From Shadow Wars To Overt War: The Pentagon"s New "Scramble For Africa"

When news broke of the October 4 ambush and deaths of four elite Green Beret soldiers in Niger, the immediate reaction voiced among congressional leaders and echoed generally in the media was: we have troops in Niger? But the bigger questions of the US military"s increasingly sizable footprint in Africa (or what has long been called our "Shadow War") quickly disappeared from public debate, instead, in usual fashion the media quickly focused on myopic details of phone calls and whether Trump"s handling of the aftermath was "presidential" enough. 

Gone were the larger looming questions the average American might rightly ask: when did Congress authorize or oversee operations in Africa which would put "boots on the ground" in potential live combat zones? What is the ultimate purpose in our being in Africa? Were the tragic deaths, and subsequent sufferings of their families worth whatever nebulous mission they were tasked with? If this was about fighting ISIS in Africa, how did ISIS establish a presence in Africa to begin with? (hint: it could have something to do with US-driven regime change wars in Iraq, Libya, and Syria). 

But as has been the case with all administrations going back to 9/11, the moment the White House and congressional leaders invoke those magical letters, AUMF (the 16-year old authorization for use of military force), the media quickly falls in line, in spite of the fact that the War Powers Resolution (WPR) was designed to prevent the president from unilaterally placing US troops in harm"s way (though because it"s Trump, and not Obama, even CNN will publish the occasional and rare anti-war op-ed).

"Shadow Wars" become overt wars: Regime change begets terrorism begets more regime change ad absurdum. 

Meanwhile on the "serious" network talk shows with "expert" panels, such inconvenient big picture questions are never dealt with, not even as the Pentagon absurdly offers the rationale of military expansion in Africa as key to a "global strategy" as ISIS is a "global threat" - or so we are told. AFRICOM (US Africa Command) defines its mission as to defeat “transnational threats in order to advance U.S. national interests and promote regional security, stability, and prosperity.” 

So if we are now in the business of defeating all potential threats labelled "transnational" then of course a large-scale military presence can be justified just about anywhere, no questions asked (akin to Dick Cheney"s notorious "one percent doctrine": if there was even “a one percent chance” that a threat was real “we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response.”) Indeed, at the very moment the Islamic State is in rapid retreat and is on the verge of collapsing in Iraq and Syria, the mantra is now once again (conveniently) ISIS! ISIS! EVERYWHERE! ...And now especially on a whole new continent: Africa.

The below map has been around for a while, but its creators assure us it was approved by "respected counter-terrorism experts"...

Map source: The Daily Mail

Senator Lindsey Graham, of course, loves such jingoistic talk. He told Meet the Press over the weekend that "he had no idea" there were 1000 troops in Niger, and it then took him less than a minute to invoke 9/11 and the AUMF (predictably) to say "the war [on terror] is going to places we haven"t heard of before" - after which he literally described it as "endless". But for Graham and other hawks, however, this presents yet another opportunity for US military expansion, including ever-swelling defense budgets, and more "projection" of US power abroad. Though the US now has troops in 53 out of 54 countries, Graham was elated at the idea that the US military was fighting "radical Islamic extremism" in Niger and throughout Africa.

Sen. Graham said further, "If you don"t think it"s a generational struggle, you don"t understand the war. If you think it"s limited to the Mid East, you don"t understand the theology. It is spreading throughout the world," and added, "Particularly Africa." Of course, Graham - with his chicken-hawk non-existent war record understands neither war nor Africa: this is simply the classic Graham-McCain-neocon recipe for being everywhere, all the time.

And keep in mind this was his reaction upon discovering there were troops in Niger in the first place after learning of the deaths of four young soldiers. Senator Rand Paul responded best when he said on Monday, "You know you are in too many wars in too many places when even warmonger Lindsay Graham can’t keep track anymore."

You know you are in too many wars in too many places when even warmonger Lindsay Graham can’t keep track anymore

— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) October 23, 2017

But the big question ignored in mainstream media is this: Is the United States in the midst of a new military "scramble for Africa"?

