With National Security Council Shakeup, Steve Bannon Gets A Seat At The Table

Bannon is leaving no paper trail....

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/steve-bannon-is-making-sure-theres-…

If there was any question about who is largely in charge of national security behind the scenes at the White House, the answer is becoming increasingly clear: Steve Bannon, the former head of Breitbart News, a far-right media outlet, and now White House advisor.

Even before he was given a formal seat on the National Security Council’s “principals committee” this weekend by President Donald Trump, Bannon was calling the shots and doing so with little to no input from the National Security Council staff, according to an intelligence official who asked not to be named out of fear of retribution.

“He is running a cabal, almost like a shadow NSC,” the official said. He described a work environment where there is little appetite for dissenting opinions, shockingly no paper trail of what’s being discussed and agreed upon at meetings, and no guidance or encouragement so far from above about how the National Security Council staff should be organized.

The intelligence official, who said he was willing to give the Trump administration the benefit of the doubt when it took office, is now deeply troubled by how things are being run.

“They ran all of these executive orders outside of the normal construct,” he said, referring to last week’s flurry of draft executive orders on everything from immigration to the return of CIA “black sites.”

After the controversial draft orders were written, the Trump team was very selective in how they routed them through the internal White House review process, the official said.

Under previous administrations, if someone thought another person or directorate had a stake in the issue at hand or expertise in a subject area, he or she was free to share the papers as long as the recipient had proper clearance.

With that standard in mind, when some officials saw Trump’s draft executive orders, they felt they had broad impact and shared them more widely for staffing and comments.

That did not sit well with Bannon or his staff, according to the official. More stringent guidelines for handling and routing were then instituted, and the National Security Council staff was largely cut out of the process.

By the end of the week, they weren’t the only ones left in the dark. Retired Marine Gen. John Kelly, the secretary of homeland security, was being briefed on the executive order, which called for immediately shutting the borders to nationals from seven largely Muslim countries and all refugees, while Trump was in the midst of signing the measure, the New York Times reported.

The White House did not respond in time to a request for comment.

The lack of a paper trail documenting the decision-making process is also troubling, the intelligence official said. For example, under previous administrations, after a principals or deputies meeting of the National Security Council, the discussion, the final agreement, and the recommendations would be written up in what’s called a “summary of conclusions” — or SOC in government-speak.

“Under [President George W. Bush], the National Security Council was quite strict about recording SOCs,” said Matthew Waxman, a law professor at Columbia University who served on Bush’s National Security Council. “There was often a high level of generality, and there may have been some exceptions, but they were carefully crafted.”

These summaries also provided a record to refer back to, especially important if a debate over an issue came up again, including among agencies that needed to implement the conclusions reached.
If someone thought the discussion was mischaracterized, he or she would call for a correction to be issued to set the record straight, said Loren DeJonge Schulman, who previously served in former President Barack Obama’s administration as a senior advisor to National Security Advisor Susan Rice. Schulman is now a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security.

“People took the document seriously,” she said.

During the first week of the Trump administration, there were no SOCs, the intelligence official said. In fact, according to him, there is surprisingly very little paper being generated, and whatever paper there is, the NSC staff is not privy to it. He sees this as a deterioration of transparency and accountability.

“It would worry me if written records of these meeting were eliminated, because they contribute to good governance,” Waxman said.

It is equally important that NSC staff be the ones drafting the issue papers going into meetings, too, said Schulman. “The idea is to share with everyone a fair and balanced take on the issue, with the range of viewpoints captured in that document,” she said.

If those papers are now being generated by political staff, she added, it corrupts the whole process.

It could also contribute to Bannon’s centralization of power.
“He who has the pen has the authority to shape outcomes,” the intelligence official said.

Now Bannon’s role in the shadows is being formalized thanks to an executive order signed Saturday by Trump that formally gives Bannon a seat on the National Security Council’s principals committee. The same executive order removed from that group the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the director of national intelligence, and the secretary of energy. Their new diminished role is not unprecedented, but some still find it a troubling piece of this larger picture.

For example, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates — who served under both Bush and Obama — told ABC News this weekend that sidelining the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the director of national intelligence was a “big mistake.”

Every president can benefit from their “perspective, judgment, and experience,” Gates said.

Bannon’s new role is unprecedented. Under Obama, it wasn’t unheard of for his chief political advisors, John Podesta and David Axelrod, to attend NSC meetings, but they were never guaranteed a seat at the table. Under Bush, the line between national security and domestic political considerations was even clearer. Top aides have said they never saw Karl Rove or “anyone from his shop” in NSC meetings, and that’s because Bush told him explicitly not to attend.

The signal Bush “especially wanted to send to the military is that, ‘The decisions I’m making that involve life and death for the people in uniform will not be tainted by any political decisions,’” former White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten said last September.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) called Bannon’s appointment to the council as a permanent member a “radical departure” from how the decision-making body was organized in the past, adding that he found the change “concerning.”

Inside and outside of government, there are also deep reservations about Bannon’s alignment with the far right and white nationalism, thanks to his previous leadership of Breitbart. One Bannon quote making the rounds this weekend: “Lenin wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal, too. I want to bring everything crashing down and destroy all of today’s establishment.”

There are new questions about where retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Trump’s national security advisor, fits into all of this. Internally, it remains unclear what his role is, the intelligence official said. “He has a voice at the table, but he’s overshadowed by Bannon.”

Meanwhile, Tom Bossert, a former Bush national security aide whom Trump picked to serve as the White House’s homeland security advisor, is not “one of Bannon’s,” so he is also on the outside looking in, according to the official. However, in Saturday’s executive order, Bossert was also given a permanent seat on the NSC principals committee.

But there is not a lot of infighting right now, because to have infighting, there needs to be a power struggle, and there is no struggle, the intelligence official said.

However, there is an effort to crack down on leaking. Last week, a draft executive order, which raised the prospect of bringing back CIA “black sites” and reopening the debate on torture, leaked to the press. White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said it was “not a White House document” and that he had “no idea where it came from.” But according to the New York Times, “the White House had circulated it among National Security Council staff members for review on Tuesday morning.” The Times was even provided with the details of the email chain that showed “the draft order’s movements through the White House bureaucracy.”

“They’re doing a witch hunt now to find out how that got out,” the intelligence official said. “There is zero room for dissenting opinion.”

Trump did say publicly that he would defer to Defense Secretary James Mattis for now on the question of torture, which would suggest that disagreement is OK.

