exports.
"It is the deal of the century," said Francis Tusa, editor of industry newsletter Defence Analysis.
The UK has had an "abysmal" export record for warship sales for the past five decades, he said. But this represented "a massive sea-change".
Canada, which is also planning to order warships later this year, might be influenced by Australia's decision, he added.
Selling the design overseas will help spread the costs of design and production of many elements of the frigate, potentially bringing down the cost of the Type 26 to the Royal Navy significantly, according to Mr Tusa.
However, it was not only BAE Systems who would benefit from the deal, he said.
Small and medium-sized UK companies would be likely to win orders for some of the technology required on the Australian ships.
Firms that are already supplying the UK government's order of the Type 26 would be in a strong position to also supply Australian orders.
Analysis: Douglas Fraser, Scotland business editor
The design success of the Global Combat Ship, otherwise known as the Type 26, is a breakthrough for BAE Systems. Over several decades, it has struggled to turn the Royal Navy's requirements into a design that other countries want to buy, or are willing to pay for.
Orders from other navies used to mean manufacturing at UK yards.
But now, other countries want to get the economic benefit of their military spending, so they insist on building themselves.
The hull can be the relatively cheap bit of building a complex warship, so there may be benefits to British arms exporters in selling weapons systems that fit into the Australian frigates.
However, this looks like a design which was heavily subsidised by the UK taxpayer, being sold overseas, and wholly to the benefit of BAE Systems. It appears that the UK taxpayer sees none of the direct payback or royalties from that investment.
Innovative design
Independent defence analyst Paul Beaver said the appeal of the Type 26 design is that it is modular.
"We are supplying the technology behind the hull, other nations will put their engines, their weapons systems into it. It's designed in a way that it can cope with that.
"You don't have to buy a certain type of missile or gun. You can buy a raft of different ones which will be very attractive."
He said he believed the agreement would turn out to be part of a wider deal on defence procurement between the UK and Australia.
BAE wins multi-billion pound Australian warship contract
British defence giant BAE Systems has won a multi-billion pound contract from the Australian government to build nine new warships, marking a significant victory for British military exports.
BAE beat Italian and Spanish rivals to win a large slice of the £19.6bn ($25.7bn; A$35bn) spending programme.
The ships will be based on anti-submarine frigates that BAE is building for the UK's Royal Navy.
However, the new warships will be built in Australia by a local workforce.
BAE's Australian arm said the construction of the ships locally would make a significant contribution to Australia's economy "creating thousands of jobs, supporting new industries and boosting the national supply chain for decades to come".
"We are proud to have been selected as preferred tenderer to provide the Royal Australian Navy with a world-class ship, equipped with the latest technologies and designed specifically to meet its needs," BAE Systems Australia chief executive, Gabby Costigan said.
UK Prime Minister Theresa May said the deal was also an "enormous boost" for the UK economy and reflected the government's strategy to "build on our close relationships with allies like Australia" as the UK prepares to leave the EU.
It is the first export of a British design for new-build frigates since the 1970s, the UK government said.
The ships to be built will be based on BAE Systems' Type 26 frigate, and will be called the "Hunter class".
Production in Australia is expected to commence in 2020.
Australian jobs
The Hunter class ships will be built in Adelaide, South Australia, by government-owned ASC Shipbuilding and the programme is expected to create at least 5,000 local jobs across about 30 years.
"The Hunter class will provide the Australian Defence Force with the highest levels of lethality and deterrence our major surface combatants need in periods of global uncertainty," the Australian government said.
The ships will be fitted with long-range anti-missile defence systems.
The Type 26 currently being built for the Royal Navy forms the basis of the design sold to the Australian government
While the overall budget is £19.6bn, only a part of that will come to BAE Systems for the design and build of the frigates.
BAE Systems chief executive Charles Woodburn said: "I am proud that our world class anti-submarine warfare design and our approach to transferring technology and skills to the nations in which we work is expected to contribute to the development of an enduring world-class naval shipbuilding industry in Australia."
Italy's Fincantieri SpA and Spain's Navantia also bid for the contract.
'Deal of the century'
BAE's shipyards on the Clyde in Glasgow are unlikely to see a significant boost to jobs.
Gary Cook of the GMB union criticised the deal, saying: "The inconvenient truth is that we're not exporting ships, only manufacturing jobs that should be going to British shipbuilding communities.
"And had the UK government and BAE invested in the promised frigate factory at Scotstoun, those frigates could easily be built here.
"Instead, there is a rubble pile where that factory should be, while 4,000 jobs and significant prosperity will be enjoyed in Australia and not the UK."
Nevertheless, defence analysts said the deal represented a significant success for British naval exports.
"It is the deal of the century," said Francis Tusa, editor of industry newsletter Defence Analysis.
The UK has had an "abysmal" export record for warship sales for the past five decades, he said. But this represented "a massive sea-change".
Canada, which is also planning to order warships later this year, might be influenced by Australia's decision, he added.
Selling the design overseas will help spread the costs of design and production of many elements of the frigate, potentially bringing down the cost of the Type 26 to the Royal Navy significantly, according to Mr Tusa.
However, it was not only BAE Systems who would benefit from the deal, he said.
Small and medium-sized UK companies would be likely to win orders for some of the technology required on the Australian ships.
Firms that are already supplying the UK government's order of the Type 26 would be in a strong position to also supply Australian orders.
Analysis: Douglas Fraser, Scotland business editor
The design success of the Global Combat Ship, otherwise known as the Type 26, is a breakthrough for BAE Systems. Over several decades, it has struggled to turn the Royal Navy's requirements into a design that other countries want to buy, or are willing to pay for.
Orders from other navies used to mean manufacturing at UK yards.
But now, other countries want to get the economic benefit of their military spending, so they insist on building themselves.
The hull can be the relatively cheap bit of building a complex warship, so there may be benefits to British arms exporters in selling weapons systems that fit into the Australian frigates.
However, this looks like a design which was heavily subsidised by the UK taxpayer, being sold overseas, and wholly to the benefit of BAE Systems. It appears that the UK taxpayer sees none of the direct payback or royalties from that investment.
Innovative design
Independent defence analyst Paul Beaver said the appeal of the Type 26 design is that it is modular.
"We are supplying the technology behind the hull, other nations will put their engines, their weapons systems into it. It's designed in a way that it can cope with that.
"You don't have to buy a certain type of missile or gun. You can buy a raft of different ones which will be very attractive."
He said he believed the agreement would turn out to be part of a wider deal on defence procurement between the UK and Australia.
Migrant crisis: EU leaders plan closed migrant centres - BBC News
June 29, 2018
Migrant crisis: EU leaders plan closed migrant centres
Why is the Aquarius migrant rescue ship empty?
Closed migrant centres are to be set up in EU states to process asylum claims under a deal reached after marathon talks at a leaders summit in Brussels.
The centres, hosted on a voluntary basis, would determine who are illegal migrants "who will be returned".
Italy - the entry point for thousands of migrants, mainly from Africa - had threatened to veto the summit's entire agenda if it did not receive help.
Resettlement of genuine refugees would also take place on a voluntary basis.
There were no details on which countries would host the centres or receive refugees.
The numbers illegally entering the EU have dropped 96% since their 2015 peak, the European Council says.
Could the migration crisis finish the EU?
Reality Check: Is Italy taking in thousands of migrants?
'Used as a slave' in a Libyan detention centre
The EU leaders' joint communique also speaks of restricting the movement of asylum seekers between EU states.
"After this European summit, Europe is more responsible and offers more solidarity," said Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte. "Today Italy is no longer alone."
But German Chancellor Angela Merkel said more needed to be done to resolve disagreements.
The EU's new migrant prisons?
By the BBC's Adam Fleming in Brussels
A few things stand out as wins for Italy's new prime minister. The summit's conclusions now include a statement about the need for boats that pick up migrants in the Mediterranean to respect international law.
But the big one is approval of the concept of closed, secure processing facilities for migrants arriving in the EU. Some say this will make it easier to send back people whose claims for asylum are rejected, others are already describing them as prisons.
This paragraph is full of caveats, commas and sub-clauses - all the hallmarks of something drafted in the middle of the night.
Another striking pledge is for an ambitious partnership with Africa. That's the EU trying to balance its tough internal approach with a friendly external one, and offering incentives to North African countries to host facilities where migrants can be assessed for resettlement in Europe.
What else has been agreed?
The 28 EU leaders also agreed several other measures:
strengthening external border controls, and boosting financing for Turkey and countries in North Africa
exploring the possibility of "regional disembarkation platforms", which are aimed at breaking the business model of people-smuggling gangs by processing refugees and migrants outside the EU. However getting North African countries to host such centres could be very difficult and Morocco again on Thursday rejected the idea
internal measures taken by member states to stop migrants moving within the EU, which the agreement said undermined asylum policy and the border-free Schengen travel area
more investment in Africa to help the continent achieve a "substantial socio-economic transformation" so people no longer leave for a better life
Further work to reform EU asylum policy, including changes to the so-called Dublin regulation under which migrants must be considered for asylum in the first safe country where they arrive
Whose needs does the deal meet?
Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte had earlier taken the rare step of blocking the conclusions of the joint communique until the leaders had settled the migration issue. Both Italy and Greece want other countries to share the burden.
However several Central European states have so far rejected an EU scheme to relocate 160,000 refugees from overcrowded camps in Greece and Italy.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel had said that the migration issue could be a defining moment for the EU - but she also needed the summit to avert a political crisis at home that could bring down her government.