Below are astounding statistics and figures excerpted from veteran Pentagon and Africa researcher and journalist Nick Turse"s new investigation into the Pentagon"s presence in Africa titled appropriately, The war you"ve never heard of:

• U.S. troops are now conducting 3,500 exercises, programs, and engagements per year, an average of nearly 10 missions per day, on the African continent, according to the U.S. military’s top commander for Africa, General Thomas Waldhauser.


• Secretary of Defense James Mattis reportedly indicated to two senior members of the Senate Armed Services Committee Friday that these numbers are only likely to increase as the U.S. military shifts even greater attention to counterterrorism in Africa.


• When U.S. Africa Command first became operational in 2008, it inherited 172 missions, activities, programs, and exercises from other combatant commands. Five years in, that number shot up to 546.


• Today’s figure of 3,500 marks an astounding 1,900 percent increase since the command was activated less than a decade ago, and suggests a major expansion of U.S. military activities on the African continent.


• These developments stand in stark contrast to early assurances that AFRICOM’s efforts would be focused on diplomacy and aid.

*****

• But despite a claimed "diplomacy and aid" presence, AFRICOM has launched 500 airstrikes in Libya in the last year alone, and U.S. forces have regularly carried out drone attacks and commando raids in Somalia.


• In May, for example, a Navy SEAL was killed by al Shabaab militants in Somalia while “assisting partner forces,” according to AFRICOM. Earlier this month, four Special Forces soldiers were killed in an ambush while providing “advice and assistance” to local forces in Niger.


• U.S. troop deaths or scandals are frequently the only mechanism by which Americans come to know about military deployments to African nations like Niger.


• Every day, 5,000 to 6,000 U.S. personnel are deployed across the African continent.


• These near-constant training exercises, missions, and activities with troops from Benin and Burkina Faso, Cameroon and Chad, Gabon and Guinea Bissau, not to mention Mali, Nigeria, Senegal, the Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Togo and Uganda, among other nations, remain largely unknown to most Americans.

*****

• The number of African troops trained by U.S. military personnel jumped 89 percent... from 22,825 trained in 2014 to at least 42,815 individuals a year later.


• This month, Donald Yamamoto, the acting assistant secretary of state for African Affairs, told the House Foreign Affairs Committee that the Trump administration’s proposed $5.2 billion African aid budget would address “key priorities” such as “assist[ing] partner nations to defeat ISIS branches and affiliates and other terrorist organization threats and networks in Mali and the Sahel, Nigeria and the Lake Chad Basin, Somalia and the Horn of Africa, and elsewhere.”


• Experts warn that further militarizing African countries which have "inadequate civilian control of the military” will result in absurdities such as... in 2012, for example, a U.S.-trained Army captain, Amadou Sanogo, overthrew Mali’s elected government. Two years later, Lt. Col. Isaac Zida, another U.S.-trained officer, seized power in Burkina Faso.

*****

• Six years ago, a deputy commanding general for U.S. Army Special Operations Command gave a conservative estimate of 116 missions being carried out at any one time by Navy SEALs, Army Green Berets, and other special operations forces across the globe.


• Today, according to U.S. military documents... special operators are carrying out nearly 100 missions at any given time — in Africa alone. It’s the latest sign of the military’s quiet but ever-expanding presence on the continent, one that represents the most dramatic growth in the deployment of America’s elite troops to any region of the globe.


• In 2006, just 1 percent of all U.S. commandos deployed overseas were in Africa. In 2010, it was 3 percent. By 2016, that number had jumped to more than 17 percent.

Obamacare Repeal Officially Dead After Cruz Says No

In a sudden change of heart that kills senate Republicans’ effort to pass a bill to repeal and replace Obamacare before a rule allowing Republicans to circumvent a Democratic filibuster expires at the end of the month, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is now saying he won’t support the Graham-Cassidy Obamacare repeal bill.

Cruz, who revealed his position during a panel discussion at a Texas Tribune conference in Austin, suggested that the proposal also lacks the vote of Sen. Mike Lee, according to Politico. The Texas Republican said he and Lee offered amendments to the Graham-Cassidy proposal last week that would go further in bringing down Obamacare premiums but that the changes weren’t included in the latest draft of the bill.