But while publicly the president is allowing for different opinions, there is unhappiness about what is permitted behind the scenes, according to the official. If you take a stand against the White House, you might find yourself frozen out of future meetings, he said.

The NSC staff is mostly in shock after last week, the intelligence official said. For now, no one knows what each day will bring. There is no organizational chart yet for the NSC, meaning there has been no internal guidance yet about which portfolios still exist and to whom they report, the official said.

The Washington Post reported Sunday on some of the changes being made, including that “some offices such as cyber have been expanded, while others have been collapsed.” The directorates on Europe and Russia, which were separate under Obama, have now been combined.

It’s possible that the current chaos and lack of bureaucratic process is a result of the Trump administration still going through growing pains and figuring out how best to run things.

But former NSC officials said an organizational chart for the NSC is the kind of thing you have in place weeks before taking office.

Only time will tell if the way things are currently being done is deliberate or part of a new administration learning on the job how best to provide advice to the president and communicate with the relevant agencies.
Trump’s management style is known to be highly unstructured, if not chaotic.

The Post reported in May that he was running his presidential campaign like he ran his business — “fond of promoting rivalries among subordinates, wary of delegating major decisions, scornful of convention and fiercely insistent on a culture of loyalty around him.”

“While this may have worked for his company, it is certainly not a way to run a country,” the official said.

Not vetted...simply given a TS/SCI and unconfirmed and yet he controls the overall WH AND the NSC..........

Steve Bannon is calling the shots in the White House. That's terrifying | Lawrence Douglas

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/31/steve-bannon-most… 

FIRST true failure of the Flynn/Trump/Bannon NSC...that led to a US SOF individual getting killed....AND then blaming the Obama WH for it....as they attempted to push this major failure away from them....

REMEMBER Flynn is this so called great JSOC intel type who says he can get things done....AND he wanted only members of his NSC to have looked down the barrel of a rifle.......THEN he..BANNON and Miller both white nationalists reorg the NSC kicking out the ODNI and JCoS which was A MAJOR mistake....

THERE is a saying in just not the military..."IF YOU SCREW UP---OWN IT"

WHAT THE HELL did Flynn and his merry band do for this planning which went extremely SOUTH....

Military official: "Almost everything went wrong" in raid that left SEAL, 8-year-old American girl, others dead.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/seal-american-girl-die-first-trump-er…

WOAH: "Contrary to earlier reporting... the raid was Trump's 1st clandestine strike — not a holdover mission approved by President Obama"

Folks, this allegation is huge. Trump pulled the trigger on a most disastrous mission. US fucked up, bigly. So how did it happen?

IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THESE POINTS
Trump's team led everyone to believe the Yemen op was planned before he got there. That happens. Now we're learning that's not true

If true it means Trump rushed the op on what looks like terrible intel, getting our soldiers shot up, a heli wrecked, a little girl dead

So what was the intel, what was the target, what did we know? A reckless op is bad for business, but it could also be a war crime

We're going to lose a lot more soldiers if this is how things are going. And a lot more little girls. and a lot more helicopters

Ops go bad, even well planned ops. If Obama planned it & Trump pulled the trigger that's a big problem. But if Trump planned it in a week?

We have a public that is ok with special forces & drones b/c it's not going to end like Iraq.

Do we have a president who is so cavalier?

IMPORTANT...FIRST MAJOR FAILURE in a very long time for ST6....
This was the famous Seal Team 6. We don't value their lives? We don't value who they might kill in the process?

My big point here - in war, shit happens. Presidents try to minimize this. IF this was planned in a week, that's no longer the case

VERY IMPORTANT
US Spec Ops Goals: get the job done, don't get killed, no unnecessary damage or death in the process. NONE of those goals met here

WAS ST6 ORDERED TO CIVILIANS???...THIS is in fact a potential war crime if they were in fact ordered to deliberately kill anyone and that included children.....

IF SO ORDERED...WHO changed the ROE??????
I do NOT believe that US troops would deliberately kill a little girl. The orders were bad. So how did it happen?

BUT WAIT...Trump did in fact state a number of times he would order the killing of the families of terrorists...did he not?

BUT WAIT.....
He did say that. And the military said it would not execute illegal orders. And now he's president so now we have ROEs that are potentially war crimes....

REMEMBER...the Army has the right to refuse unlawful orders if those order violate the Geneva Convention and the Rules of Land Warfare....

BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY...there is a little unknown Army regulation that states AFTER the My Lai massacre that clearly states that any Army member can refuse a lawful order if it is illegal and involves the killing of civilians.....

HAS NOW ST6 well known as trigger pullers BASICALLY gone rouge.....?????

OR did they in fact have direct orders from the CinC to violate the GC and international law and the LoLW.....

From The National Review (TNR)...notice this interesting statement contained in the article....

Trump argues his EOs carry the weight of actual laws but many legal experts say they are actually just a stated memorandum as to what he wants Congress to do....and are open to legal challenge....which in the case of his Muslin Ban actually resulted in Four Federal Judges staying his EO for various legal and constitutional questions...and it is headed to the SC for final judgement which many say will fail....

BUT WAIT...Trump and his merry band of white nationalists claim the DoJ Chief Counsel ruled the EO was legal.

AND used this poor excuse to fire the Acting AG.....BUT WHAT they did not tell you is that his job is only to review for the correctness of format of the EO not the legality of the EO....EVEN DHS interpreted the EO differently and asked the WH for guidance BUT that guidance came back from Bannon a noted white nationalist speaking in the name of the President.

NONE of this was reported by THE National Review...ever wonder why???

QUOTE
It was foolish of President Trump to leave officials such as Acting Attorney General Yates in place. The president has issued a raft of executive orders in his first eight days. His obvious intent is to change governance significantly, which means he needs entirely new personnel. Yates never should have been in the position to undertake her grandstanding in the first place — but at least that particular error has now been corrected.
UNQUOTE

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444418/why-sally-yates-was-fired-…

BUT WAIT...current Senator Sessions the soon to be AG asked Ms. Yates during her confirmation hearing as Acting AG if she could speak truth to power in pointing out to a President that a particular law he wants to enact is possibly in conflict with the Constitution and not in accordance with the rule of law...

Her answer as YES I can...AGAIN none of this exchange was quoted by TNR was it...???

IN fact the simple fact is that FOUR different Federal Judges have largely ruled major problems exist with the EO and now 16 State level AGs are filing SC challenges to the entire law due to the violation of existing US Federal laws leads one to wonder JUST WHY TNR "missed all of this...????

In her statement defining her position she in fact she listed what she felt were in fact violations built into this EO Muslim Ban and now it appears she was actually correct.....

