Donald Trump's Letter to North Korea

FROM THE WHITE HOUSE Washington, D.C. To the Honorable Kim Jong Un Dear Dear Leader: I hope you’ll treat this letter as personal and confidential, from one large-handed leader to another. I got the idea to write it from my generals, who were telling me all about this big showdown over Cuban missiles back in the 1960s, which apparently really happened. I figured, hey, if John Kennedy can negotiate over missiles directly with a dictator — and he was a very low-quality person, let me tell you — then so can Trump. You can’t leave diplomacy to a loser like Tillerson, believe me. But I’m trying not to think about him right now. It’s very important that you and I talk, very important. Because like I said during one of those debates we had during the campaign, which were a total waste of time, although people said I won them all and frankly that I was the greatest debater ever, and that’s a direct quote from somebody somewhere, but anyway, what I said during a debate was, “I think, for me, nuclear is just the power, the devastation is very important to me.” I can’t say it any clearer than that. First off, let me just point out that our great peoples have a long history together, and all of Korea is frankly very special to us — very, very special. I mean, you gave us the TV show “M*A*S*H,” which had a tremendous run. Also, without the Korean people, we wouldn’t have all those unbelievable grocery stores in Manhattan. Seriously, I have so much love for the people, so much love. I told my guys at ICE, leave the Koreans alone, because a lot of actual Americans depend on them for kimchi. Great respect, believe me. You and I have plenty in common, we really do. I know they said that calling you “Little Rocket Man” was a terrible insult, but you can’t believe anything you read in the failing New York Times or lying CNN or the rest of the fake news media. These are the same people who said that I could never win the primaries, and that Hillary was going to be the president, and that Puerto Rico was part of the United States. The truth is that “Rocket Man” is a very popular song here in America — very much loved, believe me. It’s about a guy who goes into space and finds out that Mars isn’t a very good place to raise a kid, because it’s cold as hell, and there’s no one there to raise them if you did. Which frankly makes no sense, even in English, but it was the ’70s. The point is, we’re a lot alike. For one thing, we both value family, am I right? I saw you just promoted your sister to a powerful job in the Politburo — very touching, very beautiful. I’m getting ready to turn the White House over to Ivanka in 2020, even though my poll numbers are just unbelievable, better than any president in history, let me tell you. I’d point out that Ivanka is smarter than Pence, but frankly I think Donald Jr. is smarter than Pence, and I’m pretty sure he still eats crayons when he’s nervous, so that’s not saying very much. And while we’re on the subject of family, let me say I admired the way you took out your brother, having strangers run up and poison him in the airport, which was genius. I made a comment about it, and ever since then, every time I go to hug Jared, he jumps back and shields his face. Hysterical. Let’s see, what else. Both of us have great hair, right? I see that everyone in your country wants to do their hair just like you, which I applaud. I mean, I look at a guy like Tillerson, who’s 65 years old and still parts his hair in the middle, and I think it’s just sad, frankly. But I’m not bothered by him, I’m really not. We’re both deeply committed to the mining industry. I’m getting rid of these Obama rules, which are very, very harmful to our economy, and you’re giving people jobs for the rest of their lives in labor camps, which is basically the same thing. We both know how to handle critics. Although I have to rely on tweets for that, because I don’t have the same kind of latitude you enjoy over there, which is something we need to change, let me tell you. I can’t tell you how many mornings I wake up and think: Wouldn’t it be nice to throw Bob Corker into a pit of starving dogs, or pin him to an antiaircraft battery? And don’t even get me started on Tillerson. Everyone told me, “Get Tillerson, you’ve got to get Tillerson for State.” And then he calls me a moron. You know who’s a moron? A guy who gives up 25 million bucks a year so he can come running whenever I ring a bell, that’s who. Let’s just say that if I were to send Tillerson on a diplomatic mission to Pyongyang, and he were to, say, disappear into one of your work camps, I could see how we might end up in a very long standoff before negotiating his freedom. It could take years, a deal like that. But that’s a hypothetical. Anyway, we’ve got a great thing going here. This business with me tweeting about blowing up your country, and you coming back with “final doom” and all of that. The ratings are off the charts, right? It’s a hell of a show, it really is. We’ve got the whole world waiting to hear every twist and turn. It’s playing on all the networks at once, which is really something, let me tell you. But you do know it’s a show, right? Because words are one thing. Words have no consequences, near as I can tell. You can say anything, incite any kind of rage or reaction, and your people just love you more for it. This is what I’ve learned in politics, believe me. Nuclear war, though — my generals tell me that would be very, very horrible. Millions and millions of people would disappear, and not like on “The Apprentice.” Our ratings would tank. The show would be terrible. I’m sure we’re on the same page here, but it can’t hurt to double check. So good luck with the public executions, and please pass along my fire and fury to the entire family! Sincerely, Donald J. Trump P.S. If you really need to sink Guam, as kind of a season finale, I get it. Just maybe give me a heads-up, so I can see about Tillerson’s travel schedule. But I’m not thinking about him right now. I’m really not.

