President Trump Accelerates Drone Strikes In Somalia

President Trump’s expansion of war is most evident in the skies of Somalia where an acceleration in drone strikes have been reported.

U.S. Africa Command has conducted fourteen airstrikes since August bringing the year’s total to eighteen. The increased tempo of airstrikes started in September between the Kismayo and Mogadisu region.

Earlier this month, we reported on Trump’s administration hitting a new milestone - when U.S. Africa Command launched its first airstrike against the Islamic State-linked fighters - further accelerating the US presence..

Defense One highlights this momentous achievement…

U.S. Africa Command has released data on 18 strikes this year, more than four times the average over the previous seven years. 

The escalation of U.S. Africa Command presence in Somalia was made possible by president Trump’s order in March that ”allows the U.S. Department of Defense to conduct lethal action against al-Shabaab within a geographically-defined area of active hostilities in support of partner forces in Somalia.”

Defense One outlines a majority of the airstrikes have been situated around Mogadishu, the capital of Somalia where a mixture of Al-Shabab attack zones and support zones reside.

Back in October, Al-Shabab blew up a truck bomb in the capital killing 300 making it one of the nation’s worst terrorist attack ever. The devastating bombing was in response to President Trump and Somalia’s newly elected president forming new military efforts to combat the rise in Islamic State-linked fighters in the country.

Drones have been responsible for most of the airstrikes and what the report states it’s impossible to verify how many ‘extremist’ have been killed.

Defense One notes,

The Bureau for Investigative Journalism estimates that the strikes have killed as few as 88 people and as many as 124. The group also says it has tracked nearly 30 strikes for 2017, about a dozen more than the Pentagon claims.  

Micah Zenko, a writer at foreignpolicy.com, outlines (dated Nov 09) that in 5+ months Trump has bombed Somalia 17 times verse Obama bombed Somalia 29 times in 7+years. The explanation for Trump’s rapid bombardment is the geographical spread of  strikes in the country is much larger, plus he authorized a new enemy back in March - ISIS.

In 5+ months, Trump has bombed Somalia 17 times.

In 7+ years, Obama bombed Somalia 29 times.

— Micah Zenko (@MicahZenko) November 10, 2017

Earlier this year, the US military reported about 50 US troops were stationed in Somalia providing training and advice for the Somali military, but as of lately the figure now stands at 500.

Before President Trump, the US military has always maintained a small presence in the region. Now it seems with the geographical spread larger and a new enemy in the region defined; the endless wars will most certainly continue further enriching the US-military industrial complex.

 

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.

Mogadishu Truck Bomb Kills 300, In Worst Terror Attack On Somalia

In what is now being called the “worst terrorist attack” ever on Somalia, at least 300 people have been declared dead after a truck bomb went off. The attack, which has also injured hundreds seriously is being blamed on militant group al-Shabaab.

The death toll in the bombing that hit the center of Mogadishu on Saturday may still continue to rise as some people are still missing and life-saving efforts are underway for those who suffered severe injuries. The scale of the loss makes the attack, which involved a truck packed with several hundred kilograms of military-grade and homemade explosives, one of the most lethal terrorist acts anywhere in the world for many years.

This major mass homicide was committed without guns, and the death toll dwarfs that of the Las Vegas shooting.  Monday morning, Somalia’s information minister announced that 276 people had died in the attack with at least 300 people injured. Within mere hours, however, Abdikadir Abdirahman, the director of Amin ambulances, said his service had confirmed that 300 people died in the blast. Some reports put the number of casualties as high as 500. “The death toll will still be higher because some people are still missing,” Abdirahman told Reuters.

Even more terrifying, is that the exact death toll may actually never be known because the intense heat generated by the blast meant the remains of many people would not be found. More victims continue to be dug from the rubble spread over an area hundreds of meters wide in the center of the city.

According to The Guardian, the bomb, which is thought to have targeted Somalia’s foreign ministry, was concealed in a truck and exploded near a hotel, demolishing the building and several others. Sources close to the Somali government said the truck had been stopped at a checkpoint and was about to be searched when the driver suddenly accelerated. It crashed through a barrier, then exploded. This ignited a fuel tanker parked nearby, creating a massive fireball.

The devastating bombing, which provoked international condemnation, will focus attention on the decade-long battle against al-Shabaab, an Islamist group, in Somalia. Earlier this year, Al-Shabab vowed to increase its attacks after both the Trump administration and Somalia’s recently elected president announced new military efforts against the group.

“There’s nothing I can say. We have lost everything,” said Zainab Sharif, a mother of four who lost her husband in the attack. She sat outside a hospital where he was pronounced dead after doctors tried for hours to save him from an arterial injury.

Muna Haj, 36, said: “Today, I lost my son who was dear to me. The oppressors have taken his life away from him. I hate them. May Allah give patience to all families who lost their loved ones in that tragic blast … And I pray that one day Allah will bring his justice to the perpetrators of that evil act.”

The president, Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed, declared three days of national mourning and joined thousands of people who responded to a plea by hospitals to donate blood for the wounded. “I am appealing to all Somali people to come forward and donate,” he said. –The Guardian

Dr. Mohamed Yusuf, the director of Mogadishu’s Medina hospital, said his staff had been “overwhelmed by both dead and wounded. This is really horrendous, unlike any other time in the past.” Some the bodies and those critically injured were burned so badly that they were unrecognizable.

Click here to subscribe: Join over one million monthly readers and receive breaking news, strategies, ideas and commentary.

Please Spread The Word And Share This Post

Author: Mac Slavo
Views: Read by 87 people
Date: October 16th, 2017
Website: www.SHTFplan.com

Copyright Information: Copyright SHTFplan and Mac Slavo. This content may be freely reproduced in full or in part in digital form with full attribution to the author and a link to www.shtfplan.com. Please contact us for permission to reproduce this content in other media formats.

The Common Sense Way To Get Rid Of Kim Jong-Un

By Chris at www.CapitalistExploits.at

That will never happen!