BUT AGIAN TNR failed to mention that small fact.....

So is The National Review just another alt right media outlet supporting the current white nationalist circle around Trump?????

BLUR...

What the Trump white nationalist inner circle has not told the American people and TNR seems to have deliberately missed is that the EO as it is written is completely discriminatory in nature against a specific RELIGION namely Muslims in that is totally protective of Christians thus in violation of at least anti discriminatory and equal right laws....

BUT the title of the EO is about protecting the US from terrorists WHILE statistically speaking NOT a single terror attack from immigrants from these SEVEN largely Muslim countries has launched a single attack inside the US....

BY THE WAY...far more Americans are killed daily and yearly by gun violence than by "radical Islamists".....

BUT TNR said nothing about that did it?

How Donald Trump Could Build an Autocracy in the U.S. - The Atlantic

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/03/how-to-build-an-au…

The use of the word "autocracy" can be interchanged with the say kleptocracy and even the American concept of "smiling fascism".....

That is really what we are seeing in it's early stages....already one week in..... 

NOTICE anything at all with this.....?????

At the National Security Council the directorates on Europe and Russia have now been combined - WashPost
http://nzzl.us/CJpCSQZ

REMEMBER the posting concerning Putin's dream of a Yalta 2.0 with Russian control/influence extending over all of Europe......
 

The White House Just Charted a Dangerous Course With NSC Machinations
Trump’s national security coup cuts military and spies out of big decisions

By John R. Schindler •
01/30/17 10:45am

This weekend the mainstream media went bananas over President Trump’s executive order on immigration. Seemingly every bien-pensant in the United States and far beyond went on social media to howl gigantic curses at the White House, denouncing it as un-American, hateful, and quite possibly Hitlerian for temporarily halting immigration from seven Muslim countries. That the ban lasts only 90 days seemed to get lost in the hysteria that Trump unleashed.

As someone who favors tough counterterrorism measures, I too was underwhelmed by the executive order. I want stronger vetting of immigrants and visitors, who need to be asked more questions about possible involvement in jihadism and extremism. Banning simply on the grounds of nationality makes little sense, while many have noted that countries which produce huge numbers of jihadists such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt were suspiciously left off the block list. Not to mention that if you want to keep terrorists out, Muslims in Brussels per capita are more likely to advocate violent jihad than their co-religionists in most Muslim countries.

Nevertheless, getting tough on terrorists and other undesirable immigrants was a big part of Trump’s campaign last year, so nobody should be surprised that he followed up, decisively, just a week after his inauguration. Moreover, panic about this executive order is overwrought, since presidential EOs are subject to checks and balances, and this one will likely be held up in courts for years.

The biggest problem with this EO is that the White House seems to have written and released it without the slightest consultation with the Federal departments and agencies charged with its implementation. The result has been chaos and confusion about how to bureaucratically execute what the president wants. This sort of approach indicates the White House is more interested in appearing tough than implementing successful policies.

That said, the weekend’s immigration EO accomplished what may have been its actual purpose—distracting everyone from the White House’s far more consequential changes to the National Security Council. The NSC has been around since 1947, but it’s not the sort of outfit that usually generates much public interest. Customarily staffed by wonks who excel at giving briefings, the NSC isn’t particularly exciting, but it’s enormously influential in policymaking.

Over the last seven decades, presidents have approached the NSC differently, some relying on it more than others to make big decisions on national security. Its real purpose is to ensure that the president gets to hear a wide array of voices, from the full Washington alphabet soup of security-related agencies, before he makes fateful choices in foreign and defense policy.

Not for nothing did he openly proclaim himself a ‘Leninist’ who wanted to ‘destroy the state.’

President Obama set the bar decidedly low with his bloated and ineffectual NSC, which was run during his second term by Susan Rice, who was both incompetent and foul-mouthed, to the consternation of the Pentagon, the State Department, and many of our key allies. Her deputy, Ben Rhodes, was an aspiring novelist with zero national security experience but ample chutzpah plus a gift for manipulating the press—of which he openly boasted.

Although the new White House has promised to pare back the NSC, which under Obama grew far too large to be effective, virtually everything else Team Trump has done there is unwelcome.

The new boss is Mike Flynn, the retired Army three-star general who was fired by President Obama for his serious mismanagement of the Defense Intelligence Agency. How Flynn will handle the NSC, which has far more high-profile moving parts than DIA, is an open question, particularly since Flynn’s abrasive personality was a major factor in his cashiering by Obama.

Flynn, a career military intelligence officer, was a first-rate intelligence boss for the military’s shadowy Joint Special Operations Command, which kills terrorists almost daily, but he failed to transition from the tactical world of whack-a-mole in the Middle East to the big-picture, strategic game inside the Beltway. Why President Trump thinks Flynn now has those critical skills is a mystery.

To say nothing of Flynn’s erratic personality and strange choices, particularly his cuddly relationship with the Kremlin. Why a career intelligence officer thought it was appropriate to sit at the head table with Vladimir Putin for the 10th anniversary gala of RT, Moscow’s propaganda network, then take RT money, is difficult to explain.

Flynn’s appointment to lead the NSC led to considerable head-scratching in official Washington, where his reputation is anything but good.

However, a lot is now riding on Flynn’s ability to make wise choices, since the brand-new executive order on the NSC includes important changes about who will be sitting at the big table. Traditionally, its Principals Committee, which does the heavy lifting on NSC decisions, includes the President, the Vice-President, the National Security Adviser, the Secretaries of State, Defense, and Energy, plus the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Intelligence.

However, the new EO removes those last two from the Principals Committee, meaning that the nation’s top military officer and spy boss will be at the table only when Flynn wants them to be. This, to put it mildly, is a sea change. It needs to be asked why any White House would not want the country’s top military and intelligence officials at the big table when major decisions about our national security are being made.

Making matters worse, the new EO adds to the Principals Committee the president’s chief strategist and senior counselor, Steve Bannon. Best known to the public as the head of the rabble-rousing Breitbart News, Bannon took over Trump’s presidential campaign last August, and his success there has now propelled him into the inner sanctum of our national security apparatus. Why Trump wants a controversialist like Bannon inside the NSC—but not the country’s top military and intelligence bosses—is a good question that needs an answer.

Bannon isn’t wholly unqualified. As a young man, he served as a junior officer in the Navy, and while he lacks any experience with governing and how Washington works, Flynn is rather deficient there too. The real problem is twofold. First, both Flynn and Bannon require no stamp of approval from the Senate, so there’s no Congressional oversight of their hiring.