The latest blow to the seven-year-long Obamacare repeal effort comes as President Donald Trump escalates feuds with Both North Korea and US professional sports leagues. Cruz’s opposition means that, with both he and McCain saying know and at least two other moderates leaning toward a no, that even if Trump manages to flip Sen. Rand Paul, he wouldn’t be able to muster the 50 votes needed for Vice President Mike Pence to break a tie.

“Right now, they don’t have my vote and I don"t think they have Mike Lee’s vote either,” Cruz said during a panel discussion at the Texas Tribune festival in Austin that also included Sen. John Cornyn.

Both Cruz and Cornyn – a member of senate Republican leadership - had said they back the way the bill would convert Obamacare funding into a system of block grants to states. But while Cornyn said he would vote for the bill as it stands, Cruz said that he wants to see more changes, but declined to elaborate.

Ironically, Texas and other states that didn"t expand coverage under Obamacare would fare well under the Graham-Cassidy plan, according to Politico, which cited an independent analyses of the bill showing it would save the state some $35 billion between 2020 and 2026.

Rand Paul reiterated his opposition to the bill during an appearance on “Meet the Press” Sunday morning, saying he would only support the bill if the block-grant provision that Cruz purportedly supports (or at least, once supported) is dropped.

"What it sets up is a perpetual food fight over the formula," he said. "What happens when Democrats win? They"re going to claw back that money from Republican states to give to Democrat states."

Trump had said during a rally on Friday that Paul might “come around” then tweeted Saturday that he might’ve found a way to gain the Kentucky Republican’s support. News of Cruz’s opposition must’ve pleased the dozens of protesters who gathered outside the University of Texas auditorium where Cruz was speaking to protest repealing the bill.
 

* * *

Here"s a roundup of where key senators stand on Graham-Cassidy. As it suggests, the bill now has a very low chance of passing.

Where GOP stands on Graham-Cassidy

Murkowski: ????
Portman: ????
Collins: ????
Capito: ????

McCain: ?
Cruz: ?
Paul: ?

3 GOPers saying ? stops bill.

— Dan Diamond (@ddiamond) September 24, 2017

Trump Lawyer: "The President Is Not Under Investigation For Obstruction"

On Friday morning, when Trump lashed out at what appeared to be Rod Rosenstein on Twitter, many took his statement as confirmation of last week"s WaPo report that Trump is under investigation for obstruction of justice by Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller: "I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director! Witch Hunt."

I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director! Witch Hunt

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 16, 2017

On Sunday, however, Trump"s personal lawyer Jay Sekulow made the media rounds to explain that Trump"s tweet was not an admission, and that Trump is not under investigation in the probe into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential race, adding that the president has not received any notification that he is being investigated.

Speaking on NBC"s Meet The Press, Sekulow said "the president is not under investigation by the special counsel. The tweet from the president was in response to the five anonymous sources that were purportedly leaking information to The Washington Post about a potential investigation of the president. But the president, as James Comey said in his testimony and as we know as of today, the president has not been and is not under investigation... let me be very clear here: the president is not and has not been under investigation for obstruction."

Todd then asked "if the president is innocent, why is he afraid of this investigation?" to which Sekulow"s response: "he"s not afraid of the investigation. There is no investigation."

Sekulow later said that Trump was merely reacting to the Washington Post story. "The fact of the matter is the president has not been and is not under investigation," Sekulow said on CBS" "Face the Nation," one of four political shows where he appeared on Sunday.

"There has been no notification from the special counsel’s office that the president is under investigation," Sekulow said.

In other words according to Trump"s lawyer, the tweet in question was just a snyde response to WaPo, if not a confirmation of the WaPo story. Which means that Trump will likely follow up with more tweets explaining the confusion that his earlier tweet had sowed even as just prior to Trump"s tweet, Rod Rosenstein said not to trust reports based on "anonymous officials".

"Americans should exercise caution before accepting as true any stories attributed to anonymous "officials," particularly when they do not identify the country — let alone the branch or agency of government — with which the alleged sources supposedly are affiliated. Americans should be skeptical about anonymous allegations. The Department of Justice has a long-established policy to neither confirm nor deny such allegations.