Much to the consternation of the little men in that incestuous, insular, politically inbred, inward looking place called Washington DC, young Kim is firing rockets into the air to much fanfare in his desperately poor paradise.

This week, the UN security council unanimously approved sanctions against the naughty boy north of Seoul. Stupid, stupid (which I"ll come to in a moment)!

In the meantime, more brilliance from Washington:

I’ll hit North Korea with fire and fury, vows Donald Trump

Oy vey! Here we go.

An entire bottle of Kalashnikov vodka laced with Prozac guaranteed to blow your head clean off is required to understand the logic. Hang on while I pour myself a glass.

North Korea poses less danger to the US than a bunch of angry Saudi teenagers with boxcutters and a belief that 72 virgins await them should they kill the infidel.

You know why?

The damage they could do was truly asymmetric relative to the damage their enemy could do.

It"s a topic I discussed recently when suggesting the economics of warfare have changed:

What we’re seeing is power shifting into the hands of individuals or at least small groups as apposed to large groups.

 

This same dynamic is at work with respect to war.

 

All wars are won or lost due to either side’s ability to secure supply lines, logistics, transportation, provisions, military hardware, and communications. And the ability to pay for all of them. Just as any business which can’t finance its plans goes belly up so, too, does any army.

 

Now, imagine an army with the ability to decentralise all of these elements.

 

This army is actually technologically and economically backward. This doesn’t sound threatening until you realise that:

• This army can and does utilise the technology and economics of its enemy. No need to develop its own.


• Transportation is not only provided to them but provided by their enemy.


• This army benefits from acquiring its transport, provisions, and even military hardware from its enemy.


• This army uses the communication tools necessary to conduct attacks at fractional cost… tools produced more often than not by its enemy… now out in the public realm

 

Would this not be a pretty powerful army?

Surely it hasn"t escaped the geniuses at the UN and in that five sided building that houses more wet-lipped psychopaths than a maximum security prison that nuclear weapons can quite easily be delivered by angry Algerian teenagers in oh, I dunno... a car, a truck, a boat, or a private plane.

And being intelligent readers, you"ll well know that there seems no shortage of angry Algerian teenagers quite willing to carry out such a task. Why, oh why build an incredibly expensive missile system to do what can be done easily, at lower cost, and delivered with greater precision to unguarded targets?

The answer is that young Kim needs a show of force to legitimise his very existence to the North Korean people.

The fact he"s recently stepped up his rhetoric should be treated as evidence of domestic pressures on his regime. And this means that there exists an excellent opportunity to bring down his regime... but it"ll absolutely never be used (more on that in a minute).

This brings me back to sanctions...

Those sanctions just provided Kim more fuel to fire up his domestic popularity than he could ever have garnered on his own. His response was precisely what you"d expect of every self-respecting dictator. He barked at them and used it as further evidence of the evil that "his people" must overcome.

The clowns at the UN sipping US$10 water must have said to themselves, "Well, we"ll hit him hard with these sanctions. We"ll deprive his people of goods and services and Kim will cave in and change his tune."

Why? Because he cares so much for them and can"t stand to see them starve? Really? Are these people that dumb?

Or maybe they think to themselves, "His people will become so fed up with starving they"ll overthrow him".

This tactic has worked splendidly before. Oh wait! No, wrong! It"s never worked before.

How it is that the inescapable logic and hard evidence defies entry into their cognitive functions requires another glass of Kalashnikov.

Dictators are bullies by nature, and bullies everywhere operate on a platform of fear, intimidation, and a show of resolute strength. Weakness of any sort is as dangerous as any nuclear weapon to them. Why would Kim risk being seen as weak and ineffective when doing so would threaten his very regime?

This would be like the Pope coming out saying, "Sorry folks it"s all a hoax. There is no God."

No. Sanctions act only to bolster a dictator"s resolve.

People starved of resources are by nature less resourceful and actually less trusting of foreign influence - the very thing that those who are bringing the sanctions actually say they want. And so overthrowing him becomes even less of a probability. Well done guys!

Typically, the politics behind such things has less to do with logic than it does money. As I mentioned when discussing Trump and Russia, you can"t take away the rice bowls:

 

 

Why Washington and the Establishment Need a Russian Enemy

Without a Russian threat the need for NATO is… well, jeez Louise, there isn’t one. Hmmm.

After all, NATO doesn’t need Eurofighters to deal with angry Algerian teenagers. They were built to do combat with Ivan. What if Ivan isn’t the threat they need him to be?

 Europe (and NATO) actually need weapons designed for a knife fight in a cubicle. Nuclear submarines seem like overkill for jihadists donning exploding underwear and yelling “Allahu Akbar” in a Paris subway. You sure as hell can’t fight him with a Mig-29. The problem is, none of this works for the lobbying military contractors sucking at the teat of Washington.“

Scrap the 20 F-22 Raptor jets boys. We’ve got an order for… Oh, jeez… An order for… 45,000 stab vests??… No, that can’t be right.”Without NATO Lockheed Martin may not build as many ugly and ludicrously expensive planes.

Without a Russian enemy Halliburton don’t provide “services”. Rice bowls are at risk. It’s about the money. It’s always about the money.

The Actual Solution

You have to make the distinction between a government and a people. They"re absolutely not the same thing.

Now, if you want to get rid of the North Korean people, then it makes perfect sense to turn North Korea into glass. That"s easy: Conjure up a reason like weapons of mass destruction and then go at it. We all remember Iraq. On the other hand, if your objective is to "liberate" them, the solution is really quite simple.

You immediately eliminate all sanctions and you absolutely let goods, services, and information flow. Immediately open the borders to allow North Koreans visa access to the rest of the world.

The Berlin Wall fell not because those nasty Commies got bombed to smithereens... or because they saw the light and came around to a smarter way of doing things.

No, it fell because information spread. I"d go so far as to say that it was the fax machine which brought down the Berlin Wall.