Migrant crisis: EU border force Frontex explained
Interior Minister Horst Seehofer, from her Bavarian coalition partner, the CSU, had given her a deadline of this weekend. He has threatened to start turning away migrants who have already registered elsewhere from the border in his home state.
Merkel's Bavarian ally threatens migrant mutiny
Braving slavery horrors for European dream
Trapped in a country everyone wants to leave
Without the CSU, Mrs Merkel would lose her parliamentary majority.
It is unclear whether the measures agreed will be enough, and speaking to reporters at 05:00 local time (03:00 GMT), she acknowledged the EU still had "a lot of work to do to bridge the different views".
How many migrants are entering the EU?
The flows of people include refugees fleeing the Syrian war and other conflicts, urgently seeking asylum.
It is not a crisis on the scale of 2015, when thousands were coming ashore daily on the Greek islands.
But this month's tensions over migrant rescue ships barred from entry to Italian ports - most recently the German charity ship Lifeline - have put the issue firmly back in the EU spotlight.
Reality Check: Who is responsible for migrants at sea?
The Aquarius: Migrant taxi service or charitable rescuers?
The Lifeline was only allowed to dock in Malta after intense diplomacy among several EU states, who each agreed to take some of the migrants on board. Malta said that Norway had now also agreed to take a share.
Migrant crisis: EU leaders plan closed migrant centres
Why is the Aquarius migrant rescue ship empty?
Closed migrant centres are to be set up in EU states to process asylum claims under a deal reached after marathon talks at a leaders summit in Brussels.
The centres, hosted on a voluntary basis, would determine who are illegal migrants "who will be returned".
Italy - the entry point for thousands of migrants, mainly from Africa - had threatened to veto the summit's entire agenda if it did not receive help.
Resettlement of genuine refugees would also take place on a voluntary basis.
There were no details on which countries would host the centres or receive refugees.
The numbers illegally entering the EU have dropped 96% since their 2015 peak, the European Council says.
Could the migration crisis finish the EU?
Reality Check: Is Italy taking in thousands of migrants?
'Used as a slave' in a Libyan detention centre
The EU leaders' joint communique also speaks of restricting the movement of asylum seekers between EU states.
"After this European summit, Europe is more responsible and offers more solidarity," said Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte. "Today Italy is no longer alone."
But German Chancellor Angela Merkel said more needed to be done to resolve disagreements.
The EU's new migrant prisons?
By the BBC's Adam Fleming in Brussels
A few things stand out as wins for Italy's new prime minister. The summit's conclusions now include a statement about the need for boats that pick up migrants in the Mediterranean to respect international law.
But the big one is approval of the concept of closed, secure processing facilities for migrants arriving in the EU. Some say this will make it easier to send back people whose claims for asylum are rejected, others are already describing them as prisons.
This paragraph is full of caveats, commas and sub-clauses - all the hallmarks of something drafted in the middle of the night.
Another striking pledge is for an ambitious partnership with Africa. That's the EU trying to balance its tough internal approach with a friendly external one, and offering incentives to North African countries to host facilities where migrants can be assessed for resettlement in Europe.
What else has been agreed?
The 28 EU leaders also agreed several other measures:
strengthening external border controls, and boosting financing for Turkey and countries in North Africa
exploring the possibility of "regional disembarkation platforms", which are aimed at breaking the business model of people-smuggling gangs by processing refugees and migrants outside the EU. However getting North African countries to host such centres could be very difficult and Morocco again on Thursday rejected the idea
internal measures taken by member states to stop migrants moving within the EU, which the agreement said undermined asylum policy and the border-free Schengen travel area
more investment in Africa to help the continent achieve a "substantial socio-economic transformation" so people no longer leave for a better life
Further work to reform EU asylum policy, including changes to the so-called Dublin regulation under which migrants must be considered for asylum in the first safe country where they arrive
Whose needs does the deal meet?
Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte had earlier taken the rare step of blocking the conclusions of the joint communique until the leaders had settled the migration issue. Both Italy and Greece want other countries to share the burden.
However several Central European states have so far rejected an EU scheme to relocate 160,000 refugees from overcrowded camps in Greece and Italy.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel had said that the migration issue could be a defining moment for the EU - but she also needed the summit to avert a political crisis at home that could bring down her government.
Migrant crisis: EU border force Frontex explained
Interior Minister Horst Seehofer, from her Bavarian coalition partner, the CSU, had given her a deadline of this weekend. He has threatened to start turning away migrants who have already registered elsewhere from the border in his home state.
Merkel's Bavarian ally threatens migrant mutiny
Braving slavery horrors for European dream
Trapped in a country everyone wants to leave
Without the CSU, Mrs Merkel would lose her parliamentary majority.
It is unclear whether the measures agreed will be enough, and speaking to reporters at 05:00 local time (03:00 GMT), she acknowledged the EU still had "a lot of work to do to bridge the different views".
How many migrants are entering the EU?
The flows of people include refugees fleeing the Syrian war and other conflicts, urgently seeking asylum.
It is not a crisis on the scale of 2015, when thousands were coming ashore daily on the Greek islands.
But this month's tensions over migrant rescue ships barred from entry to Italian ports - most recently the German charity ship Lifeline - have put the issue firmly back in the EU spotlight.
Reality Check: Who is responsible for migrants at sea?
The Aquarius: Migrant taxi service or charitable rescuers?
The Lifeline was only allowed to dock in Malta after intense diplomacy among several EU states, who each agreed to take some of the migrants on board. Malta said that Norway had now also agreed to take a share.
Thursday, June 28, 2018
Warren Buffett: If you invest this way, 'you can't miss' - CNBC
Warren Buffett: If you invest this way, 'you can't miss'
Emmie Martin | @emmiemartin 2:05 PM ET Fri, 1 June 2018
Warren Buffett
David A. Grogan | CNBC
Warren Buffett
When Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett makes investing decisions, he focuses on one thing only: the facts.
"You have to be able to play out your hand under all circumstances," Buffett told shareholders in 2006. "But if you can play out your hand, and you've got the right facts, and you reason by yourself, and you let the market serve you and not instruct you, you can't miss."
Your opinions and emotions aren't likely to help you. "Being contrarian has no special virtue over being a trend follower," Buffett says. Instead, the Oracle of Omaha suggests taking a pragmatic approach to investing decisions. First, gather all of your facts. Next, learn how to dissect them to find the pertinent information you need to make your decision. For Buffett, that means looking for the pieces that are "important and knowable."
"If something's important but unknowable, forget it," he says. "I mean, it may be important whether somebody's going to drop a nuclear weapon tomorrow, but it's unknowable."
These quotes reveal Warren Buffett's legendary business mind These quotes reveal Warren Buffett's legendary business mind
Focus on the variables that you do have at your disposal. Once you've narrowed down your information, "then you decide whether you have information of sufficient value that — compared to price and all that — will cause you to act," Buffett explains.
Whether or not you choose to invest in something should be based on your research, not on your reaction to what other people are doing and saying. As Buffett puts it, "what others are doing means nothing."
That's why Buffett recommends doing your homework beforehand and investing in solid companies that will last, rather than trying to time the market or react to your anxieties. Concentrate on the facts, not how you're feeling.
"Don't watch the market closely," he told CNBC in 2016 amid wild fluctuations. "If they're trying to buy and sell stocks, and worry when they go down a little bit … and think they should maybe sell them when they go up, they're not going to have very good results."
The best investors in the world share these traits, says Tony Robbins The best investors in the world share these traits, says Tony Robbins
Fellow billionaire Ray Dalio agrees. Though it's tempting to sell when the market begins to drop, he says, giving in to your fear is not a sound strategy.
"You can not possibly succeed that way," Dalio said at the Harvard Kennedy School's Institute of Politics. "You've got to do the opposite. It's when you're not scared you probably want to sell, and when you are scared, you probably want to buy."
Even when the market it tumultuous, it's helpful to tune out other investors and concentrate on what you know.
"You're right because your facts and reasoning are right," Buffett told shareholders. "So all you do is you try to make sure that the facts you have are correct. And that's usually pretty easy to do in this country. I mean, information is available on all kinds of things. Internet makes it even easier."
Emmie Martin | @emmiemartin 2:05 PM ET Fri, 1 June 2018
Warren Buffett
David A. Grogan | CNBC
Warren Buffett
When Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett makes investing decisions, he focuses on one thing only: the facts.
"You have to be able to play out your hand under all circumstances," Buffett told shareholders in 2006. "But if you can play out your hand, and you've got the right facts, and you reason by yourself, and you let the market serve you and not instruct you, you can't miss."
Your opinions and emotions aren't likely to help you. "Being contrarian has no special virtue over being a trend follower," Buffett says. Instead, the Oracle of Omaha suggests taking a pragmatic approach to investing decisions. First, gather all of your facts. Next, learn how to dissect them to find the pertinent information you need to make your decision. For Buffett, that means looking for the pieces that are "important and knowable."
"If something's important but unknowable, forget it," he says. "I mean, it may be important whether somebody's going to drop a nuclear weapon tomorrow, but it's unknowable."
These quotes reveal Warren Buffett's legendary business mind These quotes reveal Warren Buffett's legendary business mind
Focus on the variables that you do have at your disposal. Once you've narrowed down your information, "then you decide whether you have information of sufficient value that — compared to price and all that — will cause you to act," Buffett explains.
Whether or not you choose to invest in something should be based on your research, not on your reaction to what other people are doing and saying. As Buffett puts it, "what others are doing means nothing."