Of course, Trump may well be under investigation, however he has simply not been notified yet.

On Sunday, Trump once again lashed out at what he has called an ongoing "Witch Hunt" against him, tweeting "The MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN agenda is doing very well despite the distraction of the Witch Hunt. Many new jobs, high business enthusiasm,.."

The MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN agenda is doing very well despite the distraction of the Witch Hunt. Many new jobs, high business enthusiasm,..

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 18, 2017

Homeland's Kelly Lashes Out At "Treasonous" Intelligence Leakers

Department of Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly told Meet the Press" Chuck Todd on Sunday that high-level classified leaks, like those over the Manchester attack in the U.K., are "borderline treason."

"I don"t know where the leak came from. But I... immediately called my counterpart in the UK.... She immediately brought this topic up. And, if it came from the United States, it"s totally unacceptable. And I don"t know why people do these kind of things, but it"s borderline, if not over the line, of treason."

He added:

"I believe when you leak the kind of information that seems to be routinely leaked — high, high level of classification — I think it"s darn close to treason."

"Close to treason:’ DHS Sec. Kelly calls out intel leaks on #MTP pic.twitter.com/ARyNexBtlj

— Meet the Press (@MeetThePress) May 28, 2017

Shortly after Kelly"s appearance on Meet The Press, President Trump took to Twitter once again, making it clear how he feels...

British Prime Minister May was very angry that the info the U.K. gave to U.S. about Manchester was leaked. Gave me full details!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 28, 2017

One wonders if this "excuse" to really go after intel leakers will finally slow down the "sources" (real or fake) behind so many WaPo, CNN, NYT stories?

"'There Are No Moderate Rebels' – Tulsi Gabbard Destroys The Deep State's Syria Narrative

Via Mike Krieger of Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

Tulsi Gabbard has continued to impress ever since she came on the national scene last year with her courageous and very public support for Bernie Sanders in the rigged Democratic primary.

Most recently, she continued to demonstrate her knowledge of geopolitics and willingness to stand up to America’s unelected government, aka the Deep State, in a recent interview with CNN’s Jake Taper.

Note, the clip is about a month old, but important to watch if you haven’t. 

If the Democrats have any hope of becoming a decent opposition party which not only resists the worst of Trump, but also rejects the perverted neoliberal/Deep State ideology currently embraced by establishment Dems, Tulsi Gabbard will have to play a key role.

As I highlighted in last February’s post, It’s Not Just the GOP – The Democratic Party is Also Imploding:

A rising star within the Democratic ranks, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, cut herself off from the party’s establishment by resigning from her post as vice-chairman of the Democratic National Committee and endorsing Bernie Sanders for president.

 

Her position with the DNC required her to stay neutral in the primaries, but she said that “the stakes are too high.” She announced her decision on Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” and made a video where she explained her reasoning.

 

Gabbard, an Iraq war veteran, said she knows the cost of war firsthand. “I know how important it is that our commander-in-chief has the sound judgment required to know when to use America’s military power—and when not to use that power.”

The importance of this move cannot be understated. In no uncertain terms, this gesture publicly exposes the weakness of the “Clinton brand.” She clearly isn’t afraid of Hillary or of any repercussions from the Democratic Party elite, a fact that is underscored by the fact she came out with her endorsement after he got pummeled in South Carolina.

But let’s take a step back and think about this in the even bigger picture. You don’t get to Congress by being a political imbecile. On the surface, this move looks like career suicide, particularly since Hillary is probably about to clinch the nomination. Recall, Rep. Gabbard didn’t merely endorse Sanders after a bruising loss in South Carolina, she stepped down from her official position with the DNC to do so. This isn’t merely a statement, it’s the equivalent of dropping a neutron bomb on the Democratic establishment. So why did she do it?

While I think she genuinely agrees with Sanders on key issues, the reason she came out so aggressively is because she sees the writing on the wall. She’s playing the long game, and in the long game, Hillary Clinton represents a discredited and failed status quo, while Bernie Sanders represents a push toward the paradigm level change that will define the future.

When it comes to the Democrats, we need to see a lot less Pelosi and Schumer, and a lot more Gabbard.