It sure as hell wasn"t some busybody know it alls in DC or any of the think tanks that litter the halls of power-like plastic bags on the side of an African highway.

If the West completely opened up to North Korea, there would be a greater infiltration of goods and services into North Korea, and this, much like the fax machine, would bring resources and information to the people of the country (remember, without resources it"s tough to displace Kim). More importantly, it would eliminate the ability of Kim to adequately have a terrible foe.

Show me one country with a desperately poor populace that has posed any real threat to the dictator running the show. Now go and read your history books and you"ll find that when a populace develops a middle class status the risks to the regime are much much higher.

This is where China is now, and it"s a balancing act - one, I might add, that China have been managing remarkably well by providing increased economic freedom while limiting political freedom (not unlike Singapore).

The reason the West will not eliminate sanctions is because our Western leaders refuse to allow overwhelming evidence to influence their repeatedly failed policies.

And so here we are...

The risks ratcheting higher everyday, and we know it only takes one stupid move and we"ll have cities in smoking ruins.

It"ll never be "tactical" or short. Forget about what the generals say.

Wars are more unpredictable than an epileptic on a bronco. Take a look at Iraq. It was going to be a cakewalk as was Afghanistan... and Somalia... and Vietnam.

Question

Cast your vote here and also see what others think will happen

- Chris

"There are very few examples looking back over the last 25 to 30 years where sanctions have actually succeeded". — Nicholas Burns, former US diplomat

--------------------------------------

Liked this article? Then you"ll probably like my other missives on

this topic as well. Go here to access them (free, of course).

--------------------------------------

US Is "The Greatest Threat To Peace In The World Today," New Poll Finds

Authored by Eric Zuesse via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

It has happened again: yet another international poll finds that the US is viewed by peoples around the world to be the biggest threat to world peace.

But, to start, let’s summarize the first-ever poll that had been done on this, back in 2013, which was the only prior poll on this entire issue, and it was the best-performed such poll: «An end-of-the-year WIN/Gallup International survey found that people in 65 countries believe the United States is the greatest threat to world peace», as the N.Y. Post reported on 5 January 2014. 

On 30 December 2013, the BBC had reported of that poll: «This year, first [meaning here, ‘for’] the first time, Win/Gallup agreed to include three questions submitted by listeners to [BBC’s] Radio 4"s Today programme». And, one of those three listener-asked questions was phrased there by the BBC, as having been «Which country is the biggest threat to peace?» The way that WIN/Gallup International itself had actually asked this open-ended question, to 67,806 respondents from 65 countries, was: «Which country do you think is the greatest threat to peace in the world today?» #1, 24% of respondents, worldwide, volunteered that the US was «the greatest threat». #2 (the second-most-frequently volunteered ‘greatest threat’) was Pakistan, volunteered by 8%. #3 was China, with 6%. #s 4-7 were a four-way tie, at 5% each, for: Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, and North Korea. #s 8-10 were a three-way tie, at 4% each, for: India, Iraq, and Japan. #11 was Syria, with 3%. #12 was Russia, with 2%. #s 13-20 were a seven-way tie, at 1% each, for: Australia, Germany, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, South Korea, and UK.

The way that W/G itself had phrased this matter, in their highly uninformative press release for their year-end survey (which included but barely mentioned this finding, in it — as though this particular finding in their annual year-end poll, hardly even deserved to be mentioned), was: «The US was the overwhelming choice (24% of respondents) for the country that represents the greatest threat to peace in the world today. This was followed by Pakistan (8%), China (6%), North Korea, Israel and Iran (5%). Respondents in Russia (54%), China (49%) and Bosnia (49%) were the most fearful of the US as a threat». That’s all there was of it — W/G never devoted a press-release to the stunning subject of this particular finding, and they even buried this finding when mentioning it in their year-end press-release.

I had hoped that they would repeat this excellent global survey question every year (so that a trendline could be shown, in the global answers over time), but the question was unfortunately never repeated.

However, now, on August 1^st of 2017, Pew Research Center has issued results of their polling of 30 nations in which they had surveyed, first in 2013, and then again in 2017, posing a less-clear but similar question (vague perhaps because they were fearing a similar type of finding — embarrassing to their own country, the US), in which respondents had been asked «Do you think that the United States’ power and influence is a major threat, a minor threat, or not a threat to (survey country)?» and which also asked this same question but regarding «China,» and then again but regarding «Russia,» as a possible threat instead of «United States». (This wasn’t an open-ended question; only those three nations were named as possible responses.)

On page 3 of their 32-page pdf is shown that the «major threat» category was selected by 35% of respondents worldwide for «US power and influence», 31% worldwide selected that for «Russia’s power and influence,» and also 31% worldwide said it for «China’s power and influence». However, on pages 23 and 24 of the pdf is shown the 30 countries that had been surveyed in this poll, in both 2013 and 2017, and most of these 30 nations were US allies; only Venezuela clearly was not. None of the 30 countries was an ally of either Russia or China (the other two countries offered as possibly being «a major threat»). And, yet, nonetheless, more respondents among the 30 sampled countries saw the US as «a major threat», than saw either Russia or China that way.

Furthermore, the trend, in those 30 countries, throughout that four-year period, was generally in the direction of an increase in fear of the US — increase in fear of the country that had been overwhelmingly cited in 2013 by people in 65 countries in WIN/Gallup’s poll, as constituting, in 2013, «the greatest threat to peace in the world today».

Consequently: though WIN/Gallup never repeated its question, the evidence in this newly released poll, from Pew, clearly suggests that the percentage of people in the 65 nations that WIN/Gallup had polled in 2013 who saw the US as being «the greatest threat to peace in the world today» would be even higher today than it was in 2013, when 24% of respondents worldwide volunteered the US as being the world’s most frightening country.

Perhaps people around the world are noticing that, at least since 2001, the US is wrecking one country after another: Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine. Which is next? Maybe Iran? Maybe Russia? Maybe Venezuela? Who knows?

