monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Two bands who have called for members of the Conservative Party to be killed are to perform at Glastonbury Festival 2019.

One of Killdren's best known songs is called Kill Tory Scum while Fat White Family have called for violence against Conservatives on social media.

The Jo Cox Foundation said the language was "completely abhorrent".

"We're seeing a legitimising and normalising of harmful words and actions," it said.

Killdren, who are a "two-bit rave punk band" and claim to form the "ideal soundtrack to the worst generation in history", will play at Glastonbury's Shangri-Hell International TV stage on Friday 28 June.

Their lyrics include: "Even if it's your dad or your mum, kill Tory scum, kill Tory scum...murder them all to the beat of a drum, kill Tory scum, kill Tory scum."

The band also played a graphic set at Boomtown Fair 2018, in which they kicked, punched, and spat at a man dressed in a suit, while wearing Kill Tory Scum clothing.

The Glastonbury story was first reported by the Sunday Times. When asked about the song, the band told the paper: "The piece would not exist if the destructive and violent policies of the Tory party hadn't taken such a devastating toll on the UK."

The band's YouTube page claims the song is "satirical discourse".

Also due to perform at festival is Fat White Family, who previously played at Glastonbury's Park stage in 2015.

Its song topics include abusive relationships, serial killers and addiction to class A drugs.

In a 2015 tweet, the punk rock band, from south-east London, said anyone who voted Tory had "blood" on their hands, and called for them to be executed.

A year earlier, they said Tories should be hanged.

Catherine Anderson, chief executive of the Jo Cox Foundation, said the language was "completely abhorrent".

Jo Cox MP was killed by a right-wing extremist in 2016, days before the Brexit referendum.

Ms Anderson told the BBC: "The direct incitement of violence and abuse, on any platform and in any sector, is wrong and something that we absolutely reject.

"We're seeing a legitimising and normalising of harmful words and actions, and this is leading to a decay in our shared language and ultimately our values, and that concerns us very much.

"We cannot but think of what happened to Jo, after whose murder we believed things would improve; instead, things have got a lot worse."

The BBC has contacted Glastonbury for its response.

SEOUL (Reuters) - The Pentagon has told the White House that the U.S. military will not be politicized, a U.S. official said on Sunday, amid a controversy after officials directed the United States Navy to keep the USS John S. McCain out of sight during a recent speech by President Donald Trump in Japan.
[...]
“Secretary (Patrick) Shanahan directed his chief of staff to speak with the White House military office and reaffirm his mandate that the Department of Defense will not be politicized,” Lieutenant Colonel Joe Buccino, a Pentagon spokesman, said in a statement.

“The chief of staff reported that he did reinforce this message,” Buccino said.
... ... ...

President Trump has unveiled another anti-immigration policy that seems likely to be just as ineffective as all his previous anti-immigration policies.

Trump announced on Twitter Thursday night that he will impose new 5 percent tariffs on all goods imported from Mexico — and then keep raising those tariffs until that country somehow squelches the flow of undocumented immigrants to the United States.

It's another dramatic act by a president who loves drama — and it will produce plenty of criticism from people who already hate the president's trade and immigration policies. But perhaps the most important point is that this move probably won't work. Here are three reasons new tariffs are unlikely to stop — or even slow — northward migration, or accomplish much except to raise the level of misery in both Mexico and the United States.

1. Tariffs will increase the pain abroad. Trump's new policy seems likely to exacerbate the problems that are producing migration in the first place. There are many reasons people around the world flee their countries and head to the United States, but economics is a big one: It's easier to make money here than in their home countries.

Under those circumstances, Trump's tariffs make zero sense. The president's idea is that the policy will work by creating pain in the Mexican economy, forcing that country's officials to act more aggressively to end migration into the U.S. That pain will take the form of reduced profits and — it seems likely — smaller workforces at Mexican companies.

What will Mexican workers do when they lose their jobs? Probably the same thing as their compatriots from across Latin America: head north. Trump's new plan might actually increase the number of migrants seeking work in the United States.

2. Tariffs will increase the pain at home. Economists never tire of pointing out — and the president just as steadfastly seems determined to misunderstand — that tariffs on imports to the United States aren't really paid by those companies or their home countries. Those higher costs are passed on to the American consumers who buy those products. The pain may be unavoidable: Mexico is, after all, one of America's largest trading partners.

This means Americans are about to pay more for their groceries in order to help the president achieve his goal of keeping immigrants out of the country.