That's why Buffett recommends doing your homework beforehand and investing in solid companies that will last, rather than trying to time the market or react to your anxieties. Concentrate on the facts, not how you're feeling.
"Don't watch the market closely," he told CNBC in 2016 amid wild fluctuations. "If they're trying to buy and sell stocks, and worry when they go down a little bit … and think they should maybe sell them when they go up, they're not going to have very good results."
The best investors in the world share these traits, says Tony Robbins The best investors in the world share these traits, says Tony Robbins
Fellow billionaire Ray Dalio agrees. Though it's tempting to sell when the market begins to drop, he says, giving in to your fear is not a sound strategy.
"You can not possibly succeed that way," Dalio said at the Harvard Kennedy School's Institute of Politics. "You've got to do the opposite. It's when you're not scared you probably want to sell, and when you are scared, you probably want to buy."
Even when the market it tumultuous, it's helpful to tune out other investors and concentrate on what you know.
"You're right because your facts and reasoning are right," Buffett told shareholders. "So all you do is you try to make sure that the facts you have are correct. And that's usually pretty easy to do in this country. I mean, information is available on all kinds of things. Internet makes it even easier."
France brings back national service for all 16-year-olds - Daily Mail
France brings back national service for all 16-year-olds
France will re-introduce mandatory 'national service' for all young 16-year-old
Conscript service will last one month with an option to extend up to a year
The national service was a campaign pledge by Emmanuel Macron
By SARA MALM FOR MAILONLINE and AFP
PUBLISHED: 17:36 AEST, 28 June 2018 | UPDATED: 17:50 AEST, 28 June 2018
France is bringing back compulsory national service for 16-year-olds, fulfilling one of President Emmanuel Macron's campaign pledges.
Conscripts will be made to serve for one month, with a focus on civic service as well as military training, and the option of extending the placement of up to a year.
Military conscript service was scrapped in 1996, leaving Macron the first ever French President not to have served in the army.
It's back: French President Emmanuel Macron is bringing back compulsory national service for 16-year-olds +2
It's back: French President Emmanuel Macron is bringing back compulsory national service for 16-year-olds
During his presidential campaign, Macron promised to make all young people spend a month getting 'a direct experience of military life with its know-how and demands'.
He billed it as a way to build social cohesion and patriotism in a country battling deep divisions, by bringing young people from different backgrounds together in a barracks.
President Macron holds lengthy closed door discussions on...
Has Banksy taken aim at the French government? British...
The new Service National Universel [Universal National Service], which is being trialled from 2019 is reportedly a watered-down version of Macron's original idea.
The mandatory one-month placement is intended to 'enable young people to create new relationships and develop their role in society,' according to the French government.
Focus will be on charity work as well as traditional military training which will be carried out within the police, emergency services or the French army.
Military fan: Macron watches the annual Bastille Day military parade in Paris last July, in the company of U.S. President Donald Trump +2
Military fan: Macron watches the annual Bastille Day military parade in Paris last July, in the company of U.S. President Donald Trump
Once the month is completed, the conscripts will have the option of extending the service of three months to a year.
France's last conscripts were demobilised in 2001, ending nearly a century of military service which saw millions of men put through their paces.
While some French men look back fondly on their stint in the army, many middle-class youths called in well-placed contacts - or feigned mental health problems - to duck out of it.
In January, Macron - the first French president not to have been called up to serve, having come of age after it ended - insisted he was not trying to resurrect the tradition which was ended by ex-president Jacques Chirac.
He said his aim was to give young men and women alike 'causes to defend and battles to fight in the social, environmental and cultural domains.'
France will re-introduce mandatory 'national service' for all young 16-year-old
Conscript service will last one month with an option to extend up to a year
The national service was a campaign pledge by Emmanuel Macron
By SARA MALM FOR MAILONLINE and AFP
PUBLISHED: 17:36 AEST, 28 June 2018 | UPDATED: 17:50 AEST, 28 June 2018
France is bringing back compulsory national service for 16-year-olds, fulfilling one of President Emmanuel Macron's campaign pledges.
Conscripts will be made to serve for one month, with a focus on civic service as well as military training, and the option of extending the placement of up to a year.
Military conscript service was scrapped in 1996, leaving Macron the first ever French President not to have served in the army.
It's back: French President Emmanuel Macron is bringing back compulsory national service for 16-year-olds +2
It's back: French President Emmanuel Macron is bringing back compulsory national service for 16-year-olds
During his presidential campaign, Macron promised to make all young people spend a month getting 'a direct experience of military life with its know-how and demands'.
He billed it as a way to build social cohesion and patriotism in a country battling deep divisions, by bringing young people from different backgrounds together in a barracks.
President Macron holds lengthy closed door discussions on...
Has Banksy taken aim at the French government? British...
The new Service National Universel [Universal National Service], which is being trialled from 2019 is reportedly a watered-down version of Macron's original idea.
The mandatory one-month placement is intended to 'enable young people to create new relationships and develop their role in society,' according to the French government.
Focus will be on charity work as well as traditional military training which will be carried out within the police, emergency services or the French army.
Military fan: Macron watches the annual Bastille Day military parade in Paris last July, in the company of U.S. President Donald Trump +2
Military fan: Macron watches the annual Bastille Day military parade in Paris last July, in the company of U.S. President Donald Trump
Once the month is completed, the conscripts will have the option of extending the service of three months to a year.
France's last conscripts were demobilised in 2001, ending nearly a century of military service which saw millions of men put through their paces.
While some French men look back fondly on their stint in the army, many middle-class youths called in well-placed contacts - or feigned mental health problems - to duck out of it.
In January, Macron - the first French president not to have been called up to serve, having come of age after it ended - insisted he was not trying to resurrect the tradition which was ended by ex-president Jacques Chirac.
He said his aim was to give young men and women alike 'causes to defend and battles to fight in the social, environmental and cultural domains.'
In Supreme Court pick, Trump can push conservative social agenda - Reuters
JUNE 28, 2018
In Supreme Court pick, Trump can push conservative social agenda
Steve Holland, Lawrence Hurley
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - With a second Supreme Court pick less than 18 months into his presidency, Donald Trump is poised to cement conservative control of the court and fire up supporters eager for a rightward shift on divisive social issues.
U.S. President Donald Trump arrives to speak at a rally in support of Rep. Kevin Cramer's run for Senate in Fargo, North Dakota, U.S., June 27, 2018. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
Shortly after Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement on Wednesday, White House officials said Trump had an opportunity to shape U.S. justice for decades to come.
“It will further his agenda of remaking the courts,” said one senior White House official. “This is a legacy.”
Speaking of the selection at a rally in North Dakota on Wednesday night, Trump said: “We have to pick a great one. We have to pick one that’s going to be there for 40 years, 45 years.”
Kennedy’s replacement could be pivotal in paring back abortion rights, potentially even challenging the Supreme Court’s landmark Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973 that gave women a constitutional right to obtain the procedure.
Undoing or at least putting more limits on that ruling has been a dream of conservative activists and contributed to conservative Christian support for Trump that helped him win the presidency in 2016.
Although Kennedy was a conservative nominated by Republican President Ronald Reagan, he was seen as the “swing vote” on the court because he joined with liberal justices on some major issues, including expanding gay rights and upholding abortion rights.
By picking a social conservative to replace Kennedy, Trump would have a reliable 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court, even on some of those hot-button social issues.
While Trump did not make rolling back abortion rights a central plank of his campaign, many of the conservative rank and file want Roe v. Wade overturned and Trump promised to put anti-abortion justices on the Supreme Court.
But picking an ultra-conservative as his nominee would carry risk because Trump would have to rely on some moderate Republicans to win approval in the U.S. Senate, where his fellow Republicans have a narrow majority.
White House officials said Trump was likely to quickly begin interviewing candidates from a list of 25 people that the conservative Federalist Society helped draw up, with an eye to getting the new justice confirmed by the Senate in the autumn.
They believe the timing could help Trump boost conservative voters’ enthusiasm and turnout at congressional elections in November. Republicans are fighting to maintain control of both houses of Congress, with opinion polls showing Democrats have a strong chance of winning back the House of Representatives.
“Any time you’re in a midterm election year, you’re going to have a concern about whether your base will turn out,” said one official. “A high-profile Supreme Court battle will certainly remind all your voters what is at stake.”
RECENT WINS
The sharply divided high court has already handed Trump a series of other wins in politically charged cases in recent weeks.
On Tuesday, it upheld Trump’s travel ban on people entering the United States from several majority-Muslim countries.
Led by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court during its term that started in October and ended on Wednesday repeatedly ruled for Trump on 5-4 votes with its four liberals dissenting.
Despite previously siding with liberal justices in some key cases, Kennedy was a reliable conservative vote during the latest term.
Those victories, coupled with Kennedy’s retirement, could embolden the administration’s lawyers, who are facing legal challenges on multiple fronts, including over Trump’s move to separate families who enter the United States illegally and his plan to rescind protections for “Dreamers,” young adults brought to he country illegally as children.
U.S. Supreme Court is seen in Washington, U.S., October 3, 2016. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas
An open seat on the Supreme Court was an important factor in rallying conservatives behind Trump’s presidential election campaign in 2016. He used every opportunity to tell voters only he stood in the way of the court taking a turn to the left should Democrat Hillary Clinton win.
Trump quickly delivered on that promise by selecting Neil Gorsuch, who has become one of the most conservative justices.
Trump has also filled a record-breaking number of seats on the influential federal appeals courts - appointing 21 judges in total – with the enthusiastic backing of the Senate, which votes to confirm them. Trump has also appointed 20 District Court judges.