Senate Intel Committee Orders White House To Keep All Records For Russia Probe

The "Russia hacked the US election" is getting its second wind.

One day after Reuters provided further details of the ongoing FBI probes - of which there are now reportedly three - into activities that are generally classified as the Kremlin"s hacking of the US presidential election, the Senate Intelligence Committee has likewise escalated its probe into Russian interference, and is requesting that agencies preserve all materials that could tie into the committee"s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

The Associated Press reported Sunday, citing a congressional aide, that the committee had sent formal requests to more than a dozen organizations, agencies and individuals, including at the White House, requesting the materials related to the probe into the Russian meddling be preserved. The intelligence panel"s chairman, Richard Burr (R-N.C.), and vice chairman Mark Warner (D-Va.) sent letters out Friday, according to the AP.

Richard Burr

On Thursday, Senate Democrats wrote the White House and law enforcement agencies seeking assurances that they were preserving all materials related to contacts individuals associated with President Donald Trump had with Russians. Those letters asked for confirmation that the White House, FBI and Justice Department had instructed their employees to preserve all materials related to any contacts Trump"s administration, campaign, transition team — or anyone acting on their behalf — have had with Russian government officials or its associates.

"I think they"re going to do their job. And they have to do that. Those are things that Richard Burr and that team have to do," White House chief of staff Reince Priebus said Sunday, a day after the disclosure by the congressional aide.

"That doesn"t mean that there"s anything there. It just means they need to do some things that satisfy their committee, that they"ve looked into something. And then they can have meetings behind closed doors that they always do in the Intel Committee, and then they"ll issue a report," Priebus told NBC"s "Meet the Press."

Also on Sunday, Priebus denied that members of President Trump"s campaign had contact with Russia before Trump"s victory.

“We don’t know of any contacts with Russian agents,” Priebus said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, one of three appearances on Sunday political shows by the White House chief of staff.

"The New York Times last week put out an article with no direct sources that said that the Trump campaign had constant contacts with Russian spies," Priebus also said on Fox News Sunday. "I can assure you, and I"ve been approved to say this, that the top levels of the intelligence community have assured me that that story is not only inaccurate but it"s grossly overstated."

Last Friday, FBI Director James Comey on Friday met with lawmakers from the Senate Intelligence Committee behind closed doors, amid ongoing rumors of alleged contacts between members of President Trump"s campaign and Russian officials. The committee members and Comey spent nearly three hours Friday afternoon in a secure room in the Senate basement used for classified briefings. Lawmakers refused to comment upon existing the meeting. Burr called the meeting "just a normal classified briefing."

The committee is investigating Russian interference in the U.S. election, including probing any contact between campaign officials and Russia.

Trump Administration Flip-Flops: Green Card Holders Are Not Affected By Immigration Ban

Following yesterday"s statement from a Department of Homeland Security official that "[the order] will bar green card holders", it appears The White House has shifted its view. During an interview of NBC"s "Meet The Press", White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus flip-flopped that "as far as green card holders moving forward, [the order] doesn"t affect them."

As The Hill reports, White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus on Sunday said the president"s executive order barring refugees and people from seven majority-Muslim nations does not affect green card holders.

"We didn"t overrule the Department of Homeland Security, as far as green card holders moving forward, it doesn"t affect them," Priebus said on NBC"s "Meet The Press."

But Priebus noted if a person is traveling back and forth to one of the seven countries included in that order, that person is likely to be "subjected temporarily with more questioning until a better program is put in place."

"We don"t want people that are traveling back and forth to one of these seven countries that harbor terrorists to be traveling freely back and forth between the United States and those countries," he said.

When pressed further on whether the order impacts green card holders, though, Priebus appeared to reverse himself, saying, "Well, of course it does."

"If you"re traveling back and forth, you"re going to be subjected to further screening," he said.

Furthermore, Priebus also said more countries could be added to the list already included in the president"s executive order.

"Perhaps other countries needed to be added to an executive order going forward," he said.

"But in order to do this in a way that was expeditious, in a way that would pass muster quickly, we used the 7 countries that have already been codified and identified."

As we noted yesterday, of the seven countries that are on the banned list, we note that the United States is actvely bombing five of them.