3 Things Men Need to Know Before Marrying a Woman

Marrying your partner is a monumental moment in your life. You are committing to be by your significant other’s side through both good and bad times. It is a lifelong promise that you should give serious thought to before proposing. A great way to ensure you and your partner are meant to be is by assessing your relationship and the qualities it possesses. In a Hitched article, Lisa Brookes Kift, MFT, explains there are several qualities that play an important role in healthy relationships. Friendship, humor, communication, affection, and reliability are a few of the traits that signify whether you and your partner have a strong foundation. In addition, there are several questions you should ask yourself before marrying your significant other. To ensure you and your partner are ready to commit to each other for life, here are three questions to consider before marriage. 1. Are you ready to care for her in sickness and health? This question puts your interests in perspective. If you truly love her, you’ll be willing to stay with her through illness and aging. This question is revealing of a man’s inclination toward sacrificial love. Sacrificial love means that the needs of your partner come before your wants. If you are willing to endure suffering for the good of your partner and for the strength of your relationship, you have something special that can withstand the test of time and the pressures of society. 2. Do you have similar intellectual curiosity? One thing that can be devastating to a relationship is a difference in intellectual curiosity. Warm and fuzzy feelings may mask this discrepancy for a short time, and often even long enough for a couple to go through with marriage. But when the honeymoon goggles come off, noticing an intellectual gap can spell certain misery. If you prize intellectual rigor, aren’t content with face value, and need to dig deeper into truth, there is a wife out there who shares those same qualities. If you can see yourself banging your head against the wall and lamenting that you cannot have a proper philosophical discourse with your beloved, then seriously consider the arrangement. 3. What’s your lifestyle like? Imagine your perfect day. Go from start to finish, and then retrace that same day with your future spouse. Your partner would want to share your perfect day with you, just as you would with her. Serious differences in lifestyle can be subtly overwhelming sources of tension between you and your spouse. If you are a fitness enthusiast and your wife is a couch potato, you’ll be setting yourself up for disappointment when you wish she’d be active with you, or vise versa. To go along with lifestyle: Is she neat or messy? Is she health conscious or no? Is she a night owl while you’re an early riser? None of these amount to deal breakers by themselves, but when you ask these questions you get a broader picture of your compatibility as marriage partners. Of course it is impossible to find someone who matches every little category you could possibly imagine. But it is important to discover your deal breakers and red flags now, because if you jump into a marriage and have children, you’ll have no easy opportunity to simply back out and start fresh.