Trump appeared to be excited on Wednesday about the new opportunity to reshape the federal judiciary in a conservative direction.
“We will begin our search for a new justice of the United States Supreme Court. That will begin immediately,” Trump said at the White House. “And hopefully we’re going to pick somebody who will be as outstanding.”
Reporting by Steve Holland and Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Kieran Murray and Peter Cooney
In Supreme Court pick, Trump can push conservative social agenda
Steve Holland, Lawrence Hurley
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - With a second Supreme Court pick less than 18 months into his presidency, Donald Trump is poised to cement conservative control of the court and fire up supporters eager for a rightward shift on divisive social issues.
U.S. President Donald Trump arrives to speak at a rally in support of Rep. Kevin Cramer's run for Senate in Fargo, North Dakota, U.S., June 27, 2018. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
Shortly after Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement on Wednesday, White House officials said Trump had an opportunity to shape U.S. justice for decades to come.
“It will further his agenda of remaking the courts,” said one senior White House official. “This is a legacy.”
Speaking of the selection at a rally in North Dakota on Wednesday night, Trump said: “We have to pick a great one. We have to pick one that’s going to be there for 40 years, 45 years.”
Kennedy’s replacement could be pivotal in paring back abortion rights, potentially even challenging the Supreme Court’s landmark Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973 that gave women a constitutional right to obtain the procedure.
Undoing or at least putting more limits on that ruling has been a dream of conservative activists and contributed to conservative Christian support for Trump that helped him win the presidency in 2016.
Although Kennedy was a conservative nominated by Republican President Ronald Reagan, he was seen as the “swing vote” on the court because he joined with liberal justices on some major issues, including expanding gay rights and upholding abortion rights.
By picking a social conservative to replace Kennedy, Trump would have a reliable 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court, even on some of those hot-button social issues.
While Trump did not make rolling back abortion rights a central plank of his campaign, many of the conservative rank and file want Roe v. Wade overturned and Trump promised to put anti-abortion justices on the Supreme Court.
But picking an ultra-conservative as his nominee would carry risk because Trump would have to rely on some moderate Republicans to win approval in the U.S. Senate, where his fellow Republicans have a narrow majority.
White House officials said Trump was likely to quickly begin interviewing candidates from a list of 25 people that the conservative Federalist Society helped draw up, with an eye to getting the new justice confirmed by the Senate in the autumn.
They believe the timing could help Trump boost conservative voters’ enthusiasm and turnout at congressional elections in November. Republicans are fighting to maintain control of both houses of Congress, with opinion polls showing Democrats have a strong chance of winning back the House of Representatives.
“Any time you’re in a midterm election year, you’re going to have a concern about whether your base will turn out,” said one official. “A high-profile Supreme Court battle will certainly remind all your voters what is at stake.”
RECENT WINS
The sharply divided high court has already handed Trump a series of other wins in politically charged cases in recent weeks.
On Tuesday, it upheld Trump’s travel ban on people entering the United States from several majority-Muslim countries.
Led by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court during its term that started in October and ended on Wednesday repeatedly ruled for Trump on 5-4 votes with its four liberals dissenting.
Despite previously siding with liberal justices in some key cases, Kennedy was a reliable conservative vote during the latest term.
Those victories, coupled with Kennedy’s retirement, could embolden the administration’s lawyers, who are facing legal challenges on multiple fronts, including over Trump’s move to separate families who enter the United States illegally and his plan to rescind protections for “Dreamers,” young adults brought to he country illegally as children.
U.S. Supreme Court is seen in Washington, U.S., October 3, 2016. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas
An open seat on the Supreme Court was an important factor in rallying conservatives behind Trump’s presidential election campaign in 2016. He used every opportunity to tell voters only he stood in the way of the court taking a turn to the left should Democrat Hillary Clinton win.
Trump quickly delivered on that promise by selecting Neil Gorsuch, who has become one of the most conservative justices.
Trump has also filled a record-breaking number of seats on the influential federal appeals courts - appointing 21 judges in total – with the enthusiastic backing of the Senate, which votes to confirm them. Trump has also appointed 20 District Court judges.
Trump appeared to be excited on Wednesday about the new opportunity to reshape the federal judiciary in a conservative direction.
“We will begin our search for a new justice of the United States Supreme Court. That will begin immediately,” Trump said at the White House. “And hopefully we’re going to pick somebody who will be as outstanding.”
Reporting by Steve Holland and Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Kieran Murray and Peter Cooney
Brexit: May warned over 'disappointing' progress in talks - BBC News
June 28, 2018
Brexit: May warned over 'disappointing' progress in talks
Mrs May will address EU leaders at a working dinner
Theresa May has been warned that time is running out to secure a Brexit deal as she prepares to face the other 27 EU leaders at a summit in Brussels.
The PM will brief all her counterparts for the last time before October, when both sides hope a deal will be done on the UK's March 2019 departure.
But Irish leader Leo Varadkar said the lack of progress was "disappointing".
He said he expected fellow leaders to send a "strong message" to Mrs May that talks had to "intensify".
The prime minister, who has been under unrelenting pressure at home within her own party, has called her cabinet together for what has been billed as a make-or-break meeting at Chequers on 6 July to agree the UK's blueprint for its future relations with the EU.
Could the migration crisis finish the EU?
Bank warning for EU over Brexit progress
Brexit date could be delayed, says Blair
Divisions over the UK's customs arrangements after December 2020, when the transition period agreed with the EU is due to end, have yet to be resolved, as have arguments over the future movement of goods and people across the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
Mrs May's former top aide, Nick Timothy, has urged her to face down her opponents in the cabinet, telling the Daily Telegraph the "time for playing nice and being exploited are over".
With less than nine months to go before the UK's scheduled exit, leading businesses have said the time has come for clarity and issued warnings about the impact on jobs of leaving the EU without an agreement.
'Strong message'
The prime minister will hold a number of face-to-face meetings with European counterparts on day one of the two-day summit, the main focus of which will be on the migration challenges facing Europe and eurozone reform.
Is the EU punishing the UK?
The remaining 27 EU leaders will discuss Brexit on their own on Friday morning, by which point Mrs May is expected to have left Brussels.
On the eve of the summit, Mr Varadkar said he wanted "detailed proposals" from the UK on how it would honour the "clear commitments" made in December about the Irish border and citizens' rights.
Persuasion, not detail
By the BBC's political editor Laura Kuenssberg
There is no expectation that the prime minister will arrive in Brussels with a magic key to unlock the Brexit process.
But Theresa May heads to the Belgian capital later with a promise at least that within 10 days she will have been able to persuade her cabinet to agree more of the UK's vision for life outside the EU.
And that she will be able to put a detailed and ambitious vision into words in a White Paper to be published not long after - the UK's blueprint of how trade, customs, agriculture, and so many other areas might work after Brexit.
That, she hopes, in mid-July will usher in a genuine discussion about the long-term relationship between the country and the rest of the continent.
This summit therefore is not about technical negotiations, but about promises and persuasion, for the prime minister to convey that she is in charge of her agenda.
Read Laura's full blog
"Time is running out for the Withdrawal Agreement to be concluded satisfactorily by the October European Council," he said.
"I expect EU leaders to send a strong message to the UK that negotiations with the taskforce need to intensify."
The EU's negotiator Michel Barnier has said "serious divergences" remain over the question of backstop arrangements for the Irish border if neither of the UK's proposed customs proposals are deemed workable.
'Solidarity'
Elsewhere, Mrs May will seek to show solidarity with the rest of Europe in their efforts to deal with illegal migrant flows across the Mediterranean from Africa and the Middle East.
The issue has divided Europe for more than two years but tensions have increased since the election of a populist government in Italy, which has pledged to crack down on unlawful migration, and growing political uncertainty in Germany amid a backlash against Chancellor Angela Merkel's immigration policies.
The Irish prime minister says the UK must up the pace
Mrs May is expected to stress the need to tackle the problem of people smuggling at its source, citing the success of a project in Nigeria where once the dangers of crossing the Mediterranean were explained to people, their attitudes to illegal working in the UK changed.
On security, the prime minister will call for collective action against misinformation, cyber warfare and money laundering by "hostile states" such as Russia. One example of this, she will say, is the UK's sharing of details of Russian intelligence officers expelled after the attacks on Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury with EU allies.
The working dinner will coincide with England's final World Cup group game against Belgium, whose prime minister Charles Michel will also be present.
The UK's permanent representative in Brussels couldn't say how much of the match Mrs May, who on Wednesday ordered St George's flags to be flown above No 10 for remaining England games, would see.
Brexit: May warned over 'disappointing' progress in talks
Mrs May will address EU leaders at a working dinner
Theresa May has been warned that time is running out to secure a Brexit deal as she prepares to face the other 27 EU leaders at a summit in Brussels.
The PM will brief all her counterparts for the last time before October, when both sides hope a deal will be done on the UK's March 2019 departure.
But Irish leader Leo Varadkar said the lack of progress was "disappointing".
He said he expected fellow leaders to send a "strong message" to Mrs May that talks had to "intensify".
The prime minister, who has been under unrelenting pressure at home within her own party, has called her cabinet together for what has been billed as a make-or-break meeting at Chequers on 6 July to agree the UK's blueprint for its future relations with the EU.
Could the migration crisis finish the EU?
Bank warning for EU over Brexit progress
Brexit date could be delayed, says Blair
Divisions over the UK's customs arrangements after December 2020, when the transition period agreed with the EU is due to end, have yet to be resolved, as have arguments over the future movement of goods and people across the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
Mrs May's former top aide, Nick Timothy, has urged her to face down her opponents in the cabinet, telling the Daily Telegraph the "time for playing nice and being exploited are over".