 

Here Are The Latest Updates On Trump's Refugee Ban

Less than 48 hours after announcing his executive order on refugees, global opposition to Trump intensified on Sunday as world leaders, US (mostly tech) companies and civil rights groups condemned the move to temporarily limit entry from predominantly Muslim countries.

Here are the latest updates in the ongoing saga as of noon on Sunday:

• Global government lash out at order. Governments from London and Berlin to Jakarta and Tehran spoke out against Trump"s order. A spokesman for the U.K."s Theresa May, who visited Trump on Friday and hadn"t commented during the day yesterday, told the AP May does "not agree" with the order. Canada PM Trudeau, in a tweet, said on Saturday Canada would welcome those fleeing “persecution, terror and war. Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith.” Scotland"s Nicola Sturgeon endorsed Trudea"s tweet. A similar message was sent by Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, who said refugees deserve a safe haven regardless of their background or religion. Danish Foreign Minister Anders Samuelsen said the decision was unfair.  Germany pledged to play a bigger role on the international stage.


• US tech companies "do not support:" Netflix Inc.’s chief executive officer said the changes were “un-American”; Alphabet Inc.’s Google advised staff who may be impacted by the order to return to the U.S. immediately; commeting on the order, Apple"s Tim Cook said "It is not a policy we support"


• Lyft donates $1 million to ACLU. In an email from Lyft to users, the company noted that the executive order is “antithetical to both Lyft’s and our nation’s core values. We stand firmly against these actions, and will not be silent on issues that threaten the values of our community.” The release went on to note that the company pledged to donate “$1,000,000 over the next four years to the ACLU to defend our constitution.”


• Uber slammed. Lyft’s response to the protests contrasted to that of its rival, Uber. While Uber’s CEO Travis Kalanick pledged to compensate drivers stranded overseas due to the executive order, he did not specifically condemn the executive order.  The company was criticized for the tone-deaf response from its CEO, prompting a new hashtag on Twitter: #DeleteUber.


• Trump refuses to relent. Despite the global criticism, Trump was steadfast as of Sunday morning, tweeting twice on the topic, first saying that "our country needs strong borders and extreme vetting, NOW. Look what is happening all over Europe and, indeed, the world - a horrible mess!"  following it up with "Christians in the Middle-East have been executed in large numbers. We cannot allow this horror to continue!"

Our country needs strong borders and extreme vetting, NOW. Look what is happening all over Europe and, indeed, the world - a horrible mess!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 29, 2017

Christians in the Middle-East have been executed in large numbers. We cannot allow this horror to continue!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 29, 2017

• Federal Judge issues nationwide stay, partially blocking the Trump immigration order. A Brooklyn judge temporarily blocked Trump’s administration late Saturday from enforcing portions of his order, however neither ruling strikes down the executive order, which will now be subject to court hearings.


• Another ruling: A Boston judge ruled to release two Iranian professors from Logan International Airport, according to the Boston Globe. The decision also stated that travelers could not be removed OR detained for 7 days.


• White House comments on judge"s ruling: "Nothing in the Brooklyn judge"s order in anyway impedes or prevents the implementation of the president"s executive order which remains in full, complete and total effect," White House adviser Stephen Miller told reporters.


• White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus "we apologize for nothing": Priebus told "Meet the Press" the situation yesterday "wasn"t chaos." He appeared to contradict an official clarification by the White House, when he said on Sunday green-card holders won"t be impacted by the order going forward, but could face additional screening at CBP "discretion." Other countries could be added to order.


• DHS continues to enforce the travel ban. Despite the ruling, the DHS vowed early on Sunday to continue implementing the order, stating it will "enforce all of the president’s executive orders in a manner that ensures the safety and security of the American people." It added that "President Trump"s Executive Orders remain in place — prohibited travel will remain prohibited, and the U.S. government retains its right to revoke visas at any time if required for national security or public safety."


• The initial statistics: A DHS official told CNN that there were 109 travelers barred from entry to the U.S. when Trump signed the order. It was unclear how many were deported vs. detained.