Then there’s the matter of Bannon’s politics. Although he’s casually called a fascist and worse by his enemies, I have more judiciously termed him “at least an Alt-Right fellow traveler.” Bannon is unquestionably highly intelligent, but he’s also a professional fire-starter. He finds political danger exciting and useful—and when he was heading Breitbart, very lucrative. Not for nothing did he openly proclaim himself a “Leninist” who wanted to “destroy the state.” This is hardly the level-headed person you want when discussions of (nuclear) war and peace are on the table.

Given that the president is prone to mood-swings and needlessly harsh rhetoric, plus a total neophyte in the job, and Flynn isn’t all that well-grounded either (at DIA, his active imagination led staffers to term his more dubious pronouncements “Flynn facts”), the third member of this ruling national security triumvirate ought to be a calming influence—and that sure isn’t Steve Bannon.

In truth, there’s only one reason any White House would not want top military and intelligence officials at the NSC table, and that’s because they bring unwanted truths into the discussion. Spies especially must deal with reality while eschewing ideologically-driven flights of fancy. For right-wing ideologues like Flynn and Bannon, the opinion of the military brass and particularly the Intelligence Community would be more an obstacle to their far-reaching agenda than an aid, so they’ve cut them out.

There is real danger to this novel approach. America has a complex, and at times cumbersome, national security apparatus to prevent the White House from making avoidable dumb decisions. This system isn’t perfect. We invaded Iraq in 2003 thanks to flawed groupthink in the White House and the NSC, notwithstanding that most of the principals then possessed decades of Washington experience. Trump’s administration possesses a full plate of Rumsfeldian self-confidence without any of the relevant experience.

Ponder Trump’s NSC taking on issues of global consequence—for instance, the aftermath of 9/11 or the Cuban Missile Crisis—while being led by ideologues, and the country’s top military and intelligence officials may or may not be present, depending how Mike Flynn and Steve Bannon feel that day.

Every new White House makes mistakes. Wise administrations learn from them and get smarter, fast. Trump’s aggressive demeanor is already scaring allies and angering foes unnecessarily. The president’s unwise tweets have spurred Beijing to real anger, and top Chinese military officials have termed war with this new, combative America a “practical reality.”

This isn’t a game, and the new White House needs to get serious without delay. It would be best if such weighty decisions weren’t being made by people like Flynn and Bannon, with the top military and intelligence brass locked out of the room.

This if in fact true then this a sad statement for former Marine general Mattis....

Pentagon spokesman refuses to say whether Sec Mattis knew what was in EO banning citizens of Muslim nations when it was signed here Friday.

Is he denying he stood next to Trump's singing of the EO Muslim ban NOT knowing what he was clapping for...and then silence after he knew....

IF he knew and still clapped then he has negated his entire professional image....

This article crosses this thread nicely with the sidelining of the JCoS and DNI in the NSC....as well as it goes to the Putin dream of a Yalta 2.0 that he has been preaching since 2006...that he wants a zone of influence political and economic running from Portugal to the Russian Far East.....

http://windowoneurasia2.blogspot.de/2017/01/solovey-on-shape-of-emerging...

Monday, January 30, 2017
Solovey on the Shape of the Emerging Putin-Trump ‘Big Deal’ on Ukraine and Much Else

Staunton, January 30 – Valery Solovey, one of the best connected and most thoughtful of Moscow’s foreign policy commentators, says that the telephone call between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin was the “first step toward ‘a big deal’” between the two not only over bilateral ties but also over a re-division of the world that will leave many countries at Russia’s mercy.
            The MGIMO professor outlines what he sees as the seven most important aspects of such a deal in a Facebook post that subsequently has been picked up by other outlets (facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1842744842662560&id=100007811864378&pnref=story, echo.msk.ru/blog/vsolovej/1918678-echo/  and  hvylya.net/news/exclusive/ssha-blizki-k-zaklyucheniyu-s-rf-bolshoy-sdelki-kasayushheysya-ukrainyi-solovey.html).
            Solovey’s seven points of a possible “deal” between Putin and Trump are:
1.      “Moscow considers that a personal meeting of Putin and Trump will be marked by mutual understanding and can lay the groundwork for a strategic deal.”
2.      “In the new American administration there are influential people who think that agreement with Russia corresponds to the national interests of the US. Expert workups of these agreements have already begun.”
3.      “For the US, the main themes of the deal are the destruction of ISIS and restraining Iran and China. For Russia, they are the de facto recognition of a new geopolitical status quo, a recognition of the post-Soviet space (except for the Baltics) as a zone of Russian influence, a normalization of relations with NATO, and a decisive easing of sanctions.”
4.      “A mass joint operation of the US and Russia against ISIS (the theater of military operations in addition to Syria would include two or three additional countries) would prove capable of removing the objections of the Congress against a deal with Russia.”
5.      “Regarding the policy of post-sanctions Iran, Moscow now has poorly concealed objections so that a firm base for a future agreement exists.”
6.      “For Russia, it is critically important to avoid complications with china, therefore the potential model of agreement with the US regarding China may be formed not on a military-political but on a geo-economic basis involving massive economic cooperation in Siberia and the Far East, with the involvement of South Korea and Japan.”
7.      “Regarding Ukraine, the position is the following: to give guarantees that the Russians will not seize Ukraine, and in the future to allow the two neighboring sides to agree among themselves. The US has other priorities.”
It is important to remember that Solovey’s conclusions, however accurate they may be as a statement about where Putin and Trump are now, may not be what any final “deal” will look like: There are simply too many players in both Russia and the US to be certain of that. But they do point to two disturbing possibilities in the former Soviet space.
On the one hand, if Solovey is right, Trump is prepared to leave the 11 former Soviet republics to face Russian power on their own, something that will represent a betrayal of what has been American policy since 1991. Moscow apparently is prepared to recognize that the Baltic countries are out of its zone, but any Putin promise to not try to take Ukraine is worthless.
And on the other, in the MGIMO analyst’s view, Trump and Putin are prepared to launch a major military campaign against ISIS not because it would really defeat Islamist radicalism – the experience of Syria shows how unlikely that is -- than because it could serve as a means for Trump to marginalize critics in the Congress of his all-too-obvious tilt toward Russia.
Given the gratitude that Trump would likely have for such additional Russian assistance in US domestic politics, it would be most unlikely that the US president would do anything to block Putin’s authoritarianism and imperial pretensions in Eurasia, guaranteeing not only more violence there but destroying what is left of US credibility more generally.
 And tragically, if Solovey is right, Trump apparently is only concerned about containing Islamic radicalism and China and is prepared to yield to Russia on everything else. Thus his constant promise to “make America great again” will in the first instance contribute to making Russia great again even as it diminishes America’s influence and standing in the world.