It's also likely that Mexico could retaliate with tariffs of its own. The ensuing escalation could produce even more economic pain in the United States. American farmers have already been badly hurt by the first year of the president's trade wars; the president has tried to soften the blow with subsidies to make up for lost business.

So even if the tariffs somehow do manage to reduce immigration, it probably won't be worth the cost to the economy. One good sign: The president's Republican allies in Congress are signalling that they're losing their patience with this approach.

3. Complex problems don't have simple solutions. It's clear that Trump is looking for a silver bullet to end the challenges of migration, but the issue is far too complex to be solved so easily or one-dimensionally. Violence, poverty, and persecution are all factors — and climate change will increasingly be a cause, as well.

To create an effective policy that would reduce migration to the United States, Trump would have to fundamentally change his entire approach to leadership. He would have to care about the hard work of addressing root causes instead of looking for easy one-off solutions that produce more headlines than results. He would have to consider policies that include both carrots and sticks. He would have to be creative.

Trump's apparent approach, instead, is simply to inflict pain and hope it somehow makes the problem go away.

Where immigration is concerned, that approach has been a failure on the president's own terms. The Muslim travel ban was implemented in haphazard fashion. Family separation remains a moral disaster. The border wall is an offense against the Constitution. Still, immigrants keep coming.

There is no reason to believe the president's new policy will be more effective than his previous efforts. But it will cause pain. Trump may not be very good at solving problems, but he's excellent at increasing the amount of unhappiness in the world. That is all his new tariff threat is likely to accomplish.

Donald Trump's British envoy has sparked fury with claims that access to the NHS would be "on the table" in post-Brexit trade deal with the US.

Woody Johnson, the US ambassador to the UK, said the "entire economy" would be included in transatlantic negotiations, which could include allowing American private firms to bid for NHS contracts.

In an interview ahead of Mr Trump's state visit, Mr Johnson said the US was already "looking at all the components of the deal and trying to get everything lined up so when the time comes we’re ready to go".

Asked if healthcare would be part of the deal, he told the BBC's Andrew Marr Show: "I think probably the entire economy, in a trade deal all things that are traded will be on the table."

What honestly makes me wonder is

The coverage Hitler got was never this negative. The press can sure pick 'em. Right?

I neither lived then nor did I mention that Hitler visited the UK.

I neither lived then nor did I mention that Hitler visited the UK. (Actually, I've never heard such.)

Of all the stories that are woven into the rich tapestry that is Liverpool’s history, few offer as much debate and intrigue as the link between the city and Adolf Hitler.

The Nazi dictator, who led Germany and virtually the rest of the world into the 20th Century’s most brutal and destructive war, certainly had relatives in Liverpool following the marriage of his half-brother Alois and Bridget Dowling (later Hitler), an Irish woman from Dublin, in 1910.

For many years it has been rumoured that a youthful Adolf Hitler paid them a visit before World War I.

The Hitlers had moved to 102 Upper Stanhope Street in Toxteth soon after their arrival, and there have long since been questions asked over whether the later-reviled tyrant had ever visited the city as a result.

Now, former Liverpool Daily Post and Echo editor Mike Unger hopes to shed some light over Hitler’s links with Liverpool after becoming involved with the story whilst working for the Daily Post in the early 1970s.

By using the memoirs of Bridget Hitler, in which she claims and explains at length that Adolf visited the couple in 1912, Mike has chronicled the story of the youthful would-be dictator arriving on Merseyside far before his rise to power, in a new book: ‘The Hitlers of Liverpool’.

Mike is convinced that Adolf Hitler’s visit to this city took place.

Acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney said Sunday that it wasn't "unreasonable" for an administration staffer to ask that the USS John S. McCain be hidden during President Trump's Japan visit last week.

Mulvaney said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that he believes it was a "probably somebody on the advance team" who told the Navy to hide the ship based on the president's feelings toward late Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

"The president's feelings towards the former senator are well known," Mulvaney said, adding that firing someone over the request "is silly."

"The fact that some 23- or 24-year-old person on the advance team went to that site and said, 'Oh my goodness. There's the John McCain. We all know how the president feels about the former senator. Maybe that's not the best backdrop. Can somebody look into moving it?' That's not an unreasonable thing to ask," Mulvaney said.

The Navy on Saturday confirmed receiving a request to "minimize visibility" of the USS John S. McCain, named for late senator's grandfather.