• Opening for democrats: As Axios points out, after spending nearly two months back on their heels. Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey showed up at Dulles airport, then tweeted last night: “I am driving North now from Virginia. I will check in on things at Newark airport tomorrow." Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe held a press conference on a concourse at Dulles, calling the order “antithetical to the values that make America great. It will not make our country safer." @HillaryClinton tweeted: “I stand with the people gathered across the country tonight defending our values & our Constitution. This is not who we are."


• Republicans revolt: As Axios also notes so far 10 GOPers have announced opposition to or questioned Trump"s executive order. These include Sen. John McCain; Rep. Carlos Curbelo; Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen; Rep. Charlie Dent; Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick; Rep. Justin Amash; Rep. Barbara Comstock; Sen. Susan Collins; Sen. Jeff Flake; Sen. Ben Sasse.

In Blistering Interview, Conway Tells Chuck Todd "We Are Going To Have To Rethink Our Relationship With The Press"

To members of the mainstream media, it would appears "size matters", as the Inauguration crowd-gate debacle continues following Sean Spicer"s unusual press conference yesterday. During a combative interview this morning with NBC"s Chuck Todd, Trump top advisor Kellyanne Conway blasted media "falsehoods," crushing Todd"s "size" issues by noting that "Presidents aren"t judged by crowd sizes at their inauguration, they"re judged by their accomplishments."

But Conway was not done with the "Meet The Press" anchor yet, as she cornered him, noting this was just more evidence of the unfair and biased treatment of the Trump administration by the media:

"We"re going to have to rethink our relationship with the press...

Yesterday, we allowed the press into the Oval Office to witness the signing of executive orders and what happens almost immediately - a falsehood is told about removing the bust of Martin Luther King Jr - that"s just flat-out false."

"I"m thrilled that all of a sudden NBC News and Chuck Todd is so focused on covering crowd control, because we were mocked daily for talking about the historic significance of the size of the crowds at our rallies during the campaign... on great days were ignored, and on most days we were mocked."

"You want the American people to think they can"t trust The White House press secretary, that"s a very dangerous statement to make. Your job is to report the news, not to give your opinion, you"re not an opinion columnist."

...you"ve got a 14% approval rating, that you"ve earned..."

And Todd"s response...

"...you attack us [the media] with some weird Twitter feed that you guys are obsessed with."

See the full bloodbath interview below...

Why Is Obama Threatening Russia With World War 3 Right Before The Election?

Submitted by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,

It sure seems like an odd time to be provoking a war with Russia.  As I write this, we stand just a little bit more than three weeks away from one of the most pivotal elections in U.S. history, and Barack Obama has chosen this moment to strongly threaten the Russians.  As I wrote about on Friday, Reuters is reporting that Obama is contemplating “direct U.S. military action” against Syrian military targets, and the Russians have already indicated that any assault on Syrian forces would be considered an attack on themselves.  The rapidly deteriorating crisis in Syria has already caused tensions with Russia to rise to the highest level since the end of the Cold War, but now Obama is adding fuel to the fire by publicly considering “an unprecedented cyber covert action against Russia”.  Apparently Obama believes that Russian hackers are interfering in the election and so he wants payback.  The following comes from an NBC News article entitled “CIA Prepping for Possible Cyber Strike Against Russia“…

The Obama administration is contemplating an unprecedented cyber covert action against Russia in retaliation for alleged Russian interference in the American presidential election, U.S. intelligence officials told NBC News.

Current and former officials with direct knowledge of the situation say the CIA has been asked to deliver options to the White House for a wide-ranging “clandestine” cyber operation designed to harass and “embarrass” the Kremlin leadership.

The sources did not elaborate on the exact measures the CIA was considering, but said the agency had already begun opening cyber doors, selecting targets and making other preparations for an operation.

Somebody should tell Obama that he is not playing a video game.  A cyber attack is considered to be an act of war, and the Russians would inevitably retaliate.  And considering how exceedingly vulnerable our cyber infrastructure is, I don’t know if that is something that we want to invite.

At the end of last week, Vice President Joe Biden also publicly threatened the Russians…

On Friday, Vice President Joe Biden met “Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd for an interview that has raised serious concern in Russia.