With less than nine months to go before the UK's scheduled exit, leading businesses have said the time has come for clarity and issued warnings about the impact on jobs of leaving the EU without an agreement.
'Strong message'
The prime minister will hold a number of face-to-face meetings with European counterparts on day one of the two-day summit, the main focus of which will be on the migration challenges facing Europe and eurozone reform.
Is the EU punishing the UK?
The remaining 27 EU leaders will discuss Brexit on their own on Friday morning, by which point Mrs May is expected to have left Brussels.
On the eve of the summit, Mr Varadkar said he wanted "detailed proposals" from the UK on how it would honour the "clear commitments" made in December about the Irish border and citizens' rights.
Persuasion, not detail
By the BBC's political editor Laura Kuenssberg
There is no expectation that the prime minister will arrive in Brussels with a magic key to unlock the Brexit process.
But Theresa May heads to the Belgian capital later with a promise at least that within 10 days she will have been able to persuade her cabinet to agree more of the UK's vision for life outside the EU.
And that she will be able to put a detailed and ambitious vision into words in a White Paper to be published not long after - the UK's blueprint of how trade, customs, agriculture, and so many other areas might work after Brexit.
That, she hopes, in mid-July will usher in a genuine discussion about the long-term relationship between the country and the rest of the continent.
This summit therefore is not about technical negotiations, but about promises and persuasion, for the prime minister to convey that she is in charge of her agenda.
Read Laura's full blog
"Time is running out for the Withdrawal Agreement to be concluded satisfactorily by the October European Council," he said.
"I expect EU leaders to send a strong message to the UK that negotiations with the taskforce need to intensify."
The EU's negotiator Michel Barnier has said "serious divergences" remain over the question of backstop arrangements for the Irish border if neither of the UK's proposed customs proposals are deemed workable.
'Solidarity'
Elsewhere, Mrs May will seek to show solidarity with the rest of Europe in their efforts to deal with illegal migrant flows across the Mediterranean from Africa and the Middle East.
The issue has divided Europe for more than two years but tensions have increased since the election of a populist government in Italy, which has pledged to crack down on unlawful migration, and growing political uncertainty in Germany amid a backlash against Chancellor Angela Merkel's immigration policies.
The Irish prime minister says the UK must up the pace
Mrs May is expected to stress the need to tackle the problem of people smuggling at its source, citing the success of a project in Nigeria where once the dangers of crossing the Mediterranean were explained to people, their attitudes to illegal working in the UK changed.
On security, the prime minister will call for collective action against misinformation, cyber warfare and money laundering by "hostile states" such as Russia. One example of this, she will say, is the UK's sharing of details of Russian intelligence officers expelled after the attacks on Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury with EU allies.
The working dinner will coincide with England's final World Cup group game against Belgium, whose prime minister Charles Michel will also be present.
The UK's permanent representative in Brussels couldn't say how much of the match Mrs May, who on Wednesday ordered St George's flags to be flown above No 10 for remaining England games, would see.
China won't give up 'one inch' of territory says President Xi to Mattis - BBC News
June 28, 2018
China won't give up 'one inch' of territory says President Xi to Mattis
Mr Mattis (L) met with President Xi during his three day trip to China
China is committed to peace but will not give up "even one inch" of territory, President Xi Jinping has said, after talks with visiting US Defence Secretary James Mattis.
Tensions between both countries are mounting over trade hostilities and China's increasingly assertive claims to territory in the South China Sea.
Mr Mattis is the first Pentagon chief to visit China since 2014.
It's part of a trip across Asia, meeting several regional US allies.
Mr Mattis said his talks with Mr Xi in Beijing and other officials on Wednesday had been "very, very" good, adding that the US was assigning a "high degree of importance to the military relationship" with China.
Mr Xi added that China had peaceful intentions, but reasserted his view that there would be no concessions from China about what it considers to be Chinese territory.
"We cannot lose even one inch of the territory left behind by our ancestors," Mr Xi said, according to Chinese state media. "What is other people's we do not want at all."
Why is the South China Sea contentious?
The 'globalisation' of China's military power
The US has repeatedly criticised China's movements in the South China Sea, accusing it of intimidating its neighbours and militarising the area, by building up facilities on artificial islands.
Several countries have competing claims in the disputed sea, but China claims the largest portion of territory, saying its rights go back centuries.
The area is a major shipping route, and a rich fishing ground, and is thought to have abundant oil and gas reserves.
The defence secretary's tour comes after a historic summit in Singapore which saw US President Donald Trump meet North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.
After Beijing, he will travel on to South Korea and Japan, where he is expected to pass on reassurances about the US post-summit security commitment to the region.
China won't give up 'one inch' of territory says President Xi to Mattis
Mr Mattis (L) met with President Xi during his three day trip to China
China is committed to peace but will not give up "even one inch" of territory, President Xi Jinping has said, after talks with visiting US Defence Secretary James Mattis.
Tensions between both countries are mounting over trade hostilities and China's increasingly assertive claims to territory in the South China Sea.
Mr Mattis is the first Pentagon chief to visit China since 2014.
It's part of a trip across Asia, meeting several regional US allies.
Mr Mattis said his talks with Mr Xi in Beijing and other officials on Wednesday had been "very, very" good, adding that the US was assigning a "high degree of importance to the military relationship" with China.
Mr Xi added that China had peaceful intentions, but reasserted his view that there would be no concessions from China about what it considers to be Chinese territory.
"We cannot lose even one inch of the territory left behind by our ancestors," Mr Xi said, according to Chinese state media. "What is other people's we do not want at all."
Why is the South China Sea contentious?
The 'globalisation' of China's military power
The US has repeatedly criticised China's movements in the South China Sea, accusing it of intimidating its neighbours and militarising the area, by building up facilities on artificial islands.
Several countries have competing claims in the disputed sea, but China claims the largest portion of territory, saying its rights go back centuries.
The area is a major shipping route, and a rich fishing ground, and is thought to have abundant oil and gas reserves.
The defence secretary's tour comes after a historic summit in Singapore which saw US President Donald Trump meet North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.
After Beijing, he will travel on to South Korea and Japan, where he is expected to pass on reassurances about the US post-summit security commitment to the region.
Wednesday, June 27, 2018
UK GOVERNMENT CRITICISED FOR SLOW PROGRESS SECURING POST-BREXIT AVIATION DEAL - Independent
June 27, 2018
GOVERNMENT CRITICISED FOR SLOW PROGRESS SECURING POST-BREXIT AVIATION DEAL
‘The negotiators in Brussels have been warming up on the pitch for two years, and we’re still in the changing room,’ said ABTA’s chief executive
SIMON CALDER TRAVEL CORRESPONDENT
A leading travel industry figure has slammed the “lack of clarity and progress” in Brexit negotiations.
Mark Tanzer, the chief executive of ABTA, the UK travel trade association for tour operators and travel agents, told a conference in London: “A year ago, I set out a number of areas in which we needed to see urgent progress – aviation access, movement of key workers, VAT and consumer rights.
What happens to your European Health Insurance Card after Brexit?
“Twelve months on, and we still don’t have any clarity on any of these.”
He was particular critical of the lack of progress on aviation access. Currently British passengers have access to a wider range of flights than any other European country, as a result of the “open skies” agreement across the EU.
A deal between Brussels and Washington also governs flights between the UK and US.
Immediately after the EU referendum result two years ago, Britain’s travel industry urged immediate action to safeguard aviation access. Yet as The Independent reported, the key role of “Head of Aviation EU Exit Negotiations” has only just been advertised.
Mr Tanzer said of EU negotiators in Brussels: “They’ve been warming up on the pitch for two years, and we’re still in the changing room.”
The aviation minister, Baroness Sugg, said: “Aviation, tourism and travel have never been more important to this country.
“Our future prosperity will depend even more on reaching out to global partners.
“Securing a good deal for aviation with the best possible access to Europe remains one of our key Brexit priorities.”
She said that aviation would continue operating on current terms until the end of 2020.
The ABTA boss also rebuked attacks on business from senior politicians, saying: “It is right that businesses are speaking out against a ‘no deal’ exit from the EU, or a ‘cliff-edge’.
“We are surely approaching a crunch time, when hard choices will have to be made,” said Mr Tanzer. “The government should listen to those who have knowledge on their side, rather than just ideology.”
The government says it has agreed to a transitional period for leaving the EU until the end of 2020, providing certainty for industry.
GOVERNMENT CRITICISED FOR SLOW PROGRESS SECURING POST-BREXIT AVIATION DEAL
‘The negotiators in Brussels have been warming up on the pitch for two years, and we’re still in the changing room,’ said ABTA’s chief executive
SIMON CALDER TRAVEL CORRESPONDENT
A leading travel industry figure has slammed the “lack of clarity and progress” in Brexit negotiations.
Mark Tanzer, the chief executive of ABTA, the UK travel trade association for tour operators and travel agents, told a conference in London: “A year ago, I set out a number of areas in which we needed to see urgent progress – aviation access, movement of key workers, VAT and consumer rights.
What happens to your European Health Insurance Card after Brexit?
“Twelve months on, and we still don’t have any clarity on any of these.”
He was particular critical of the lack of progress on aviation access. Currently British passengers have access to a wider range of flights than any other European country, as a result of the “open skies” agreement across the EU.
A deal between Brussels and Washington also governs flights between the UK and US.