And this country has just increased its ‘defense’ spending, which already is three times China’s, and nine times higher than Russia’s. Do the owners of America’s military-industrial complex own the US government, and own the US ‘news’media, to permit this rabid military to control the government’s budget, in a ‘democracy’?

Al-Shabaab Propaganda Video Bashes "Brainless Billionaire" Trump As "Stupidest President A Country Could Have"

Since taking office, President Donald Trump has stepped up US military strikes against al-Shabaab, the ISIS-affiliated terrorist group based primarily in Somalia, despite promises to avoid more foreign entanglements. In May, a Navy SEAL died during a mission targeting a compound of al-Shabaab militants, becoming the first US soldier to die in Somalia since 1993, when 18 US service members were killed in what became known as the battle of Mogadishu, later memorialized in the film “Black Hawk Down.” In June, the US killed 8 militants during a drone strike against what US officials described as one of the group’s primary training camps and bases.

While al-Shabaab lacks the resources to launch an effective counterattack against the US, the group instead opted to mock Trump in a new propaganda video. In it, the group responds to Trump’s violent escalation by calling him a “brainless billionaire” and criticizing US voters for electing “arguably the most stupid president a country could ever have" - echoing sentiments commonly expressed by left-leaning voters in metropolitan hubs like New York City.

Trump, the militants claim, is "making the United States the greatest joke on Earth and is now propelling it further to its eventual defeat and destruction," according to Russia Today, which cited the Associated Press and the SITE Intelligence Group.

In addition to authorizing more drone strikes against Somalian while also categorizing parts of the country’s south as an area where active hostilities are taking place, Somalia was included as one of six countries in the Trump administration’s travel ban.  

The group also criticized its neighbor Kenya, which has declared a new offensive against the extremists, sending in troops to take part in a multinational African Union force. Al-Shabaab has claimed responsibility for a number of terror attacks inside Kenya, including the 2015 shooting at a mall in Nairobi.

“Your military’s invasion of Somalia will continue to destabilize your country,” the video states.

“When we do strike, your government will not be able to protect you.”

The group has also vowed to carry out more attacks against Somalia"s recently elected government.

According to RT, this isn’t the first time the group has referenced Trump in its propaganda. In a recruitment video released early last year, the group included inflammatory sound bites from then-candidate Trump, including his notorious call for a “complete and total shutdown” of Muslims entering the US. Since being pushed out of the capital Mogadishu in 2011, al-Shabaab has lost control of most of Somalia"s cities and towns. But it still retains a strong presence in swathes of the south and center and still carries out major gun and bomb attacks. The group killed more than 4,200 people in 2016, according to the Pentagon-supported Africa Center for Strategic Studies.
 

As Americans Celebrate Independence, US Bombs Yet Another Sovereign Nation

In the midst of festivities leading into Independence Day, the U.S. opportuned the distraction to bomb yet another sovereign nation in the name of fighting terrorism, launching airstrikes against al-Shabaab militants rebelling against the U.N.-backed Somali government headed by U.S. citizen, President Mohamed Abdullahi “Farmajo” Mohamed.

These strikes on Sunday follow the granting of expanded powers to U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) by President Trump earlier this year, and seems to be the second of its kind.

“We are currently assessing the results of the operation, and will provide additional information as appropriate,” AFRICOM spokesman Chuck Prichard asserted Monday.

Following the airstrikes, AFRICOM spokesman Patrick Barnes also noted, “U.S. forces remain committed to supporting the federal government of Somalia, the Somali National Army and our AMISOM partners in defeating al-Shabab and establishing a safe and secure environment in Somalia.”

AMISOM, the African Union Mission, is a coalition of East African nations supporting the U.S. in an effort to quash al-Shabaab in Somalia — which it has reportedly done for years.

Advertisment

Pentagon officials refused to provide details about Sunday’s strike — including an exact location or what target was hit — but described it as similar to another which took place mid-June.

State-run Voice of America reports, “Local sources said the strike on Sunday targeted vehicles in Kunya Barrow, in the lower Shabelle region. Sources also said the strike was conducted against a high-ranking al-Shabab militant, without going into further detail.”

According to Reuters, “Since being pushed out of the capital Mogadishu in 2011, al Shabaab has lost control of most of Somalia’s cities and towns. But it retains a strong presence in swathes of the south and center and carries out major gun and bomb attacks.

“The group aims to topple Somalia’s government, drive out African Union peacekeeping troops and impose its own harsh interpretation of Islamic law.”

Allied with al-Qaeda, al-Shabaab — which means “The Youth” in Arabic — “emerged as the radical youth wing of Somalia’s now-defunct Union of Islamic Courts, which controlled Mogadishu in 2006, before being forced out by Ethiopian forces,” the BBC described in December.

“There are numerous reports of foreign jihadists going to Somalia to help al-Shabab, from neighbouring countries, as well as the US and Europe. It is banned as a terrorist group by both the US and the UK and is believed to have between 7,000 and 9,000 fighters.

“Al-Shabab advocates the Saudi-inspired Wahhabi version of Islam, while most Somalis are Sufis.”

U.S. ground troops were deployed to Somalia earlier this year — for the first time since 1994 — nearly a quarter century. Al-Shabaab vacated capital city, Mogadishu, in 2011, but has retained control over significant areas, posing serious risk to the weak regime of the president installed by the U.S. in February.

According to the U.S. Military, the first such drone strike had been conducted on June 11, killing eight militants, and a Navy Seal was killed in May in a joint operation with Somali government forces against the al-Qaeda-allied group.

“The United States military has been training and advising African Union and Somali government forces in the country while becoming more directly involved in its civil war for the past several years,” the New York Times reports.

“Soon after Mr. Trump took office, the Defense Department proposed an escalation of force against the Shabab. The Pentagon wanted Mr. Trump to declare parts of Somalia to be an area of active hostilities, exempting it from the need to obey special targeting limits, known as the Presidential Policy Guidance, that President Barack Obama imposed in 2013 for counterterrorism strikes outside conventional war zones.

