President Donald Trump has received praise from the military after he and Secretary of Defense James Mattis made a change which loosened the rules of engagement, giving the military more freedom to act. For example, troops were no longer required to be in contact with the enemy in order to fire back and air support is now much easier to obtain.
On Wednesday, Gold Star father Billy Vaughn appeared on Fox News to explain just how important a change this was and how it is saving military lives.
Billy's son, Aaron Carson Vaughn, was a Navy SEAL who was killed on August 6, 2011, in the Tangi River Valley of Afghanistan after his chopper was shot down from the sky. Months later, they found out that “the downing of Extortion 17 was at best unnecessary and at worst, a negligent, reckless loss of life” according to their website.
During his interview, Vaughn explained that there were many things that should have been done differently, and they were a direct result of the old rules of engagement.
He stated, “The helicopter pilots, when they were giving testimony, one of them said that there was a one in a million chance that they could get pre-assault fire approved and the other one said we never ask for it because it's never approved anymore. It was two different testimonies at two different times. That could have saved the warfighters that night.”
He went on to describe the horrific night:
“Also that night, the AC-130 overhead asking to engage multiple times enemy combatants on the ground was not allowed to engage those enemy combatants with weapons and it's very likely that one of those enemy combatants took that chopper down that night.”
Then he explained how Obama operated:
“President Trump in August said that he was going to give more authority to the war fighters on the ground, to those people. Under President Obama, a lot of that authority, as you made an earlier comment earlier tonight, was being done by people back in Washington D.C. inside the White House who had never seen the theatre of war, who had never been in the battlefield at night with bullets whizzing by heads.”
British officials want Franklin Graham barred from entering the U.K., alleging Graham is an anti-Muslim, anti-gay bigot. (Mark Wallheiser/Getty Images)
Franklin Graham, son of legendary evangelist Billy Graham, won’t be allowed entry into the United Kingdom for an event next year if several UK government officials have their way. They accuse Graham of speech crimes that would be covered by the First Amendment in the United States.
What’s going on?
According to the Asheville Citizen Times, several government officials have asked the UK home secretary, Amber Rudd, to consider refusing Graham entry into the country next year when he is slated to be a featured speaker at a September festival. Ironically, the event is being organized by the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association U.K., of which Graham is the president and CEO.
The officials have accused Graham of “hate speech,” citing his rhetoric against Islam, Muslims and the LGBT community. As the Guardian noted, Graham has said Islam is“an evil and very wicked religion.”
Graham’s critics even began a Change.org petition calling for the evangelist to be barred entry into the U.K. for the event. So far, the petition has 7,300 signatures.
What do Graham’s critics say?
The Change.org petition reads in part:
Unlike his father, Billy Graham, Franklin Graham engages in outspoken bigotry targeting refugees, Muslims and LGBT people. His father promoted unity and respect in communities but Franklin Graham’s extreme views promote prejudice and division.
…
Speech likely to promote prejudice and hatred is grounds for the government to refuse a visa. Help us stop this man getting a visa to come here to spread his hatred.
Meanwhile, Afzal Khan, a British member of parliament, told the Guardian that Graham’s “views are not welcome.”
Gordon Marsden, another MP, told the BBC: “I think frankly the evidence is piling up that his visit to the UK…would not be a good thing and not probably in my view a very Christian thing.” He added that Graham views are “incompatible with what Jesus said in the Bible.”
An official for the town where the event is scheduled to take place said recently about Graham: “If matters are brought to our attention that could constitute incitement to hatred, we will forward these to the relevant public authorities and should this be proved we will not hesitate to terminate this booking.”
How did Graham at the BGEA respond?
The BGEA told the Guardian the event in question is partnering with local churches to spread the Gospel.
“It will be a positive and encouraging event with music and also a message from Franklin Graham about the hope that can be found through a relationship with Jesus Christ. It will be free and everyone is invited to attend,” the group said.
BuzzFeed is under fire for its article, "37 Things White People Need To Stop Ruining In 2018"(Nicholas Kamm/Getty Images)
White people ruined America by voting for President Donald Trump, according to BuzzFeed writer Patrice Peck.
Peck kicks off her article, “37 Things White People Need To Stop Ruining In 2018” by saying: “First of all, America.” Later in the article she links to a CNN graphic that indicates 58 percent of white voters voted for Trump.