Immediately after the EU referendum result two years ago, Britain’s travel industry urged immediate action to safeguard aviation access. Yet as The Independent reported, the key role of “Head of Aviation EU Exit Negotiations” has only just been advertised.
Mr Tanzer said of EU negotiators in Brussels: “They’ve been warming up on the pitch for two years, and we’re still in the changing room.”
The aviation minister, Baroness Sugg, said: “Aviation, tourism and travel have never been more important to this country.
“Our future prosperity will depend even more on reaching out to global partners.
“Securing a good deal for aviation with the best possible access to Europe remains one of our key Brexit priorities.”
She said that aviation would continue operating on current terms until the end of 2020.
The ABTA boss also rebuked attacks on business from senior politicians, saying: “It is right that businesses are speaking out against a ‘no deal’ exit from the EU, or a ‘cliff-edge’.
“We are surely approaching a crunch time, when hard choices will have to be made,” said Mr Tanzer. “The government should listen to those who have knowledge on their side, rather than just ideology.”
The government says it has agreed to a transitional period for leaving the EU until the end of 2020, providing certainty for industry.
The GOP Raised Taxes on Churches to Fund Its Giveaway to the Rich - Intelligencer ( New York Magazine )
June 26, 2018
11:25 am
The GOP Raised Taxes on Churches to Fund Its Giveaway to the Rich
By
Eric Levitz
@EricLevitz
The Republican Party has many masters. On matters of reproductive choice, it answers to the Christian right; on foreign policy, to the military-industrial complex; on immigration, the racial paranoia of their rank-and-file constituents.
But the conservative movement’s largest shareholders are — and always have been — reactionary plutocrats hell-bent on maximizing the amount of wealth they can extract from the lower orders. Some of these would-be oligarchs have sympathy for the GOP’s other projects; but virtually all see them as secondary to the task of restoring the Mammon-given right of the superrich to hoard unaccountable, economic power. And the Koch Network votes its shares.
Thus, when Republicans returned to power on the back of a xenophobic populist — who had campaigned on preserving entitlements, soaking hedge-fund managers, building a border wall, and making $1 trillion worth of investments in public infrastructure — their priorities did not change. The fact that a majority of GOP voters opposed tax cuts for the rich and corporations — and supported higher federal spending on health care — was irrelevant. So too, was the fact that an unprecedented drug-overdose epidemic was devastating many of the most staunchly Republican areas of the country. The absence of a popular mandate for tax cuts — and the presence of a public health emergency that could only be quelled through federal investment in addiction treatment — changed nothing. The Republican Congress appropriated $6 billion to combat an opioid crisis that had just killed more than 42,000 Americans in a single year; it added $1.5 trillion to the federal deficit for regressive tax cuts.
And the actual cost of the GOP’s giveaway to the economic elite was far larger than that. To keep the legislation’s price tag at $1.5 trillion, Republicans had to offset massive tax breaks for the rich by eliminating tax benefits prized by the (merely) affluent, the middle class — and, remarkably, Evangelical churches.
That last bit somehow slipped under the radar last fall; many conservative congregations are just now realizing that their own political party slapped a complicated new tax on their parking lots. Politico explains:
[T]o help defray the budgetary cost of [tax cuts on businesses and individuals], Republicans simultaneously pared tax breaks for workers’ fringe benefits, which is projected to raise around $40 billion over the next decade.
They were mainly trimming deductions companies have long taken for entertaining clients and providing meals for employees. But Republicans also wanted to treat nonprofits equally, which proved challenging. Because those organizations don’t pay income taxes, lawmakers couldn’t take away fringe-benefit deductions. So instead they created a 21 percent tax on the value of some of nonprofit employees’ benefits.
The main benefits affected are transportation-related, like free parking in a lot or a garage and subway and bus passes. It also targets meals provided to workers and, in some circumstances, may affect gym memberships.
Now, one can make sound arguments for taxing religious institutions, and eliminating tax breaks for fringe employee benefits. The former forces the government to decide what does and does not count as a religion, while also subsidizing many organizations that do not serve what a majority of Americans would regard as “the public good.” The latter, meanwhile, biases the forms of compensation that corporations chose to provide to their employees.
But it’s harder to make a case for raising taxes on churches that provide employees with free meals — for the purpose of financing tax cuts for the richest 0.1 percent of Americans, who already owned as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent combined, before Trump’s tax cuts took effect.
Further, for nonprofits, the costs of the GOP’s new tax extend beyond its sticker price. As tax-exempt organizations, they have little experience in — or infrastructure for — complying with the IRS. And the tax on worker benefits is unusually complicated, as it requires nonprofits to both identify what qualifies as such a benefit, and to calculate the precise value of said benefit. This raises thorny, almost metaphysical questions, as Politico notes:
Churches and other groups want to know how they are supposed to go about calculating the value of things like parking spaces for employees. Some wonder if the garages provided as part of clergy residences are now taxable.
Universities want to know if the bus services they provide for faculty and students are taxable and how they figure out how much they owe. Orchestras want to know how to treat musicians who may perform in different locations.
“At what point is something a travel reimbursement? And at what point is it a commuter benefit?” said Heather Noonan, vice president for advocacy at the League of American Orchestras.
In 2016, white Evangelical Christians backed Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton by a margin of 81 to 16 percent. The GOP could not exist in anything resembling its current form without this demographic’s overwhelming support. And yet, the party decided that it was not worth trimming its tax cuts by a few billion dollars to spare their houses of worship from a novel logistical and financial headache.
By all accounts, many (if not most) Republican lawmakers did not know about this provision when they voted it into law. But that fact is itself a testament to the GOP donor class’s domination of the Republican Party: Congressional Republicans rushed through an overhaul of the tax code — with barely any hearings or debate — precisely because they understood that their paymasters’ priorities were deeply unpopular, and thus, had to be enacted as rapidly and discreetly as possible.
There is little reason to believe that Republicans will pay any price for letting money-lenders leech off the Christian right’s temples. For one thing, the Trump tax cuts were very kind to the (immensely wealthy) megachurch pastors who lead the white Evangelical movement. For another, the rank-and-file religious right is thrilled with their libertine president, who has both delivered tangible policy victories on abortion and contraceptives, and (perhaps, more importantly) put ungrateful black athletes, godless liberal elites, and murderous illegals in their respective, subordinate places. In March, the Public Religion Research Institute poll found Trump’s support among white Evangelicals stood at 75 percent.
11:25 am
The GOP Raised Taxes on Churches to Fund Its Giveaway to the Rich
By
Eric Levitz
@EricLevitz
The Republican Party has many masters. On matters of reproductive choice, it answers to the Christian right; on foreign policy, to the military-industrial complex; on immigration, the racial paranoia of their rank-and-file constituents.
But the conservative movement’s largest shareholders are — and always have been — reactionary plutocrats hell-bent on maximizing the amount of wealth they can extract from the lower orders. Some of these would-be oligarchs have sympathy for the GOP’s other projects; but virtually all see them as secondary to the task of restoring the Mammon-given right of the superrich to hoard unaccountable, economic power. And the Koch Network votes its shares.
Thus, when Republicans returned to power on the back of a xenophobic populist — who had campaigned on preserving entitlements, soaking hedge-fund managers, building a border wall, and making $1 trillion worth of investments in public infrastructure — their priorities did not change. The fact that a majority of GOP voters opposed tax cuts for the rich and corporations — and supported higher federal spending on health care — was irrelevant. So too, was the fact that an unprecedented drug-overdose epidemic was devastating many of the most staunchly Republican areas of the country. The absence of a popular mandate for tax cuts — and the presence of a public health emergency that could only be quelled through federal investment in addiction treatment — changed nothing. The Republican Congress appropriated $6 billion to combat an opioid crisis that had just killed more than 42,000 Americans in a single year; it added $1.5 trillion to the federal deficit for regressive tax cuts.
And the actual cost of the GOP’s giveaway to the economic elite was far larger than that. To keep the legislation’s price tag at $1.5 trillion, Republicans had to offset massive tax breaks for the rich by eliminating tax benefits prized by the (merely) affluent, the middle class — and, remarkably, Evangelical churches.
That last bit somehow slipped under the radar last fall; many conservative congregations are just now realizing that their own political party slapped a complicated new tax on their parking lots. Politico explains:
[T]o help defray the budgetary cost of [tax cuts on businesses and individuals], Republicans simultaneously pared tax breaks for workers’ fringe benefits, which is projected to raise around $40 billion over the next decade.
They were mainly trimming deductions companies have long taken for entertaining clients and providing meals for employees. But Republicans also wanted to treat nonprofits equally, which proved challenging. Because those organizations don’t pay income taxes, lawmakers couldn’t take away fringe-benefit deductions. So instead they created a 21 percent tax on the value of some of nonprofit employees’ benefits.
The main benefits affected are transportation-related, like free parking in a lot or a garage and subway and bus passes. It also targets meals provided to workers and, in some circumstances, may affect gym memberships.
Now, one can make sound arguments for taxing religious institutions, and eliminating tax breaks for fringe employee benefits. The former forces the government to decide what does and does not count as a religion, while also subsidizing many organizations that do not serve what a majority of Americans would regard as “the public good.” The latter, meanwhile, biases the forms of compensation that corporations chose to provide to their employees.
But it’s harder to make a case for raising taxes on churches that provide employees with free meals — for the purpose of financing tax cuts for the richest 0.1 percent of Americans, who already owned as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent combined, before Trump’s tax cuts took effect.