Why Islam forbids images of Mohammed

(CNN)Violence over depictions of the Prophet Mohammed may mystify many non-Muslims, but it speaks to a central tenet of Islam: the worship of God alone. The prohibition began as an attempt to ward off idol worship, which was widespread in Islam's Arabian birthplace. But in recent years, that prohibition has taken on a deadly edge. A central tenet of Islam is that Mohammed was a man, not God, and that portraying him could lead to revering him in lieu of Allah. "It's all rooted in the notion of idol worship," Akbar Ahmed, who chairs the Islamic Studies department at American University told CNN. "In Islam, the notion of God versus any depiction of God or any sacred figure is very strong." Prophet spoke against depictions of himself In some ways, Islam was a reaction against Christianity, which early Muslims believed had been led astray by conceiving of Christ not as a man but as a God. They did not want the same thing to happen to Mohammed. "The prophet himself was aware that if people saw his face portrayed by people, they would soon start worshiping him," Ahmed told CNN. "So he himself spoke against such images, saying 'I'm just a man.' " In a bitter irony, the sometimes violent attacks against portrayals of the prophet are kind of reverse idol-worship, revering -- and killing for -- the absence of an image, said Hussein Rashid, a professor of Islamic studies at Hofstra University in New York. No laughing matter While the Quran, Islam's holiest text, does not explicitly prohibit depictions of Mohammad, most contemporary Muslims worldwide abide by the ban, based largely on religious rulings by Islamic scholars. Satirical representations of Muhammad modern as well, said Rashid. "In the context of Europe, where in many countries Muslims feel like they are besieged, these images are not seen as criticism but as bullying. Violence as a response is clearly wrong and disproportionate. However, it is not so much about religious anger as it is about vengeance." But even in the United States, where Muslims are relatively acclimated, extremists have opposed the portrayal of Mohammed on "South Park," the satirical cartoon show, and the subsequent "Draw Mohammed Day," that erupted in response. Ban includes Jesus and Moses Mohamed Magid, an imam and former head of Islamic Society of North America, told CNN that the Muslim prohibition on depicting prophets extends to Jesus and Moses, whom Islam treats as prophets. Some Muslim countries banned the films "Noah" and "Exodus" this year because their leading characters were Hebrew prophets. In Sunni mosques, the largest branch of the faith, there are no human images of any kind. The spaces are instead decorated with verses from the Quran. But there have been historical instances of Muslims depicting the prophet, especially in Shiite branches of Islam, Omid Safi, a religious studies professor at Duke University, told CNN. "We have had visual depictions of the prophet in the form of miniatures and pictures in the Iranian context, the Turkish context, the central Asian context," said Safi. "The one significant context where depictions of the prophet have not been image-related has been in the Arab context." Johari Abdul-Malik, the imam for Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church, Virginia, told CNN that depictions of the prophet 's teachings were sometimes used to bridge gaps in illiteracy. Even historical renditions of Mohammed by Muslim artists were careful not to paint the prophet in too much detail. Mohammed shown only in shadow For example, Ahmed told CNN that Muslim artists in the 15th and 16th centuries would depict the prophet but took pains to avoid drawing his face. "It would be as if he was wearing a veil on his face so the really orthodox could not object -- that was the solution they found." In a Muslim film called "The Messenger," which circulated throughout the Muslim world in the 1970s and 1980s, Mohammed was shown only in shadow. In the Quran, there is "no statement from the prophet requesting his image not be recorded," Abdul-Malik told CNN. Instead, the teaching about images comes from the hadith, a record of the sayings and actions of the Prophet Mohammed and his closest companions. The hadith is considered secondary only to the Quran in terms of textual authority, but the sometimes contradictory accounts have led to centuries of debates within the umma, or global Muslim community. Scholars of religion say opposition to portraying Mohammed wasn't generally violated in earlier centuries because of a gulf between Western and majority-Muslim nations. In the age of globalization, non-Muslims and critics of Islam have felt free to depict Mohammed, including in offensive ways. In 2006, for example, a Danish cartoonist's depiction of the prophet wearing a bomb as a turban with a lit fuse sparked demonstrations across the world. CNN's Nick Thompson and Eric Marrapodi contributed to this report.

Russian activists threatened with criminal charges after raising torture allegations