Without bothering to question the authenticity of the claims, Todd took the allegations of Russian hacking at face value, opening his interview with a loaded question: “Why haven’t we sent a message yet to Putin?”

After a moment of stunned silence, Biden responded, “We’re sending a message. We have the capacity to do it and it will be at the time of our choosing, and under the circumstances that will have the greatest impact.”

When Todd asked if the public will know a message was sent, Biden replied, “Hope not.”

The Russians firmly deny that they had any involvement in the hacking, and so far the Obama administration has not publicly produced any firm evidence that the Russians were behind it.

Perhaps the Obama administration privately has some evidence, but at this point they have not shown that evidence to the American public.

So for Joe Biden to be making these sorts of threats is a very dangerous thing.  The Russians are taking these threats very seriously, and they are preparing to protect their interests…

‘The threats directed against Moscow and our state’s leadership are unprecedented because they are voiced at the level of the US vice president.

‘To the backdrop of this aggressive, unpredictable line, we must take measures to protect (our) interests, to hedge risks,’ a Kremlin spokesman said, according to RIA Novosti news agency.

Here in the United States, most people don’t even realize that we could be on the verge of a major conflict with Russia.

But over in Russia things are completely different.  Talk of war is everywhere, and the potential for war is the number one topic in the Russian media right now.  Just check out some of the recent Russian media headlines about the conflict between our two nations…

And one Russian television network recently instructed their viewers to locate the nearest bomb shelter in case a nuclear war between the United States and Russia suddenly erupts…

A terrifying Russian television broadcast explicitly told civilians to find out where their nearest bomb shelter is and repeatedly asked viewers if they were ready for nuclear war.

One apocalyptic broadcast told viewers on Moscow’s state-owned TV channel NTV: “If it should one day happen, every one of you should know where the nearest bomb shelter is. It’s best to find out now.”

I don’t believe that the Russians are crazy to be thinking that a war might be coming.

To me, it almost seems as though Obama wants one.

Could it be possible that a conflict with Russia will be used to alter, change or influence the upcoming election in November?

The truth is that it isn’t going to take much for the shooting to begin.  If Obama orders airstrikes against Syrian forces, the Russians have said that they will shoot back…

Ash Carter has threatened Russia with “consequences”. After blowing up the ceasefire, the Pentagon – supported by the Joint Chiefs of Staff — now is peddling “potential strikes” on Syria’s air force to “punish the regime” for what the Pentagon actually did; blow up the ceasefire. One can’t make this stuff up.

Major-General Igor Konashenkov, Russia’s Defense Ministry spokesman, sent a swift message to “our colleagues in Washington”; think twice if you believe you can get away with launching a “shadow” hot war against Russia. Russia will target any stealth/unidentified aircraft attacking Syrian government targets – and they will be shot down.

The only serious question then is whether an out of control Pentagon will force the Russian Air Force – false flag and otherwise — to knock out US Air Force fighter jets, and whether Moscow has the fire power to take out each and every one of them.

I discussed the potential for war with Russia in my latest video.  Hopefully cooler heads will prevail and war with Russia will be put off...

But without a doubt the crisis in Syria is not going to be resolved any time soon because it is one giant mess.  Most people don’t realize that the Syrian civil war has essentially been a proxy war between Sunni Islam and Shia Islam from the very beginning.  Jihadist rebels that are being armed and funded by Saudi Arabia and Turkey are fighting Hezbollah troops that are being armed and funded by Iran.  And now Turkish forces have invaded northern Syria, and this threatens to cause a full-blown war to erupt between Turkey and the Syrian Kurds.  Of course ISIS is right in the middle of everything causing havoc, blowing stuff up and beheading anyone that doesn’t believe in their radical version of Sunni Islam.

It is absolutely insane that the United States and Russia could potentially go to war because of this conflict.  Both sides are determined to show the other how tough they are, and one false move could set off a spiral of events from which they may be no recovery.

The American people very foolishly elected Barack Obama twice, but up until now the consequences have not been quite as dire as many had been projecting.

However, right here at the end of his second term Obama is facing a moment of truth.  If he ends up dragging us into a war with Russia, the American people will ultimately bitterly regret putting him into the White House.