Senator Bob Casey
✔
@SenBobCasey
So to recap- @realDonaldTrump's National Security Council: Chairman of the Joint Chiefs out, former head of white nationalist website Breitbart, in.

FROM BREITBART today....which reinforces this comment....

REMEMBER Trump tweeted from FL that he was sitting at his desk writing his inaugural speech with large photo....

BUT afterwards we suddenly hear large parts of his speech Trump claims he wrote were in fact written by Bannon and Miller....the same Miller on this Brietbart article today...

QUOTE:
Miller: The U.S. ‘Has an Absolute Sovereign Right to Determine Who Can and Cannot Enter the Country’

NOTE...absolutely no one is questioning the fact that any country has the right to do this...WHAT is being challenged is in fact his...Bannon's and Trump constant statements that they would issue a "Muslim Ban"...

QUOTE
Monday on Fox News Channel’s “Fox & Friends,” Trump senior policy adviser Stephen Miller defended President Donald Trump’s executive order halting immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries.
Miller explained there was precedent for Trump’s action and that the United States is a nation with an “absolute sovereign right” to determine who can come to the United States and who can’t.
“This is an authority that has been used repeatedly in the past,” Miller said. “One of the more recent examples is President Obama suspended the Iraqi refugee program for six full months after two Iraqi refugees were implicated in an al Qaeda plot in Bowling Green, KY. There’s been hundreds and hundreds of foreign nationals and foreign-born naturalized citizens who have been implicated in terrorism in the United States since 9/11. This is a matter of national security. It’s a matter of keeping the public safe. And the reality is in a world with 7 billion people, the United States has an absolute sovereign right to determine who can and cannot enter into the United States.”

BLUF..WHAT Miller is referring to is the JCIED forensics database that the two Iraqi's were searched on...and discovered as previous bomb makers in Iraq.....

BUT WHAT Miller is definitely NOT saying is that it delayed roughly another 2 years for those wating to immigrate into US...

Trump...Miller...Bannon talk about "extreme vetting"..but many from these countries have been often "extremely vetted" now that this JCIED database search is now required....

Trump continues to believe that those against his Muslim Ban are only the dishonest and fake news media and the Democrats.....not the entire globe and a large amount of normal Americans across the boards.....

THEN he deliberately lashes out via tweet to side step and deflect.....

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump
protesters and the tears of Senator Schumer. Secretary Kelly said that all is going well with very few problems. MAKE AMERICA SAFE AGAIN!

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump
There is nothing nice about searching for terrorists before they can enter our country. This was a big part of my campaign. Study the world!

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump
If the ban were announced with a one week notice, the "bad" would rush into our country during that week. A lot of bad "dudes" out there!

TRUMP is now trying to deflect...distort...dismiss...the anger at his EO Muslim Ban.....ALL elements of the Russian SIX Ds of propaganda.....

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump
Where was all the outrage from Democrats and the opposition party (the media) when our jobs were fleeing our country?

BUT WAIT...it is not only Trump that lies but also the UK proBrexit FM...

UK took a full 46 hours to respond to the Trump EO....Canada exactly 17...

QUOTE
In the Commons @BorisJohnson said Mussolini didn't bomb Britain. Not true. his air force bombed Harwich, Felixtowe, Ramsgate & Deal in 1940

Appears also UK proBrexit Conversatives do not know their own history much as Trump lacks any knowledge in this area.....

Reference the Trump EOs being released......
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/most-of-trump%E2%80%99s-executiv…

Most of Trump’s executive orders aren’t actually executive orders. Here’s why that matters.