Further, for nonprofits, the costs of the GOP’s new tax extend beyond its sticker price. As tax-exempt organizations, they have little experience in — or infrastructure for — complying with the IRS. And the tax on worker benefits is unusually complicated, as it requires nonprofits to both identify what qualifies as such a benefit, and to calculate the precise value of said benefit. This raises thorny, almost metaphysical questions, as Politico notes:
Churches and other groups want to know how they are supposed to go about calculating the value of things like parking spaces for employees. Some wonder if the garages provided as part of clergy residences are now taxable.
Universities want to know if the bus services they provide for faculty and students are taxable and how they figure out how much they owe. Orchestras want to know how to treat musicians who may perform in different locations.
“At what point is something a travel reimbursement? And at what point is it a commuter benefit?” said Heather Noonan, vice president for advocacy at the League of American Orchestras.
In 2016, white Evangelical Christians backed Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton by a margin of 81 to 16 percent. The GOP could not exist in anything resembling its current form without this demographic’s overwhelming support. And yet, the party decided that it was not worth trimming its tax cuts by a few billion dollars to spare their houses of worship from a novel logistical and financial headache.
By all accounts, many (if not most) Republican lawmakers did not know about this provision when they voted it into law. But that fact is itself a testament to the GOP donor class’s domination of the Republican Party: Congressional Republicans rushed through an overhaul of the tax code — with barely any hearings or debate — precisely because they understood that their paymasters’ priorities were deeply unpopular, and thus, had to be enacted as rapidly and discreetly as possible.
There is little reason to believe that Republicans will pay any price for letting money-lenders leech off the Christian right’s temples. For one thing, the Trump tax cuts were very kind to the (immensely wealthy) megachurch pastors who lead the white Evangelical movement. For another, the rank-and-file religious right is thrilled with their libertine president, who has both delivered tangible policy victories on abortion and contraceptives, and (perhaps, more importantly) put ungrateful black athletes, godless liberal elites, and murderous illegals in their respective, subordinate places. In March, the Public Religion Research Institute poll found Trump’s support among white Evangelicals stood at 75 percent.
US Police Chiefs Oppose Donald Trump's Move To Detain Immigrant Families - NDTV
US Police Chiefs Oppose Donald Trump's Move To Detain Immigrant Families
In a joint letter, more than 45 law enforcement heads appealed to Trump to consider other possibilities than incarceration.
World | Reuters | Updated: June 27, 2018 17:40 IST
by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored
Amazon will change Australian retail. Are you prepared? (Telstra)
85% of self-starters have no written plan for growth, here's how to create yours (THEXYZED.COM)
US Police Chiefs Oppose Donald Trump's Move To Detain Immigrant Families
Trump had scrapped the policy of separating children from illegal immigrants (File)
WASHINGTON: Police chiefs from across the United States, both Republicans and Democrats, on Wednesday urged the White House to find alternatives to detention of immigrant families given the risks it poses to children and its huge cost.
In a joint letter, more than 45 law enforcement heads appealed to Trump to consider other possibilities than incarceration, such as requiring heads of households to wear global positioning signal (GPS) ankle bracelets or receive periodic telephone checks.
The geographic and political diversity of the signatory police chiefs showed their apprehension at locking up migrant families at a time when U.S. law enforcement is trying to gain the trust of immigrant communities.
Trump issued an order on Wednesday to scrap his policy of separating children from parents caught entering the United States illegally, a move praised by the police chiefs.
But under the order, which is likely to be challenged in court, families would instead be detained together for the duration of immigration proceedings, which can take months or years to complete.
Family detention centers could radicalize young people, pushing them towards street gangs or hate groups, said Houston police chief Art Acevedo.
Ads by ZINC
"The last thing we need to do is marginalise and disenfranchize young people," said Acevedo, who emigrated to the United States from Cuba as a young child. "You can accomplish the safety aspect and monitoring aspect at a fraction of the cost without having the negative impact on kids."
Vetting of families would show most do not need to be incarcerated as they pose no threat to the community, according to the letter from the Law Enforcement Immigration Task Force.
Confinement would endanger their childrens' physical and emotional development, according to the active and retired officials who ranged from Orlando police chief John Mina to Washington chief of police Peter Newsham and Cel Rivera, head of Lorain, Ohio's police force.
Taxpayers stand to save millions of dollars each year through incarceration alternatives, given the average cost of holding a person in specialised family detention is above $300 a day, according to the group.
Past alternatives to immigrant detention were more than 99 percent successful in getting family members to immigration hearings, the letter said.
COMMENT
"Local governments have been using alternatives to incarceration for a long time," said Fresno, California Sheriff Margaret Mims, a Republican who runs a local jail.
Zimbabwe's Mnangagwa blames Grace Mugabe faction for blast - BBC News
June 27, 2018
Zimbabwe's Mnangagwa blames Grace Mugabe faction for blast
Mnangagwa: Criminal will be hounded down, but Zimbabwe is safe
Zimbabwe's President, Emmerson Mnangagwa, has said he suspects a group linked to the former first lady was behind an attempt on his life.
Two people died and more than 40 were hurt in an explosion near Mr Mnangagwa at a rally in Bulawayo on Saturday.
Mr Mnangagwa told the BBC's Fergal Keane that he suspected the G40 group, which supported Grace Mugabe for the presidency, had carried out the attack.
Mrs Mugabe's husband, Robert Mugabe, was forced from power last year.
The army intervened to oppose Mrs Mugabe's attempt to succeed her husband as the country's leader, and the ruling Zanu-PF party then sacked Mr Mugabe, replacing him with Mr Mnangagwa.
An exiled member of the G40 group, former government minister Jonathan Moyo, has denied Mr Mnangagwa's accusation, tweeting that the blast "smacks of an inside job".
He was referring to an apparent power struggle between Mr Mnangagwa and his deputy, Constantino Chiwenga, the former army chief who forced Mr Mugabe out.
Mr Mnangagwa did not accuse Mrs Mugabe of being involved in the attempt on his life.
He told the BBC he expects arrests to be made shortly.
"I don't know whether it was one individual - I would think it is broader than one person. I would think this is a political action by some aggrieved persons," he said.
'Soft as wool'
Mr Mnangagwa described Mrs Mugabe as someone who had frequently insulted him in the past.
"On what basis would I trust someone who was used by a cabal to say things that had no basis?" he asked.
Nicknamed "the crocodile", Mr Mnangagwa has a reputation of being ruthless, but he told our correspondent: "I am as soft as wool. I am a very soft person in life, my brother. I'm a family person. I am a Christian."
Despite the apparent attempt on his life, Mr Mnangagwa said there would be no countrywide security clampdown and elections scheduled for 30 July would go ahead in a free and fair manner.
Zimbabwe was stable and that foreign investors should not worry, he said.
Zimbabwe's Mnangagwa blames Grace Mugabe faction for blast
Mnangagwa: Criminal will be hounded down, but Zimbabwe is safe
Zimbabwe's President, Emmerson Mnangagwa, has said he suspects a group linked to the former first lady was behind an attempt on his life.
Two people died and more than 40 were hurt in an explosion near Mr Mnangagwa at a rally in Bulawayo on Saturday.
Mr Mnangagwa told the BBC's Fergal Keane that he suspected the G40 group, which supported Grace Mugabe for the presidency, had carried out the attack.
Mrs Mugabe's husband, Robert Mugabe, was forced from power last year.
The army intervened to oppose Mrs Mugabe's attempt to succeed her husband as the country's leader, and the ruling Zanu-PF party then sacked Mr Mugabe, replacing him with Mr Mnangagwa.
An exiled member of the G40 group, former government minister Jonathan Moyo, has denied Mr Mnangagwa's accusation, tweeting that the blast "smacks of an inside job".
He was referring to an apparent power struggle between Mr Mnangagwa and his deputy, Constantino Chiwenga, the former army chief who forced Mr Mugabe out.
Mr Mnangagwa did not accuse Mrs Mugabe of being involved in the attempt on his life.
He told the BBC he expects arrests to be made shortly.
"I don't know whether it was one individual - I would think it is broader than one person. I would think this is a political action by some aggrieved persons," he said.
'Soft as wool'
Mr Mnangagwa described Mrs Mugabe as someone who had frequently insulted him in the past.
"On what basis would I trust someone who was used by a cabal to say things that had no basis?" he asked.
Nicknamed "the crocodile", Mr Mnangagwa has a reputation of being ruthless, but he told our correspondent: "I am as soft as wool. I am a very soft person in life, my brother. I'm a family person. I am a Christian."
Despite the apparent attempt on his life, Mr Mnangagwa said there would be no countrywide security clampdown and elections scheduled for 30 July would go ahead in a free and fair manner.
Zimbabwe was stable and that foreign investors should not worry, he said.
Migrant separations: US judge orders family reunifications - BBC News
June 27, 2018
Migrant separations: US judge orders family reunifications
A US judge has ordered that migrant children and their parents who were separated when they crossed into the US should be reunited within 30 days.
The judge issued the injunction in a case stemming from the administration's "zero-tolerance" immigration policy.
Meanwhile the policy of breaking up families at the Mexico border is being challenged by 17 US states.
Democratic attorneys general from states including Washington, New York and California launched the lawsuit.
More than 2,300 migrant children have been separated from their parents since early May under the Trump administration's controversial policy, which seeks to criminally prosecute anyone crossing the border illegally.
What did the judge say?
Tuesday's preliminary injunction, issued by a federal judge in San Diego, California, orders the government to reunite parents with their children aged under five within 14 days, and with older ones within 30 days.