11 March 2015, 16:02 UTC Photo: Alexander Aksakov/Getty Images. The Russian authorities’ threat to bring criminal charges against Eva Merkacheva and Andrei Babushkin, two human rights activists who published torture allegations from two men accused of the assassination of Russian opposition leader Boris Nemtsov, raises alarming questions over the fairness of the investigation, said Amnesty International. The Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation suggested that raising allegations that Zaur Dadayev was tortured into confessing and that Shaghid Gubashev was also ill-treated may amount to “interference with the work of investigator with the purpose of preventing a comprehensive, full and objective investigation of the case”. Threatening legal action against those who report a crime as serious as torture is ludicrous. To ignore serious allegations that torture was used to force confessions would make a complete mockery of Russia’s judicial system. They must be taken seriously, and fully, promptly, independently and effectively investigated. John Dalhuisen, Europe and Central Asia Director at Amnesty International. “These allegations, coupled with reports that Zaur Dadaev was only allowed to see a state-appointed lawyer and not the lawyer contracted by his family, raises very serious questions about the fairness of these proceedings and fuels speculation about a possible state-sanctioned cover-up.” Zaur Dadayev, one of at least six men suspected of killing Boris Nemtsov, told members of the Public Monitoring Commission (an independent group authorised to visit places of detention in Russia) that after his detention he was hand-cuffed and blind-folded with a bag placed over his head for two days. He said he confessed to the crime after the authorities promised they would release his friend. Another suspect in the case, Shaghid Gubashev, said he had been “beaten and tortured.” The members of the Public Monitoring Commission reported that both Zaur Dadayev and Shaghid Gubashev showed numerous marks on their bodies, and complained of being denied food and given hardly anything to drink for more than two days prior to their transfer to Moscow. “What this case needs is not a rapid, politically expedient resolution but an unambiguous demonstration that that the principles of fair trial are fully respected and that justice has been done. This includes investigating all credible allegations of torture and other ill-treatment,” said John Dalhuisen.

Seven reasons why the United States will never go to war with Russia.

U.S. vs. Russia – Military Might 7 Reasons Why America Will Never Go To War Over Ukraine America is the mightiest military power in the world. And that fact means absolutely nothing for the Ukraine crisis. Regardless of whether Russia continues to occupy the Crimea region of Ukraine, or decides to occupy all of Ukraine, the U.S. is not going to get into a shooting war with Russia. This has nothing to do with whether Obama is strong or weak. Jimmy Carter or Ronald Reagan would face the same constraints. The U.S. may threaten to impose economic sanctions, but here is why America will never smack Russia with a big stick: Russia is a nuclear superpower. Russia has an estimated 4,500 active nuclear warheads, according to the Federation of American Scientists. Unlike North Korea or perhaps Iran, whose nuclear arsenals couldn’t inflict substantial damage, Russia could totally devastate the U.S. as well as the rest of the planet. U.S. missile defenses, assuming they even work, are not designed to stop a massive Russian strike. For the 46 years of the Cold War, America and Russia were deadly rivals. But they never fought. Their proxies fought: Koreans, Vietnamese, Central Americans, Israelis and Arabs. The one time that U.S. and Soviet forces almost went to war was during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Neither Obama nor Putin is crazy enough to want to repeat that. Russia has a powerful army. While the Russian military is a shadow of its Soviet glory days, it is still a formidable force. The Russian army has about 300,000 men and 2,500 tanks (with another 18,000 tanks in storage), according to the “Military Balance 2014″ from the International Institute for Strategic Studies. Its air force has almost 1,400 aircraft, and its navy 171 ships, including 25 in the Black Sea Fleet off Ukraine’s coast. U.S. forces are more capable than Russian forces, which did not perform impressively during the 2008 Russo-Georgia War. American troops would enjoy better training, communications, drones, sensors and possibly better weapons (though the latest Russian fighter jets, such as the T-50, could be trouble for U.S. pilots). However, better is not good enough. The Russian military is not composed of lightly armed insurgents like the Taliban, or a hapless army like the Iraqis in 2003. With advanced weapons like T-80 tanks, supersonic AT-15 Springer anti-tank missiles, BM-30 Smerch multiple rocket launchers and S-400 Growler anti-aircraft missiles, Russian forces pack enough firepower to inflict significant American losses. Ukraine is closer to Russia. The distance between Kiev and Moscow is 500 miles. The distance between Kiev and New York is 5,000 miles. It’s much easier for Russia to send troops and supplies by land than for the U.S. to send them by sea or air. The U.S. military is tired. After nearly 13 years of war, America’s armed forces need a breather. Equipment is worn out from long service in Iraq and Afghanistan, personnel are worn out from repeated deployments overseas, and there are still about 40,000 troops still fighting in Afghanistan. The U.S. doesn’t have many troops to send. The U.S. could easily dispatch air power to Ukraine if its NATO allies allow use of their airbases, and the aircraft carrier George H. W. Bush and its hundred aircraft are patrolling the Mediterranean. But for a ground war to liberate Crimea or defend Ukraine, there is just the 173rd Airborne Brigade in Italy, the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit sailing off Spain, the 2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment in Germany and the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. While the paratroopers could drop into the combat zone, the Marines would have sail past Russian defenses in the Black Sea, and the Stryker brigade would probably have to travel overland through Poland into Ukraine. Otherwise, bringing in mechanized combat brigades from the U.S. would be logistically difficult, and more important, could take months to organize. The American people are tired. Pity the poor politician who tries to sell the American public on yet another war, especially some complex conflict in a distant Eastern Europe nation. Neville Chamberlain’s words during the 1938 Czechoslovakia crisis come to mind: “How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing.” America‘s allies are tired. NATO sent troops to support the American campaign in Afghanistan, and has little to show for it. Britain sent troops to Iraq and Afghanistan, and has little to show for it. It is almost inconceivable to imagine the Western European public marching in the streets to demand the liberation of Crimea, especially considering the region’s sputtering economy, which might be snuffed out should Russia stop exporting natural gas. As for military capabilities, the Europeans couldn’t evict Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi without American help. And Germans fighting Russians again? Let’s not even go there. This doesn’t mean that war is impossible. If Russia invades the Baltic States to “protect” their ethnic Russian minorities, the guns could indeed roar. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are NATO members. What would Ronald Reagan have done if the Soviets had invaded West Germany? Barack Obama would face more or less the same question in a Baltic crisis, or if a Ukraine conflict spills over into fellow NATO member Poland. However, talk of using military force against Russia over Ukraine is just talk. It will stay that way.