The flood of executive directives flowing from the White House — or from other photogenic signing spots — was a notable part of President Donald Trump’s first week in office.
There will be plenty to analyze as the administration continues — many more such directives have been promised, and rumored. But a preliminary primer seems in order.
Some of the actions taken would have been tempting to any president — for instance, the freeze on the prior administration’s regulatory agenda. Others have been partisan constants — such as the renewal of the so-called Mexico City Policy, called by its opponents the “global gag rule.”
Most, though, have checked off President Trump’s most salient campaign promises — complete with press release-friendly “purpose” sections making extravagant claims not usually found in executive orders. “Sanctuary jurisdictions,” for example, are said to “have caused immeasurable harm to the American people and to the very fabric of our Republic.” The order cracking down on refugees starts with three long paragraphs seeking to blame the 9/11 attacks on the visa process. And crafting an emergency budget amendment for military readiness does not require a formal signing ceremony — a phone call to the Office of Management and Budget would do the trick.
Do these executive actions actually do everything that Trump claims they do?
Thus one role of these directives is to permit Trump to take a public, symbolic stand: For instance, signaling that refugees and oppressive environmental regulations and the Affordable Care Act are bad, while new factories and American-made steel pipelines and big border walls are good.
But another goal, of course, is to spur substantive change. What might these executive actions achieve, in the agencies and (literally) in and on the ground?
The answer varies by the kind of authority each directive assumes. Withdrawing from a trade pact that was not in effect is easy enough. But anything needing new appropriations will in turn need legislative action. There is probably some money in the Homeland Security budget that can be reprogrammed toward construction of a few feet of wall between the United States and Mexico, for instance. But to build more than that — or to hire the 5,000 new Border Patrol agents or 10,000 immigration enforcement officers also “ordered” by the president — Congress will have to approve funding.
Other orders also rely on other actors. However eager Trump may be to fast-track the Keystone XL oil pipeline, for instance, that project still faces state-level hurdles. Efforts to use federal money to browbeat states and localities probably will run up against Supreme Court decisions protecting federalism — law professor Ilya Somin, for example, recently argued that the “sanctuary city” order is likely to be found unconstitutional. Friday’s order on visas, immigrants and refugees has already been challenged in court, and part of it temporarily suspended.
Still other of Trump’s directives create a new process, rather than a new outcome. For instance, the order “Expediting Environmental Reviews and Approvals for High Priority Infrastructure Projects” puts the chair of the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) in charge of identifying such projects and working with departments to speed up permitting. It’s safe to say CEQ does not have a reputation as a bureaucratic powerhouse, and there’s no guarantee that its chair — who hasn’t yet been named in any case — will have the clout needed to browbeat Cabinet secretaries.
More generally, several of the memos ask departments to review existing laws and regulations and to produce new plans. These sorts of assigned tasks can easily sink to the bottom of a new secretary’s long to-do list without sustained White House attention.
Issuing orders without consultation may undermine implementation
The fact that many of the directives issued seem to have been drafted without input from the departments they affect will probably not help with their implementation. Normally executive orders go through a central clearance process managed by OMB. This is both to produce buy-in from the wider bureaucracy, and to protect the president against unintended policy consequences (and/or from the effects of sloppy or misleading language.)
Orders are also supposed to be reviewed by the Justice Department for “form and legality,” ensuring that they are consistent with existing law and presidential authority.
Still, presidential direction matters
As a result, some observers have dismissed the directives as “memos to his advisers.”  Yet any presidential signal to the bureaucracy needs to be taken seriously. This is especially true where presidents use such tools to inform those advisers how vagueness in statutory language should be interpreted.
For example, President Barack Obama used the discretion he read in the Immigration and Nationality Act to try to shield specific groups from deportation. Trump now seeks to use the same principle to broaden deportation priorities, expanding the definition of criminality and giving immigration officials wider latitude in assessing who counts as “a risk to public safety or national security.”  The wall order goes back to a 2006 law authorizing border security measures (although not everyone sees building a wall as legally “necessary and appropriate” under that statute.)
It is less clear what specific actions department heads will or will not be able to take under the order urging them to undermine the Affordable Care Act. Even so, the order makes clear the direction of action the president expects.
They’re not all executive orders. They’re mostly presidential memoranda.
One last point — on vocabulary. Though nearly every headline (and White House staffer for that matter) has trumpeted a spate of “executive orders,” so far these directives are mostly not executive orders but “presidential memoranda.”
Does this matter? Yes. Executive orders (EOs) and presidential memoranda (PMs) have slightly different purposes, though they blend together at the margins and have equivalent legal effect.
Orders do just that: they order people in the executive branch to act a certain way, normally by changing structure or process. They might delegate presidential power, or set up an interagency committee, or a process by which the costs and benefits of regulatory proposals should be evaluated, or conditions with which federal contractors must comply.
Memoranda tend to prompt action rather than to direct it. A president might use one to “suggest” to an agency with its own statutory power over a given area how that power should be used — that the agency should issue certain guidance about how a law should be implemented, or that it should come up with an action plan to review extant regulations and come up with new ones.
Executive orders, which are numbered and published in the Federal Register, are easy to count. As a result, they often are used as a proxy for assessing the scale of presidential unilateralism overall. But if that’s how the batting average is calculated, presidents have an incentive to pad their stats.
When accused of executive overreach, for example, Obama and his allies responded by pointing to the small number of EOs he had issued relative to his predecessors. Their count was accurate enough — but their implication was misleading. Obama was a frequent user of other tools, like PMs, that provided new policy guidance, prompted new regulation, and generated new interpretations of old statutes in ways that matched presidential preferences. On Friday the Trump administration invented the Presidential National Security Memorandum — again, something that won’t be in the count of executive orders.
So taking a full inventory of the toolbox of directives available to presidents helps us better understand the scope of executive authority more generally. And judging by Trump’s first week as president, that will be something we want to understand.

JFK

Those that choose to ride the back of a tiger will end up in the stomach of the tiger.........

There is an ongoing UK Parliament open questioning period where the words are being heavily directed against Trump and his inner circle......

"Fascist.....discriminatory...ignorant...racist....counterproductive.........supports IS.....xenophobia.....anti Muslim...........and the other words just keep on rolling on....."

"Our shared common relationship is based on the rule of law and common humanitarian values".....

UK PM is complicit in the Trump policies by not making a single comment against the Trump EO for over 46 hours.....

Trump’s Chief Strategist Wants To ‘Destroy The State’
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/22/steve-bannon-trump-s-t…

According to Ronald Radosh at The Daily Beast, Bannon’s goal is to destroy the American system as we know it and replace it with a populist, Tea Party agenda.

“I’m a Leninist,” Bannon proudly told Radosh in 2013.  “Lenin,” he continued, “wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal, too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.”

Bannon’s fondness for the Russian revolutionary is telling in light of the the recent scrutiny over Russia’s pro-Trump interference in the 2016 election. Vladimir Lenin was the leader of Russia’s Bolshevik Party whose 1917 October Revolution threw a provisional government out of power, leading to the creation of the USSR. 

If you take Bannon’s Leninist claim seriously, Trump’s cabinet appointments start to make perfect sense. Most appointees are better suited to destroy their agencies than run them.

They’re also surprising given Trump’s campaign promise to hire “the best people.”

Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt — Is a climate-change denier with deep ties to the fossil fuel industry. 

Department of Energy Secretary, Rick Perry — In a 2011 GOP presidential debate, Perry listed the Department of Energy among the agencies he would completely eliminate as president. 

Department of Labor, Andy Puzder —  A fast-food CEO who opposes the minimum wage and whose company has been fined multiple times for worker safety violations.

Department of Education, Betsy DeVos — She’s a leading advocate of school voucher programs. 

And the appointments is this direction just continue.....

BLUF....Trump...Bannon...Flynn...Miller...Manafort...Stone...Cage are actually actively building a parallel security and intelligence structure along side existing for years government structures...that have largely served the US well...

Core question is why are they doing that and for what reasons....????

REMEMBER and this goes to the tossing out of the NSC....JCoS and ODNI....

ISIS calling Trump order the "blessed ban" because proves war w/ Islam. Good thing Fox viewers know more about what helps ISIS than ISIS does

REMEMBER Trump stating publicly "he is smarter than his Generals on how to fight IS....."

JUST gets worse...

Baghdad Invest @baghdadinvest
Breaking: Iraqi parliament blocks visas for all Americans, including contractors & journalists
http://www.baghdadinvest.com/breaking-americans-banned-iraq-retaliation… 

STILL not a single comment from SecDef Mattis

If you take the current configuration of the NSC that was reorged by Flynn....REMEMBER Flynn was basically fired for cause because of his poor management leadership skills while at DIA....

AND REALLY REMEMBER Flynn had a General star promotion delayed for over a year for leaking highly classified CIA HUMNT information to the Pakistani's...that cost the lives of Us personnel...

REMEMBER Flynn has a recorded past history and yes even currently known for believing in the most ridiculous conspiracy theories which some nicked name "Flynn's Fact"....REMEMBER he was fired by the outgoing ODNI...AND REMEMBER he is virulently anti Muslim.....