"The facts set forth before the court portray reactive governance responses to address a chaotic circumstance of the government's own making," Judge Dana Sabraw said.
The nationwide injunction was issued as part of a case filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of a mother who was split from her six-year-old daughter after arriving in the US last year.
Court papers filed by the ACLU contained accounts from other parents unable to locate their children after they were separated at the border.
US pauses migrant family prosecutions
Hasn't Trump already backtracked on separations?
Last week President Trump issued an executive order promising to "keep families together" in migrant detention centres.
It urged officials to expedite cases involving families. "We don't like to see families separated," Mr Trump said.
The order was widely seen as the reversal of a policy that had drawn widespread domestic and international condemnation.
On Monday US border security chief Kevin McAleenan said he had halted criminal prosecutions of migrants who illegally enter the country with children, following Mr Trump's announcement.
However critics have said the order is vague, and does not specify when and how those already split up would be brought back together.
Two US military bases to house migrants
Migrant families face chaos to reunite
Media captionCisary Reynaud has not spoken to his daughter since they were separated
Why are the states challenging the policy?
The lawsuit by the 17 states argues that the order does not prevent the policy being used again in the future. Neither, they note, does it say anything about reuniting families that have been separated.
They call the policy "an affront" to the states' interests in maintaining standards of care for children and preserving parent-child relationships.
New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal callled it "cruel, plain and simple" and accused the administration of "issuing new, contradictory policies" every day.
New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood said the administration was causing "causing unfathomable trauma" and that migrant children held in New York City had to be treated for depression and suicidal behaviour.
The lawsuit was filed with the US District Court in Seattle, Washington, on Tuesday.
The states involved are Massachusetts, Washington, New York, California, Delaware, Iowa, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Virginia plus the District of Columbia.
The lawsuit is similar to the case against the Trump administration's travel ban, which was initially blocked by Hawaii until the Supreme Court reversed the ruling on Tuesday morning.
What are officials saying?
Speaking in Brazil on Tuesday, US Vice-President Mike Pence warned undocumented immigrants not to "risk the lives of your children" by trying to enter the US illegally.
He said he had a message "straight from my heart" for those planning a journey to America: "If you can't come legally, don't come at all."
Also on Tuesday, the US health department's Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) confirmed that 2,047 migrant children were currently in the care of the agency.
The children have been sent to holding cells, converted warehouses, desert tents or foster care around the US.
ORR director Scott Lloyd refused to say whether the agency was still receiving migrant children who had been separated from their families.
Migrant separations: US judge orders family reunifications
A US judge has ordered that migrant children and their parents who were separated when they crossed into the US should be reunited within 30 days.
The judge issued the injunction in a case stemming from the administration's "zero-tolerance" immigration policy.
Meanwhile the policy of breaking up families at the Mexico border is being challenged by 17 US states.
Democratic attorneys general from states including Washington, New York and California launched the lawsuit.
More than 2,300 migrant children have been separated from their parents since early May under the Trump administration's controversial policy, which seeks to criminally prosecute anyone crossing the border illegally.
What did the judge say?
Tuesday's preliminary injunction, issued by a federal judge in San Diego, California, orders the government to reunite parents with their children aged under five within 14 days, and with older ones within 30 days.
"The facts set forth before the court portray reactive governance responses to address a chaotic circumstance of the government's own making," Judge Dana Sabraw said.
The nationwide injunction was issued as part of a case filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of a mother who was split from her six-year-old daughter after arriving in the US last year.
Court papers filed by the ACLU contained accounts from other parents unable to locate their children after they were separated at the border.
US pauses migrant family prosecutions
Hasn't Trump already backtracked on separations?
Last week President Trump issued an executive order promising to "keep families together" in migrant detention centres.
It urged officials to expedite cases involving families. "We don't like to see families separated," Mr Trump said.
The order was widely seen as the reversal of a policy that had drawn widespread domestic and international condemnation.
On Monday US border security chief Kevin McAleenan said he had halted criminal prosecutions of migrants who illegally enter the country with children, following Mr Trump's announcement.
However critics have said the order is vague, and does not specify when and how those already split up would be brought back together.
Two US military bases to house migrants
Migrant families face chaos to reunite
Media captionCisary Reynaud has not spoken to his daughter since they were separated
Why are the states challenging the policy?
The lawsuit by the 17 states argues that the order does not prevent the policy being used again in the future. Neither, they note, does it say anything about reuniting families that have been separated.
They call the policy "an affront" to the states' interests in maintaining standards of care for children and preserving parent-child relationships.
New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal callled it "cruel, plain and simple" and accused the administration of "issuing new, contradictory policies" every day.
New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood said the administration was causing "causing unfathomable trauma" and that migrant children held in New York City had to be treated for depression and suicidal behaviour.
The lawsuit was filed with the US District Court in Seattle, Washington, on Tuesday.
The states involved are Massachusetts, Washington, New York, California, Delaware, Iowa, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Virginia plus the District of Columbia.
The lawsuit is similar to the case against the Trump administration's travel ban, which was initially blocked by Hawaii until the Supreme Court reversed the ruling on Tuesday morning.
What are officials saying?
Speaking in Brazil on Tuesday, US Vice-President Mike Pence warned undocumented immigrants not to "risk the lives of your children" by trying to enter the US illegally.
He said he had a message "straight from my heart" for those planning a journey to America: "If you can't come legally, don't come at all."
Also on Tuesday, the US health department's Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) confirmed that 2,047 migrant children were currently in the care of the agency.
The children have been sent to holding cells, converted warehouses, desert tents or foster care around the US.
ORR director Scott Lloyd refused to say whether the agency was still receiving migrant children who had been separated from their families.
Tuesday, June 26, 2018
Jimmy Fallon Strikes Back at Trump: 'You’re the President! Why Are You Tweeting at Me?' - Fortune
Jimmy Fallon Strikes Back at Trump: 'You’re the President! Why Are You Tweeting at Me?'
By NATASHA BACH June 26, 2018
Jimmy Fallon is using his own soapbox to clap back at President Trump.
A day after Trump sent out a tweet calling on Fallon to “be a man,” Fallon focused his Monday night monologue on The Tonight Show on the commander-in-chief.
“Before we begin,” he told the audience at the start of the show, “I just want to give a shout out to our show’s number one fan: the president of the United States!”
“As you may have heard, last night, the president of the United States went after me on Twitter,” he continued. “So Melania, if you’re watching, I don’t think your anti-bullying campaign is working.”
Fallon went on, explaining that while he initially planned to tweet back, he then realized that he has “more important things to do.” But then he realized that Trump should also have more important things to do, telling the audience, “He’s the president! What are you doing? You’re the president! Why are you tweeting at me?”
Poking fun at the notion of Trump getting into a Twitter war with him, Fallon said, “The president went after me on Twitter. It’s pretty much the only thing I have in common with NFL players.”
Even after finishing his monologue, Fallon had a couple more points of clarification for his audience. Referring to the part of Trump’s tweet where he claimed that Fallon called him to discuss the “monster ratings” of the show they did together, Fallon said, “First of all, I’ve never called this human in my life.”
“I don’t have his number, I don’t want his number,” Fallon continued. “And ‘monster ratings’? I’ve never said ‘monster ratings.’ I don’t know what he’s talking about.”
And if you thought it was just Fallon who doubled down on the feud Monday, you’d be wrong. At a rally in Columbia, S.C., Trump claimed once again that Fallon had called him, explaining, “He’s lost. He looks like a lost soul. But you know what, he’s a nice guy.”
“I agreed to do his show and I guess because I was running at that time, I think, he got tremendous ratings. He should be thankful. He shouldn’t be upset or angry,” Trump continued. “He’s all apologizing because he humanized me? And he really hurt himself.”
By NATASHA BACH June 26, 2018
Jimmy Fallon is using his own soapbox to clap back at President Trump.
A day after Trump sent out a tweet calling on Fallon to “be a man,” Fallon focused his Monday night monologue on The Tonight Show on the commander-in-chief.
“Before we begin,” he told the audience at the start of the show, “I just want to give a shout out to our show’s number one fan: the president of the United States!”
“As you may have heard, last night, the president of the United States went after me on Twitter,” he continued. “So Melania, if you’re watching, I don’t think your anti-bullying campaign is working.”
Fallon went on, explaining that while he initially planned to tweet back, he then realized that he has “more important things to do.” But then he realized that Trump should also have more important things to do, telling the audience, “He’s the president! What are you doing? You’re the president! Why are you tweeting at me?”
Poking fun at the notion of Trump getting into a Twitter war with him, Fallon said, “The president went after me on Twitter. It’s pretty much the only thing I have in common with NFL players.”
Even after finishing his monologue, Fallon had a couple more points of clarification for his audience. Referring to the part of Trump’s tweet where he claimed that Fallon called him to discuss the “monster ratings” of the show they did together, Fallon said, “First of all, I’ve never called this human in my life.”
“I don’t have his number, I don’t want his number,” Fallon continued. “And ‘monster ratings’? I’ve never said ‘monster ratings.’ I don’t know what he’s talking about.”
And if you thought it was just Fallon who doubled down on the feud Monday, you’d be wrong. At a rally in Columbia, S.C., Trump claimed once again that Fallon had called him, explaining, “He’s lost. He looks like a lost soul. But you know what, he’s a nice guy.”
“I agreed to do his show and I guess because I was running at that time, I think, he got tremendous ratings. He should be thankful. He shouldn’t be upset or angry,” Trump continued. “He’s all apologizing because he humanized me? And he really hurt himself.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