She goes on to use a series of random Twitter posts as further evidence of how white people have ruined things. For example, she suggests white people ruin the Grammy awards and the Oscars when they are given awards instead of nominees from other races. Additionally, white people have ruined marijuana joints, the Hit Dem Folks Dance, the theme song from “The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air,” and “sneaker culture,” Peck says.
“One more time for ya’ll in the cheap seats: THE.HIT.DEM.FOLKS.DANCE.” she wrote, linking to the following Twitter post:
According to Peck, white people also also to blame for destroying everything from makeup to macaroni and cheese and people’s childhoods. As evidence of “white people” ruining childhoods, she links to a Twitter post of an elderly woman questioning a black youth selling candy in front of a store.
What are people saying?
The article is not funny or edgy, media critics said. They pointed out that if a white person said similar things about any other race, it would ignite a firestorm.
Conservative commentator Britt McHenry told Fox News,”This article isn’t funny, it’s racist—plain and simple. If a similar piece was written about any other ethnicity, the journalist would be fired on the spot. It undoubtedly would spark public outrage, and rightfully so.”
Media Research Center Vice President Dan Gainor agreed, saying, “The easy test of this is try imagining a bigoted piece of filth like this being written about any other group. Picture the ‘37 Things Black People Need To Stop Ruining In 2018’ headline and then wait for Twitter to shut down your account.”
He added that “openly liberal media have finally outed themselves.” Left leaning media members believe racism and sexism is OK, along as white males with conservative values are the target.
Gainor also alleged that Buzz Feed is “openly bigoted” but “major media will let them get it away it.”
Outkick founder and media watchdog Clay Travis tweeted.“If this is written about any other race every advertiser bails on company & a ton of people are fired.”
Tucker Carlson of Fox News weighs in on the BuzzFeed article in the following video.
What is the impact?
Any time racist comments are publicly aired — even as satire — they have to potential to incite threats or violence.
In October, for example, parents pulled students out of classes at Washington Township High School in Sewell, New Jersey on Thursday, over hallway scuffles caused by racial tensions. The problem was caused by “a barrage of racist postings on social media by a member of the football team,” according to WPVI-TV.
George Ciccariello-Maher, a politics and global studies professor at Drexel University in Philadelphia, received death threats after writing racist social media posts. He tweeted, “All I Want for Christmas is White Genocide,” then later called the post satire.
In October, he tweeted that “Trumpism” and the “narrative of white victimization” caused the Las Vegas mass shooting that left 58 dead.
Ciccariello-Maher is on administrative leave and is teaching classes remotely, according to reports.
As North Korea and the United States continue to trade threats, we have little idea how the war of words is perceived to the people of North Korea because the regime of Kim Jong-un maintains an iron grip over the population, carefully controlling access to the outside world.
The country is often depicted as isolated and thoroughly out of step with the 21st century. Statistics are hard to get and often based on estimates, but what can they tell us about life in the North?
Kim Il-sung effectively founded North Korea in 1948 and his family dynasty has ruled the country ever since, with control passing from father to son.
In the same period South Korea has managed six republics, a revolution, a couple of coups and the transition to free and fair elections. In total 12 presidents have led the country, covering 19 terms of office.
Three million mobile phones might seem like a lot - but in a country of 25 million it amounts to just over one out of every ten people. Most mobile users are likely to be concentrated in the capital Pyongyang.
By contrast, with a population of some 51 million there are more mobile phone subscriptions than people in South Korea.
With effectively a single network, Koryolink, North Korea's mobile market is limited but growing. Originally established as a partnership with Egyptian telecom firm Orascom, it was for many years the only option.
However, in 2015 Orascom discovered that North Korea was setting up a rival network, Byol, and was forced to disclose to investors that it had effectively lost control over the service's three million plus subscribers.
There's reason to be sceptical about those subscriber numbers though.
Research by the US-Korea Institute at SAIS suggests that some growth might be down to North Koreans calculating that it's cheaper to buy an additional subscription than additional air time.
As well as a scarcity of mobiles, the vast majority of North Koreans are only permitted access to the country's 'private internet' - effectively a closed intranet operating on a national scale.
It may sound like an urban myth, but there is some research to suggest that North Korean men are on average shorter than their South Korean counterparts.
Professor Daniel Schwekendiek from Sungkyunkwan University in Seoul studied the heights of North Korean refugees measured when they crossed the border into South Korea and found an average 3-8cm (1.2 -3.1 inch) difference.
Schwekendiek points out that the height difference cannot be attributed to genetics, because the two populations are the same.
He also rejects criticism that suggests that refugees are more likely to be impoverished, and therefore of smaller stature.