SO now Flynn reorgs the NSC to be a carbon copy of a smaller DIA....throws out the ODNI and the JCoS....WHY because in a NSC counter voices are totally unwanted in your own built echo chamber and that is exactly what Flynn has build.....his own echo chamber...

Even under Obama sometimes his intel and military side did not agree with him but at least their voiced their opinions and bent to the will of the majority and the CinC....

But their voices are critical to balance an "echo chamber".....

Conway a Trump surrogate is quoted as saying Trump and the inner circle want their own security and intelligence team...THAT means translated for the hard of hearing...they will not accept basically anything from the US IC that is not extremely vetted by the Flynn NSC....

MSM did not catch that comment.....

Secondly, in the leaked Flynn proposal to have no DNI position and that all the 177 IC agencies should report to him...directly....

This was leaked by Flynn's son via a tweet...BUT more importantly his own son stated Flynn was the only one on the table that had conducted interrogations.....

IF in fact true....THEN Flynn violated some serious DoD/US Army regs that stated clearly after Abu Ghraib that ONLY trained Army interrogators or those that completed the Army interrogator course WERE allowed to conduct interrogations...AND that includes civilians as well.

IF in fact he conducted a single one while on official US military duty then he should have been immediately suspended and thrown out of the military...BUT WAIT that must have been around the time that he was leaking highly classified materials to the Pakistani's....

A more serious concern than say Bannon and his EO Muslin Ban is the behavior of the two former Marine Generals Kelly with DHS and Mattis as SecDef...in their extremely poor performance in actually backing Trump/Bannon in their EO Muslim Ban......

Kelly's DHS did in fact challenge the EO by stating their read of the EO was not to exclude Green Card holders and when it came back that Bannon stated to them that it covered GC holders...notice they simply backed down...WHY Kelly did not demand such a far reaching decision be vetted by DoJ is beyond me....??

Secondly, Mattis stood next to Trump in his signing of the EO Muslim Ban clapping his approval and saying not a single word AFTER stating the following.....

QUOTE
The former commander of the U.S. Central Command was sharply critical of Trump’s call to ban Muslim immigrants during his presidential campaign. In July 2016 he said such talk would lead U.S. allies to think “we have lost faith in reason” and said it was causing “great damage.”
UNQUOTE

So a former vet of AFG and Iraq who stated the above has basically quietly abandoned his own personal position and accepted that of white nationalists...ie racists....

QUOTE
Many groups had hoped that as someone with direct experience in Afghanistan and Iraq, who understands the reliance of U.S. forces on local employees, Mattis would be an ally in allocating more visas for them.
Instead, they said, he stood by as Trump signed the immigration order in the Pentagon’s Hall of Heroes.

“Secretary Mattis just stood there and smiled and clapped,” Friedman said. “He needs to figure out really quickly which side he’s on.”
UNQUOTE
http://www.stripes.com/news/us/many-us-veterans-angry-that-executive-or…

HERE is the core problem with former officers especially at the retired ranks of COL and higher...when they shift to the business world.....

They feel as if they must prove to their bosses they are 4000% behind them out of fear they could be seen as outsiders unwilling to bend to the demands of the business world as they entire career was not built around the actual demands of the business world...

They are in fact two completely different beasts and worlds.....

BUT this is critical both... Trump knew would follow his orders as CinC as that is what they are use to and as a General you serve at the pleasure of the President.....both were truly played by Trump and his merry band...

And they responded exactly as he assumed they would.....still today not a single comment out of both of them....strange is it not.....

Here is the most serous issue with Trump...he is President of the US and have just how many federal agencies on speed dial from the Oval Office...THEN he turns to outside consulting companies and that is what Giuliani's company is...making money for Giuliani and his law firm not using DoJ and DoS what is already having their salaries paid for by taxpayers...

Giuliani: Trump asked for a ‘Muslim ban,’ and ordered a commission to do it ‘legally’.....

WELL it was not quite "legal enough" THUS we as taxpayers should demand our money back as the Federal Courts shot holes in their "legal EO" and raise serious Constitutional questions......

REMEMBER when I posted that Trump is trying to tie Obama into his failed EO
...AND REMEMBER Trump had even his inaugural cake copied from Obama....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/29/trumps-f…