Floyd Mayweather News: Floyd Scared To Fight Manny Pacquiao, Says Famed Promoter

Boxing is 90% psychological .. If you stutter, rant and throw tantrums whenever your opponent's name is mentioned , that's fear and doubt.. If you are more concerned about your opponent's taxes and finances more than the person himself , that's fear and doubt... If just one of your excuses for not fighting your opponent is because he makes money in America and gives it to his people, that's fear and doubt. ... if the World Boxing council threatens to take your championship belt from you if you do not fight who the world wants you to fight ..that's Fear and doubt...if the Boxing Hall of Fame governing body threatens to block list you and you still make up excuses to avoid one very particular opponent... that's fear and doubt... If your own people and the world media begs you to fight one Particular Opponent and you still hide behind excuses,demands and conditions , that's unacceptable cowardice . ..

Brutally Honest: Is it OK to be naked in front of your kids?

Editor's note: Kelly Wallace is CNN's digital correspondent and editor-at-large covering family, career and life. She is a mom of two girls. Read her other columns and follow her reports at CNN Parents and on Twitter. (CNN) -- Let me say at the start that there is no way around the topic of nakedness in front of your children without getting personal and slightly uncomfortable. I'm already feeling somewhat tense as I type this. I joke that the only person who should have to see me naked is my husband. He signed up for it, right? My kids certainly didn't. A lifetime of body image issues means I'm not one to walk around naked at home. But I don't cover up around my daughters, 7 and 8, when I'm getting dressed or in the bathroom, either. I don't want them to think there is anything wrong with my body or theirs. And when they ask hilarious questions such as "Mom, why do your boobs hang?," I can't help but laugh and use the opportunity as a chance to tell them my body has changed over time and theirs will, too. When is it OK to leave your child alone? What if you don't like your kid's pals? How not to raise a mean girl 'Brutally Honest': When is it OK to leave your teen home alone overnight? In conversations over email with mothers and fathers across the country and in Canada, it's clear there is no "one size fits all'" approach to the questions of whether it's OK to be naked in front of your kids and if there's an age when it's no longer OK. Rhonda Woods, a mother of three, says ever since her children, now 20, 13 and 13, were little, she and her husband have been teaching them not to be ashamed of their bodies. They have also never hidden their bodies from their kids, she said. "As they get older, my husband is more discreet around our daughters and I am more discreet around our son. Not because we are uncomfortable, but because they may be," said Woods, a real estate agent in New Milford, Connecticut. "So when it is time for me to undress, I tell whichever of my kids is in my room talking to me, that I plan to do so and they have the option to leave." 'Brutally Honest': What if you don't like your kids' friends? Comfort is key A common theme I heard from parents is comfort. If both you and your children are comfortable with you being naked in front of them, there isn't anything "inherently wrong with that at all," said Avital Norman Nathman, who says her 8-year-old son is used to seeing her and her husband naked on occasion when they are getting dressed or in the shower. "If my son were ever to say or even act as if he was uncomfortable by it, we would of course respect that," said Norman Nathman, editor of the motherhood anthology "The Good Mother Myth: Redefining Motherhood to Fit Reality" and founder of the blog The Mamafesto. "Nudity, when it's within your home and 100% nonsexualized, isn't going to traumatize a child, especially if you're all on the same page, are all consenting and are all comfortable with it." Nancy Friedman, a New York City mom of two middle schoolers, said while every child is different, most kids make it clear when their mom or dad's nudity no longer works for them. 