Food shortages are thought to be the main factor in why North Koreans are generally shorter.
Images from North Korea's capital Pyongyang often show stretches of wide, pristine motorway unoccupied by traffic, but outside the city it's another story.
North Korea has some 25,554 km of roads, according to 2006 figures, but just 3% are actually paved, amounting to a meagre 724km (449 miles).
It's also estimated that only about 11 out of every 1,000 North Koreans owns a car, which means a long queue at the bus stop for most people who need to travel.
Image copyrightGETTY IMAGESImage captionPublic transport is ubiquitous in North Korea
North Korea relies on coal exports to keep its economy above water - but it's hard to measure their true value as the data comes from countries receiving the coal.
Much of North Korea's coal is exported to China, which banned imports in February 2017. However some analysts question the nature of the sanction.
"There are folks who track ships and have seen North Korean ships docking at coal terminals at Chinese ports even after the ban. I do believe that China has disrupted coal imports, but not completely," says Kent Boydston, research analyst at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.
Until 1973 North and South Korea were pretty evenly matched in terms of wealth.
Since then, South Korea has rocketed ahead to become one of the world's leading industrial producers, with companies like Samsung and Hyundai becoming global household names.
North Korea stagnated in the 1980s as the country stuck rigidly to its state-run system.
While North Korea is the 52nd largest country by population, it is considered to have the world's fourth largest army.
Military spending is estimated to account for as much as 25% of GDP, and almost every North Korean man undergoes some form of military training.
A series of famines in the late 1990s caused a sharp drop in life expectancy in North Korea, but even without that factor, the North lags nearly 12 years behind.
Food shortages persist and are one of many reasons why South Koreans generally live longer.
The UK's aid budget will be shifted to projects that promote its interests, the foreign secretary has said.
Boris Johnson said the money will be "more sensibly distributed" to support foreign policy aims such as denying safe havens to Islamist militants.
His comments came as Penny Mordaunt, the international development secretary, said the UK will provide a £21m boost to an emergency aid fund.
The UK currently spends £13bn on aid each year.
Speaking to the Times newspaper, Mr Johnson said "the old jam jars are being smashed" and money would be diverted to support government aims, including combating terrorist groups in Africa.
It would also go to help refugees in Yemen and Rohingya Muslims fleeing across the Burmese border into Bangladesh, he added.
The government is committed to spending 0.7% of national income on overseas aid but some politicians oppose such spending.
Conservative backbench MP Peter Bone has said the target "means that important things at home like social care are struggling," while Ukip have called for the aid budget to be cut by 80% and focus only on emergency responses and eradicating disease.
Labour backs the 0.7% target, saying global poverty reduction is itself in the UK's interest.
For years there have been calls from some MPs for Britain's foreign aid budget to be cut, and the subject provides a steady stream of headlines in the right-leaning press.
Priti Patel said too much of Britain's aid money was wasted, or spent poorly, when she was international development minister.
The government recently suspended a £12m aid programme to Syria after a BBC investigation revealed the cash was at risk of going to jihadist groups.
And before the 2017 General Election there were suggestions that Theresa May was planning to revise the 0.7% spending target, but eventually it remained unchanged.
Mrs May says she is "proud" of the UK's record on foreign aid while Labour, the Lib Dems and SNP are also committed to keeping the 0.7% target.
Mr Johnson's promise to spend foreign aid more wisely may improve confidence, but for the harshest critics it will not go anywhere near far enough.
Many will continue to argue that in a time of economic difficulties for the UK, money spent abroad could be used to help tackle health and social care funding problems at home.
Mr Johnson said the UK would gain more control of its aid spending after Brexit.
About £1bn of the money the UK pays to the EU budget counts as part of the foreign aid budget.
The EU spends that money on humanitarian aid and on emergency responses to world crises, as well as on projects in countries close to the EU and those hoping to join in the future.
Ms Mordaunt said that the extra £21m for the United Nations' Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) was needed because 2018 could be "even bleaker" than this year, with its "harrowing" humanitarian crises.
The money will hep to provide millions of people with food, clean water, sanitation and vital health services.
Where does UK aid go?
As of April 2017:
More than 40% of the budget went to multilateral organisations, such as the United Nations, who fund big projects like disaster relief
The remaining 60% goes directly to developing countries
The Department for International Development says the biggest regional beneficiary is Africa, which received a total of £2.54bn from the UK last year
Ethiopia, Sierra Leone, South Sudan and Syria, were each given more than £200m