QUOTE
“My policy is similar to what President Obama did in 2011 when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months.”
—President Trump, statement on executive order, Jan. 29, 2017
In justifying his controversial executive order halting travelers from seven majority-Muslim countries, President Trump claimed that President Barack Obama did the same thing in 2011. But the comparison is a bit facile.
Here’s what happened in 2011.
The Facts
The only news report that we could find that referred to a six-month ban was a 2013 ABC News article that included this line: “As a result of the Kentucky case, the State Department stopped processing Iraq refugees for six months in 2011, federal officials told ABC News — even for many who had heroically helped U.S. forces as interpreters and intelligence assets.”
The “Kentucky case” refers to two Iraqis in Kentucky who in May 2011 were arrested and faced federal terrorism charges after officials discovered from an informant that Waad Ramadan Alwan, before he had been granted asylum in the United States, had constructed improvised roadside bombs in Iraq. The FBI, after examining fragments from thousands of bomb parts, found Alwan’s fingerprints on a cordless phone that had been wired to detonate an improvised bomb in 2005.
The arrests caused an uproar in Congress and the Obama administration pledged to re-examine the records of 58,000 Iraqis who had been settled in the United States. The administration also imposed new, more extensive background checks on Iraqi refugees. Media reports at the time focused on how the new screening procedures had delayed visa approvals, even as the United States was preparing to end its involvement in the Iraq War.
“The enhanced screening procedures have caused a logjam in regular visa admissions from Iraq, even for those who risked their lives to aid American troops and who now fear reprisals as the Obama administration winds down the U.S. military presence,” the Baltimore Sun reported.
The Los Angeles Times reported that U.S. official acknowledged delays but were trying to speed up the process:
A U.S. Embassy official in Baghdad, speaking on condition he not be identified, acknowledged “unfortunate delays” in issuing special visas, the result of enhanced security clearance procedures, some instituted after the Kentucky arrests. But he said recent changes would speed the process.
The State Department’s National Visa Center has been ordered to flag special visa applications for expedited action, the official said. And a requirement that Iraqi applicants provide an original signature on certain forms sent to the U.S. has been dropped after Iraqis complained of logistical difficulties.
“We are making changes, ordered at the very highest levels, that will help shave time off the application process,” the official said.
At a September 2011 congressional hearing, Sen. Susan Collins asked Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano if there had been a hold placed on Iraqi visa applications.
COLLINS: “So my question is, is there a hold on that population until they can be more stringently vetted to ensure that we’re not letting into this country, people who would do us harm?”
NAPOLITANO: “Yep. Let me, if I might, answer your question two parts. First part, with respect to the 56, 57,000 who were resettled pursuant to the original resettlement program, they have all been revetted against all of the DHS databases, all of the NCTC [National Counter Terrorism Center] databases and the Department of Defense’s biometric databases and so that work has now been done and focused.”
COLLINS: “That’s completed?”
NAPOLITANO: “That is completed. Moving forward, no one will be resettled without going through the same sort of vet. Now I don’t know if that equates to a hold, as you say, but I can say that having done the already resettled population moving forward, they will all be reviewed against those kinds of databases.”
The new rules were stringent, the Economist reported, and it resulted in some turmoil.
“Immigration authorities soon began rechecking all Iraqi refugees in America, reportedly comparing fingerprints and other records with military and intelligence documents in dusty archives. About 1,000 soon-to-be immigrants in Iraq were told that they would not be allowed to board flights already booked. Some were removed from planes. Thousands more Iraqi applicants had to restart the immigration process, because their security clearances expired when the program stalled. Men must now pass five separate checks, women four, and children three.”
State Department records show there was a significant drop in refugee arrivals from Iraq in 2011. There were 18,251 in 2010, 6,339 in 2011 and 16,369 in 2012. But it’s unclear that equates to an actual six-month pause in visa processing, rather than a dramatic slowdown in approvals as new rules were put in place. One news report said “pace of visa approvals having slowed to a crawl,” indicating some were still being approved.
The Pinocchio Test
So what’s the difference with Trump’s action?
First, Obama responded to an actual threat — the discovery that two Iraqi refugees had been implicated in bomb-making in Iraq that had targeted U.S. troops. (Iraq, after all, had been a war zone.) Under congressional pressure, officials decided to reexamine all previous refugees and also impose new screening procedures, which led to a slowdown in processing new applications. Trump, by contrast, issued his executive order without any known triggering threat. (His staff has pointed to attacks unrelated to the countries named in his order.)
Second, Obama did not announce there was a ban on visa applications. In fact, as seen in Napolitano’s answer to Collins, administration officials danced around that question. There was certainly a lot of news reporting that visa applications had been slowed to a trickle. But the Obama administration never said it was their policy to halt all applications. Even so, the delays did not go unnoticed, so there was a lot of critical news reporting at the time about the angst of Iraqis waiting for approval.
Third, Obama’s policy did not prevent all citizens of that country, including green-card holders, from traveling to the United States. Trump’s policy is much more sweeping, though officials have appeared to pull back from barring permanent U.S. residents.

We have sought comment from the White House and also from Obama administration officials and so may update this if more information becomes available.

But so far this is worthy of at least Two Pinocchios.

Two Pinocchios
UNQUOTE

The core problem is now...why is everyone backing away and or remaining silent when one sees in the US of a FUNDMENTAL BREAK with the rule of law....

EOs written by white supremacists who hide under the guise of being white nationalists..EOs written by outside surrogates AND not fact checked and rule of law checked by those agencies responsible for carrying out those EOs.

Who cares about the NSC...or that virtually all political positions in any major Agency still go largely unfilled....so cares if US historical fundamental traditions and values are broken and discarded....so who cares that Trump issues so called EOs...which are taking on the look and like of literally "decrees".....

WHO cares that he has basically bashed Europe..as "a mess"..."NATO as obsolete"..or that he "sells Article 5..if you have paid us we will come"....and PRAISED Russia in all forms EVEN in the face of strong indicators that he and his close advisors are in fact tied closely to the Russian Intelligence Service....

So who really cares what he does as he is fulfilling EXACTLY what he stated he would do WHEN all of his voters...now state well we were taking him seriously in hi statements NOT literally WHEN Trump was usually seriously as a form of fascist propaganda to install his literally statements....

So let's call it what it is that Trump is and his close advisors are in the end...all fascists....but here is the difference.....so called American version of fascism which has always been there since the KKK in the 20s/30s.....is a "smiling form of fascism"...meaning just as his voters stated..."he is not a really going to do a Muslim Ban for example...yes we want him to do something about all those radical Muslims running around killing hundreds of Americans...BUT a "religious test" in a country that was founded on "freedom of religion"...well maybe that is not what we want....

THIS morning a highly respected German political scientist publicly in TV that many watch stated....the US has now broken with the rule of law and that alone is dangerous AND that it is now time to break with the US and go our own way.....

AND what do we do in the US..we remain silent when "fascism is gaining ground with a smile"....

EXAMPLE of just dangerous Trump is...his core problem is that he basically cannot truly tell the difference between truth and lies and for Trump both at the same...WE have seen just in one week his vengeance....hatred.....and dishonestly YEY remain silent...why is that???

So why do we not call out Trump as a sociopathic narcissistic racist which he has proven by his actions to actually be. Why is that so hard to come out of mouths....because that is not being an American comes back the answer but to not call it out makes everyone complicit in what is now ongoing...

QUOTE:
“This is not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting,” Trump said in a statement released by the White House. “This is not about religion—this is about terror and keeping our country safe.”

BUT WAIT...even his natsec Flynn's own tweets and those of his son both stated they hate Muslims and his son tweeted yesterday yes it is a Muslim ban...and the Trump surrogate Giuliani stated the same thing as well yesterday AND admitted he and others had written the EO...

So basically another Trump...and why is this lie not called out by MSM....

LET's see exactly how Trump uses Twitter to attack and spread propaganda...

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

BUT WAIT....THERE have been far more Muslims killed by IS...AQ and ASSAD/Russian THAN Christians.....WHICH Trump does not mention does he....

NOW come the attacks on those that outright questioned his Muslim ban.....
The joint statement of former presidential candidates John McCain & Lindsey Graham is wrong - they are sadly weak on immigration. The two...

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump e
...Senators should focus their energies on ISIS, illegal immigration and border security instead of always looking to start World War III.

Now convince me Trump and his close advisors are not a threat to the US.....

WATCH exactly how Trump uses words...word usage is the key in fascism..ask Germans about what they thought of Hitler in his early days...they disliked him...but through propaganda and disinformation they were slowly wo over couple with a massive infrastructure program.....

SOUND familiar...it should....

At this link you can find the national security organizing documents from Reagan through Trump to compare various the various NSC structures. http://maxoki161.blogspot.com/2017/01/last-6-nsc-organizational-directi…