“In late March, Mr. Trump signed off on the Pentagon’s proposal to exempt much of Somalia from the 2013 limits, clearing the way for the American military to carry out purely offensive strikes, and without going through interagency vetting.”

In other words, AFRICOM has essentially an unfaltering green light to act aggressively in Somalia — a nation also in the grips of stultifying famine, putting six million people in danger — in order to rein in al-Shabaab.

Despite having received expanded authority, General Thomas D. Waldhauser, head of AFRICOM, has exercised extreme caution in carrying out drone strikes — vowing to greatly reduce or eliminate civilian casualties incidental to targeted actions.

Minimal reporting and limited information from the Pentagon leave a number of details about the Sunday morning strike unknown or murky, including whether or not there were civilian casualties.

Meanwhile, the bulk of Americans will continue celebrating Independence Day, unaware or apathetic when the nation whose flag many consider a sacred sign of freedom instead means death, misery, and destruction from above in places like Somalia and Syria.

Caught On Tape: U.S. Security Contractors Open Fire On Somali Pirates

Following the highjacking of a cargo ship near the coast of Somalia in April of 2009, ocean transport companies began taking the threat of modern day pirates seriously. For years Somali pirates were able to easily board ships and hold their crew for ransom, at times even going so far as to torture or kill hostages until their demands were met.

But, as SHTFplan.com"s Mac Slavo writes, it looks like the pirate business has gotten significantly more dangerous for maritime criminals who are often under-equipped and travelling in speed boats.

As the following series of videos shows, U.S. security contractors are prepared to take rapid and deadly action when being pursued or engaged on the high seas:

One guard begins by firing warning shots around the boat which can be seen landing just feet away from the speedboat.

After firing dozens of rounds at the speedboat which crashes into the ship’s hull, one contractor can be heard shouting: ‘Where they at, what’s their position?’

As one speedboat careers off in retreat security can be heard calling: ‘Second skip coming in.’

A second boat races towards the starboard of the ship.

Security guards fire dozens more rounds at the vessel which eventually retreats. 

Full report: The Daily Mail

In the first video, security contractors initially fire warning shots at an approaching ship. The initial volley of firepower doesn’t seem to slow the pirates down, however, leading to a barrage of bullets:

In the second video, shot from various angles, we see the contractors engage a second pirate vessel (skip to about 0:45 for new footage):

According to common maritime law, a ship that is engaged in international waters may defend itself through force when confronted by armed pirates:

Private security teams patrol the decks of around 40% of large vessels in the “high-risk area” that stretches from the Persian Gulf to the Seychelles in the south and the Maldives in the east. When pirates attack, these armed guards respond with flares or warning shots. This usually scares off assailants (or sends them in search of easier prey). If it fails, they fire at an attacking boat’s engine, before finally turning their sights on the pirates. No ship carrying armed guards has so far been hijacked.

Trump Invades Somalia

(image: © Greg Nash / The Hill)

Bookmakers must be wondering how many wars he’ll wage during his tenure.

He continues Bush/Cheney/Obama wars, escalated them in Syria, Iraq and Yemen, likely intends more combat troops for Afghanistan, threatens nuclear war on the Korean peninsula, and targets Somalia for the first time since US forces were withdrawn in 1994.

Sending dozens, perhaps scores, even hundreds of US combat troops isn’t exactly an invasion. Besides, US special forces operated there at times for years – illegally on the territory of another country.

Big things usually start small. US forces in Somalia may signal many more to come. Obama waged covert drone war on the strategically important Horn of Africa.

It’s near the Bab el-Mandeb strait chokepoint separating Yemen from Eritrea. Million barrels of oil flow through it to the Gulf of Aden and Indian Ocean.

AFRICOM claims US forces are there “to assist our allies and partners” combat al-Shabab, falsely designated a foreign terrorist organization linked to al-Qaeda.

Its members are freedom fighters, combating the Mogadishu-based US-installed puppet regime.

Pentagon forces began arriving in early April. Last month, AFRICOM commander General Thomas Waldhauser sought White House approval for airstrikes and ground attacks on al-Shabab fighters – vowing not to turn Somalia into a “free fire zone.”

Trump escalated deployments of US special forces and other combat troops in multiple theaters, including northern and central Africa.

Wherever US forces show up, mass slaughter and destruction follow. Somalia looks like Trump’s latest battleground, surely not his last new one.

Belligerence he launched so far suggests much more to come in current and new theaters.

America’s anti-interventionist candidate U-turned as president.

U.S. Putting Boots Back On The Ground In Somalia

Authored by Jason Ditz via TheAntiMedia.org,

In October 1993, during the Battle of Mogadishu (the Black Hawk Down incident), 18 US soldiers were killed and 73 wounded, with a pair of Black Hawk helicopters shot down. The US responded by ceasing military operations, and within a few months had withdrawn all troops from Somalia.

Today, they are headed back.

The new deployment, which US African Command (AFRICOM) is presented as a simple training operation, will be the first time US ground troops are officially deployed to Somalia, though of course the US has had some special forces present on the ground on and off, conducting occasional operations and spotting for US airstrikes.

"United States Africa Command will conduct various security cooperation and/or security force assistance events in Somalia in order to assist our allies and partners," U.S. Africa Command spokesman Pat Barnes told VOA on Thursday.

AFRICOM also insists the new deployment was at the request of the Somali government, though indications in recent weeks has indicated that military officials have been pushing for an escalation of US intervention in the country at any rate, aimed at fighting al-Shabaab.

When commanders want to push for fighting in Somalia, al-Shabaab is presented as either ISIS or al-Qaeda affiliated, though in practice the group is largely an independent Islamist operation with a similar ideology.

The group’s operations are confined almost exclusively to Somalia, though they have launched some strikes into neighboring countries, as retaliation for those countries (particularly Kenya) being involved in interventions against them.