'Brutally Honest': Mean girls are getting younger "I think your kids let you know when it's time to stop being naked in front of them -- usually about the time they decide they don't want to be naked in front of you," said Friedman, co-founder of the video sharing site for tweens called KidzVuz. As children age, they certainly develop their own sense of modesty around others, said Micky Morrison, a mom of two in Islamorada, Florida, and founder of BabyWeightTV. "But even my 12-year-old son doesn't hesitate to undress in front of me. I figure that he will one day, and that's OK," said Morrison. "Perhaps one day he will avert his eyes or become uncomfortable with my nudity as well. And that's OK, too." Amanda Rodriguez, a mom of three boys in Frederick, Maryland, said she reached a point with each of her sons, usually no later than age 5, when she thought it was no longer OK to be nude around them. "I began to feel uncomfortable being naked in front of them because of the questions and the poking and prodding and search for Mommy's 'inside penis' -- that's what they thought a vagina was," said Rodriguez, founder of the blog Dude Mom. "I don't think it makes them terrible people or scars them for life if they stumble into the bathroom while I'm going, but it's easily avoidable awkwardness none of us really needs to experience on a daily basis." Terry Greenwald, a divorced father of three, puts himself solidly in the no-being-naked-in-front-of-kids' camp. Read: 28 Web abbreviations every parent should know "It would be very difficult to teach children any sort of modesty and humility if a parent thought it OK to be naked in front of their children. It also would bring up questions and conversations they might not be ready to handle," he said. Blogger: Why I want my sons to see me naked A few months back, a post by blogger Rita Templeton about why she wants her four sons -- ages 2, 5, 6 and 9 -- to see her naked, was republished on The Huffington Post and went viral. Templeton said she wanted her sons to see what "real" women look like before they are bombarded with an ideal in the media that doesn't match reality. "Before they are exposed to boobs that are as round and firm as cantaloupes and pictures of taut, airbrushed, dimple-less butts, I'm exposing them to a different kind of female body. Mine," wrote Templeton, who blogs at Fighting Off Frumpy. Her words led to an onslaught of hate mail, nasty tweets and accusations she's sexualizing her sons, she said. Buzz Bishop, a father of two boys in Calgary, wrote a blog post of his own in part as a response to all the outrage. He says he has been playing games called "naked baby" and "naked daddy" at bath time since his children were little while at the same time he teaches his kids not to stare when they are in the open shower in the men's bathroom at their neighborhood pool. "Rita's doing what works for (her). I'm doing what works for me. You're doing what works for you. And we're all just trying to teach our kids a little respect for each other, and themselves," said Bishop, who writes about parenting on his blog Dad Camp. There doesn't seem to be much science to help guide us on whether it's better or worse for your child, or it makes no difference at all, if they see you naked. I couldn't find many studies when I searched for them, and those I found had conflicting findings. For instance, one study found no negative impact on adolescents who regularly saw their parents naked at ages 3 and 6, but another study found that parental nudity when kids were ages 6 to 11 resulted in more permissive attitudes about sex and increased sexual frequency. For some parents, like Maryellen, a mom of two young girls on Long Island, who only wanted to use her first name, it's all about convenience. "I'll be honest. Sometimes it's easier and faster just to pull them into the shower with me," she said. "But my girls are 4 and 6. A year from now I may not be doing it any longer. By then, they may be showering by themselves (dare to hope?)" Do you think it's OK to be naked in front of your kids? Share your thoughts with Kelly Wallace on Twitter or CNN Living on Facebook.