A lot has changed in Somalia in the 24 years between direct US interventions, with the country undergoing a long period of comparatively stable anarchy followed by a protracted war designed to prop up a self-proclaimed government. It was this war, and African Union interventions to try to claim territory for this government, that largely fueled the creation of al-Shabaab.

Swedish Cop Posts Epic Facebook Rant On Immigrant Crime; Ignites Nationwide Firestorm

A Swedish police officer recently offered up a little more truth than people are used to when he posted an epic rant on Facebook about immigrant crimes plaguing his police department and his country.  In the beginning of the post, the police officer said that he was "so fucking tired" and warned that "what I will write here below, is not politically correct."  With that warning, below is brief taste of what followed courtesy of RT:

"Here we go; this is what I’ve handled from Monday-Friday this week: rape, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, rape-assault and rape, extortion, blackmail, assault, violence against police, threats to police, drug crime, drugs, crime, felony, attempted murder, rape again, extortion again and ill-treatment."

“Suspected perpetrators; Ali Mohammed, Mahmod, Mohammed, Mohammed Ali, again, again, again. Christopher… what, is it true? Yes, a Swedish name snuck in on the edges of a drug crime. Mohammed, Mahmod Ali, again and again."

“Countries representing all the crimes this week: Iraq, Iraq, Turkey, Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Somalia, Syria again, Somalia, unknown, unknown country, Sweden. Half of the suspects, we can’t be sure because they don’t have any valid papers. Which in itself usually means that they’re lying about their nationality and identity.”

The Facebook post was published by Peter Springare, a senior investigator at the serious crimes division at the Örebro Police Department with 47 years under his belt.  Springare noted that what he had to say could harm an officer"s position and/or pay grade which is why most officers never speak out. 

And here is a loose translation of the full post from Facebook that has been shared over 17,000 times in a matter of days:

Not surprisingly, Springare"s rants ignited an immediate national firestorm with supporters applauding his courage for speaking up while others blasted his rant as racist and xenophobic. 

People supporting Springare’s rant started a group on Facebook that quickly amassed over 75,000 members including several of his fellow police officers.  Meanwhile, according to news website Nyheter Idag, the police station where Springare works received at least 60 bouquets of flowers addressed to him on Monday – a “bloombomb” from admirers.

Of course, not everyone was thrilled with Springare"s post, with at least one person referring him to the special prosecutors" office for an official investigation into whether he violated police regulations. 

Others were not happy with the investigator’s remark, calling him right-wing or even racist. The post was referred to the special prosecutors’ office, which handles crimes involving law enforcement, to see whether it violated police regulations, according to Swedish media.

National Police Commissioner Dan Eliasson said that it was important to distinguish what an officer does in the line of duty and outside of it.

“When he acts in his professional capacity, he should be extremely careful with issues of ethnicity. If he wants to talk about the problems of crime among immigrants in his spare time, he has freedom of expression like any other,” he told P4 Extra radio, adding that he knows Springare as a “very good person.”

In a second post, Springare denied accusations of right-wing sympathies.

“If you can"t discuss the problem of crime among immigrants without somebody attributing it to racist propaganda, we are in deep trouble,” he said. “The problem is that nobody wants to talk about this.”

Turns out the U.S. isn"t the only place where providing actual facts/statistics about crime can result in a person being labelled a racist.

DHS Suspends "All Actions" On Trump Travel Ban, Reverses Visa Cancelation; Vows To Fight

In what is an almost complete reversal of Trump"s immigration executive order, which temporarily banned the entry of refugees and citizens from seven mostly Muslim nations into the US, moments ago the Department of Homeland Security announced that "in accordance with the judge"s ruling, DHS has suspended any and all actions implementing the affected sections of the Executive Order entitled, "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States." 

"This includes actions to suspend passenger system rules that flag travelers for operational action subject to the Executive Order. DHS personnel will resume inspection of travelers in accordance with standard policy procedure."

However, keeping the defiant tone, the DHS also said that "at the earliest possible time, the Department of Justice intends to file an emergency stay of this order and defend the President"s Executive Order, which is lawful and appropriate. The Order is intended to protect the homeland and the American people, and the President has no higher dury and responsibility than to do so."

That may be true, although at this point an "epic court battle", including a Supreme Court showdown now appears inevitable.

Furthermore, as Reuters adds, the State Department issued a statement in which it said that the DOJ informed it of the Washington state court ruling barring the U.S. government from enforcing certain provisions of Executive Order 13769, and thus "we have reversed the provisional revocation of visas under Executive Order 13769.  Those individuals with visas that were not physically cancelled may now travel if the visa is otherwise valid."

In other words, any travelers from the seven countries who have active visas, can once again enter the US. The department adds that it is "working closely with the Department of Homeland Security and our legal teams" and will provide "further updates as soon as information is available."

This means that entry for citizens from the seven formerly banned nations are once again permitted, and thus they can resume boarding U.S.-bound flights, major airlines said on Saturday, after a Seattle judge blocked the executive order. As Reuters adds, the ruling gave hope to some Middle East travelers but left them unclear how long the new travel window might last. Trump denounced the judge on Twitter and said the decision would be quashed.

In the wake of Friday"s ruling, Qatar Airways was the first to say it would allow passengers from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen to resume flying to U.S. cities if they had valid documents.

Fellow Gulf carriers Etihad and Emirates said they would do the same, as did Air France, Spain"s Iberia and Germany"s Lufthansa. Officials in Lebanon and Jordan said they had received no new instructions on the issue.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection told airlines they could board travelers affected within hours of Friday"s ruling, but budget airline Norwegian, which operates transatlantic flights including from London and Oslo, said many uncertainties remained about the legal position. "It"s still very unclear," spokeswoman Charlotte Holmbergh Jacobsson said. "We advise passengers to contact the U.S. embassy ... We have to follow the U.S. rules."

In Cairo, aviation sources said Egypt Air and other airlines had told their sales offices of Friday"s ruling and would allow people previously affected by the ban to book flights.

As a result, following the Friday ruling, travelers from affected countries are delighted, and rushing to get to the US: "Ibrahim Ghaith, a Syrian barber who fled Damascus in 2013, told Reuters in Jordan: “Today we heard that the measures may have been abolished but we are not sure if this is just talk. If they go back on the decision, people will be overjoyed." Iraqi refugee Nizar al-Qassab told Reuters in Lebanon: "If it really has been frozen, I thank God, because my wife and children should have been in America by now." The 52-year-old said his family had been due to travel to the United States for resettlement on Jan. 31. The trip was cancelled two days before that, and he was now waiting for a phone call from U.N. officials overseeing their case. "It"s in God"s hands," he said."

Two Sudanese travellers told Reuters they were trying to travel as soon as possible, fearing the ban might be reinstated.

“I’m in a race against time," said a 31-year-old female academic who declined to be named for fear of any consequences.

"Today I face a real problem in Khartoum because the international airlines are refusing to sell me a ticket to travel for fear of contradicting the President’s decision. Now I am going from one airline company to another to convince them about the court’s decision,” she said.

A 34-year-old Sudanese engineer, who also did not want to be named, said: "After the court’s decision I am now trying to leave as fast as possible before the situation changes once more."

The State Department said on Friday that almost 60,000 visas were suspended following Trump"s order. It was not clear whether that suspension was automatically revoked or what reception travelers with such visas might get at U.S. airports, although according to today"s State Department clarification it appears that virtually all travelers who previously had an active visa will once again be allowed into the US.

Paul Craig Roberts: "Bannon Is 100% Right - The Media Is Now The Opposition"

Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

Bannon is correct that the US media - indeed, the entire Western print and TV media - is nothing but a propaganda machine for the ruling elite. The presstitutes are devoid of integrity, moral conscience, and respect for truth.

@TheLeadCNN @jaketapper

You"re not the press, you"re fake news!!! pic.twitter.com/ei0rEfRpyF

— ira (@idesignwis) January 26, 2017

Who else but the despicable Western media justified the enormous war crimes committed against millions of peoples by the Clinton, Bush, and Obama regimes in nine countries—Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, Palestine, and the Russian areas of Ukraine?

Who else but the despicable Western media justified the domestic police states that have been erected in the Western world in the name of the “war on terror”?

Along with the war criminals that comprised the Clinton, Bush, and Obama regimes, the Western media should be tried for their complicity in the massive crimes against humanity.

The Western media’s effort to sustain the high level of tension between the West and Russia is a danger to all mankind, a direct threat to life on earth. Gorbachev’s warnings are correct...

The world today is overwhelmed with problems. Policymakers seem to be confused and at a loss.

But no problem is more urgent today than the militarization of politics and the new arms race. Stopping and reversing this ruinous race must be our top priority.

The current situation is too dangerous.

...Politicians and military leaders sound increasingly belligerent and defense doctrines more dangerous. Commentators and TV personalities are joining the bellicose chorus. It all looks as if the world is preparing for war.

Yet presstitutes declare that if Trump lifts the sanctions it proves that Trump is a Russian agent. It is paradoxical that the Democrats and the liberal-progressive-left are mobilizing the anti-war movement to oppose Trump’s anti-war policy!

By refusing to acknowledge and to apologize for its lies, euphemistically called “fake news,” the Western media has failed humanity in a number of other ways. For example, by consciously telling lies, the media has legitimized the suborning of perjury and false testimony used to convict innocent defendants (such as Walter McMillian in Bryan Stevenson’s Just Mercy) in America’s “justice” system, which has about the same relation to justice as genocide has to mercy. If the media can lie about world events, police and prosecutors can lie about crimes.

By taking the role of the political opposition to Trump, the media has discredited itself as an honest critic on topics where Trump needs criticism, such as the environment and his tolerance of oppressive methods used by police. The presstitutes have ended all chance of improving Trump’s performance with reports and criticism.

Trump needs moderating on the environment, on the police, and on the war on terror. Trump needs to understand that “the Muslim threat” is a hoax created by the neoconservatives and the military/security complex with the complicity of the presstitutes to serve the hegemony agenda and the budget and power of the CIA, Pentagon, and military industries. If the US stops bombing and slaughtering Muslims and training and equiping forces to overthrow non-compliant Muslim governments such as Syria, Iraq, and Libya, “the Muslim threat” will disappear.

Maybe Trump will add to his agenda breaking into hundreds of pieces the six mega-media companies that own 90% of the US media and selling the pieces to seperate independent owners who have no connection to the ruling elites. Then America would again have a media that can constrain the government with truth rather than use lies to act for or against the government.

Google Tells Offshore Staff To Return To The US After Trump Executive Order

In the immediate aftermath of Trump"s controversial executive order, prohibiting entry into the US of citizens from seven mostly-Muslim nations - Syria, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen and Libya - yet which excludes such nations as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey in which Trump has done business deals...

... Google issued a stark warning to staff traveling overseas who may be impacted by Trump"s new executive order on immigration: Get back to the U.S. now.

According to Bloomberg, Google CEO Sundar Pichai slammed Trump’s move in a note to employees Friday, telling them that 187 Google employees are affected by the order.  

“We’re upset about the impact of this order and any proposals that could impose restrictions on Googlers and their families, or that could create barriers to bringing great talent to the US,” Mr. Pichai said in the email. “It’s painful to see the personal cost of this executive order on our colleagues.”

"We’ve always made our view on immigration issues known publicly and will continue to do so." The memo follows a similar statement made on Friday by Facebook Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg in which he said he was “concerned” by Trump’s recent moves to restrict immigration.

Per the memo, some Google employees were traveling abroad and were trying to get back to the U.S. before the order took effect. The company asked them to reach out to Google’s security, travel, and immigration teams for assistance, according to a person familiar with the situation. The person asked not to be identified talking about internal company communications.

The employees in question normally work in the U.S. but just happened to be abroad either on work assignments or vacations. The concern is that even if Google staff have valid visas, they may still be at risk if they’re from one of the seven countries and they’re outside the U.S. when the order kicks in, the person also said.

One employee rushed back from a trip to New Zealand to make it into the U.S. before the order was signed, Google’s Pichai wrote in his memo.

"We’re concerned about the impact of this order and any proposals that could impose restrictions on Googlers and their families, or that create barriers to bringing great talent to the U.S.," a Google spokeswoman said in a statement. "We’ll continue to make our views on these issues known to leaders in Washington and elsewhere."

The unexpected fallout and Google"s comments "underscore a growing rift between the Trump administration and several large U.S. technology companies, which include many immigrants in their ranks and have lobbied for fewer immigration restrictions. Pichai’s note echoed similar statements from tech peers voicing concerns about the harm such policies could have on their businesses."

The Department of Homeland Security issued a directive on Friday afternoon ordering the Customs and Border Control agency to enforce the order, the New York Daily News reported. Late Friday, some green card and visa holders were already being blocked from boarding flights to the U.S., the newspaper said.

"We are advising our clients from those seven countries who have green cards or any type of H-1B visa not to travel outside the U.S." said Ava Benach, a partner at immigration law firm Benach Collopy LLP, while noting that the order takes effect immediately. “No one is really sure whether a green card holder from these seven countries can return to the U.S. now. It’s fairly clear that an H-1B visa holder can’t," Benach said. The H-1B lets U.S. companies employ graduate-level workers from other countries in technical occupations such as technology, engineering and science.

"If anyone in these situations has the misfortune to have gone abroad recently, it’s a treacherous moment, possibly for green card holders too," Benach said.

Other technology companies are likely in a similar situation, she added. In addition to Facebook, Microsoft inserted language in a securities filing on Thursday on the issue, cautioning investors that immigration restrictions "may inhibit our ability to adequately staff our research and development efforts."

Trump to Ban Citizens of Seven Countries From Visiting US

January 25, 2017   |   admintam

(ANTIWAR) According to officials who have been briefed on the matter, President Trump is planning to sign an executive order that would impose a temporary ban on visas for citizens of seven countries in the Middle East and Northern Africa, a move which some reports indicate could just be the beginning of further limits.

The ban will exclude all people from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, and Yemen from visiting the United States. It is also to include a total ban on refugees entering the United States from anywhere, with some exceptions for religious minorities.

Trump campaigned on the idea of banning all Muslims from entering the United States, and while he’s said to have moderated on that position since then, this appears to be at least the start of a policy in that vein. At the same time, the ban list has some conspicuous absences.

Despite presenting such moves as a national security measure intended to prevent terror, the nations from which 9/11 plotters originated (primarily Saudi Arabia, but also including Egypt and the UAE) were left off the new ban. Also, while the US may fear blowback from wars in Iraq and Syria, and constant drone strikes in Yemen, they did not include Afghanistan, 15 years into America’s occupation, nor Pakistan, which has borne the brunt of America’s drone war.

It is thus very difficult to figure exactly how they came by this list, with nations like Iran seemingly just included for political value, and the other countries on the list just sounding scary.

---

This article (Trump to Ban Citizens of Seven Countries From Visiting US) by Jason Ditz, originally appeared on AntiWar.com and was used with permission. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.

No Matter Who Wins Election Tomorrow, Americans Want Change

November 7, 2016   |   admintam

(RPI) I have said throughout this presidential campaign that it doesn’t matter much which candidate wins. Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are authoritarians and neither can be expected to roll back the leviathan state that destroys our civil liberties at home while destroying our economy and security with endless wars overseas. Candidates do not matter all that much, despite what the media would have us believe. Ideas do matter, however. And regardless of which of these candidates is elected, the battle of ideas now becomes critical.

The day after the election is our time to really focus our efforts on making the case for a peaceful foreign policy and the prosperity it will bring. While we may not have much to cheer in Tuesday’s successful candidate, we have learned a good deal about the state of the nation from the campaigns. From the surprising success of the insurgent Bernie Sanders to a Donald Trump campaign that broke all the mainstream Republican Party rules – and may have broken the Republican Party itself – what we now understand more clearly than ever is that the American people are fed up with politics as usual. And more importantly they are fed up with the same tired old policies.

Last month a fascinating poll was conducted by the Center for the National Interest and the Charles Koch Institute. A broad ranging 1,000 Americans were asked a series of questions about US foreign policy and the 15 year “war on terror.” You might think that after a decade and a half, trillions of dollars, and thousands of lives lost, Americans might take a more positive view of this massive effort to “rid the world of evil-doers,” as then-president George W. Bush promised. But the poll found that only 14 percent of Americans believe US foreign policy has made them more safe! More than 50 percent of those polled said the next US president should use less force overseas, and 80 percent said the president must get authorization from Congress before taking the country to war.

These results should make us very optimistic about our movement, as it shows that we are rapidly approaching the “critical mass” where new ideas will triumph over the armies of the status quo.

We know those in Washington with a vested interest in maintaining a US empire overseas will fight to the end to keep the financial gravy train flowing. The neocons and the liberal interventionists will continue to preach that we must run the world or everything will fall to ruin. But this election and many recent polls demonstrate that their time has passed. They may not know it yet, but their failures are too obvious and Americans are sick of paying for them.

What is to be done? We must continue to educate ourselves and others. We must resist those who are preaching “interventionism-lite” and calling it a real alternative. Claiming we must protect our “interests” overseas really means using the US military to benefit special interests. That is not what the military is for. We must stick to our non-interventionist guns. No more regime change. No more covert destabilization programs overseas. A solid defense budget, not an imperial military budget. US troops home now. End US military action in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and so on. Just come home.

Americans want change, no matter who wins. We need to be ready to provide that alternative.

---

This article (No Matter Who Wins Election Tomorrow, Americans Want Change) by Ron Paul originally appeared on RonPaulInstitute.org and was used with permission. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.