Good Grief – CNN Pushing To Get Steve Bannon Fired and Bannon “Allies” Now Helping CNN…

In the entire ridiculous enterprise of Steve Bannon -vs- HR McMaster the idiots on the #FireMcMaster side are ultimately going to end up delivering an exit for Steve Bannon. Then again, I repeat myself – SEE HERE

But seriously, if there was validity to the #FireMcMaster issues, which there isn’t, and if we supported the #FireMcMaster cause, which we don’t, anyone with any intelligence at all would drop the anti-McMaster premise during a high visibility national security crisis like North Korea.

Then again, we ain’t exactly talking about the sharpest tacks in the political toolbox.  And if you understand that dynamic, you’ll also understand the reason why Jake Tapper is pushing this story right now.

The real target is Steve Bannon. Cue the audio visual demonstration – WATCH.

.

And as unbelievable as it might seem, look at the useful tweet from one of Bannon’s media #FireMcMaster “supporters“.

Oh, so it is Steve Bannon who is orchestrating the voluminous hit articles against HR McMaster.

Good grief, these dolts are infected with doofism.

Predictably the professional political left know how to game out this dynamic.

The professionally democrat are much better political strategists; and they are more than happy to play along, knowing exactly what to do. Meanwhile, in their efforts to take down McMaster the useful idiots and battered conservatives in right-wing media are walking obliviously into a familiar trap.

The person the professional-political-left really want to target is Steve Bannon. Bannon represents everything the left-wing activists hate. They’ve already tried a few different approaches to take him down and isolate him from the presidency, with no measurable success.

[…]  It took about 24 hours for the professional left to identify the benefit, but as soon as they did they immediately took action to fuel the angst against McMaster. They know just how to play it out. Liberal activists are much more Machievellian-minded from years of tutelage at the knee of Alinsky’s ideologues.

They know e.x.a.c.t.l.y how to play this out, and create a Win/Win.

The real target is Bannon.

The professional-left know how to use the McMaster crisis as an opportunity to engage their real target. If leftists can help create a division between Bannon and McMaster they are more than willing to do so.

Ultimately they know if they can force a binary-choice between McMaster and Bannon, President Trump will have to choose HR McMaster.

The removal of Bannon, they predict, will infuriate the Trump base of support and ultimately provide the fracture needed to weaken the president.

HR McMaster has the support of General John Kelly, President Trump’s new Chief-of-Staff.

McMaster also has the support and confidence from: Defense Secretary General Mattis, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Joint-Chiefs Chairman General Joseph Dunford, Admiral Mike Rogers (NSA), Mike Pompeo (CIA) and ODNI Dan Coats.

Do you really think in a binary-choice between political strategist Steve Bannon and Nat/Sec Advisor HR McMaster, Prsident Trump is going to rebuke the most senior intelligence and security officials in his administration?

Think about it.

No, really. Stop and think about it.

Follow the anti-McMaster argument to its logical conclusion.

Do you really expect to see President Trump fire National Security Advisor HR McMaster?

The second National Security Advisor released in 200 days?

Right now, with the crisis with North Korea in every headline?

It’s not going to happen.

If the antagonism continues the only loser will be Steve Bannon.   The left-wing media and all of President Trump’s oppositional entities know this reality is at the end of the current path.

They couldn’t be happier.

This entry was posted in Donald Trump, Donald Trump Transition, media bias, President Trump, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

398 Responses to Good Grief – CNN Pushing To Get Steve Bannon Fired and Bannon “Allies” Now Helping CNN…

  1. B says:

    Bannon is orchestrating the anti McMaster frenzy. I Bannon gets canned it will be of his own making.

    Like

  2. Marina Galli says:

    Doesn’t it concern you that all the WRONG people back McMaster? Tapper, Crystal, McCain, Graham?

    Liked by 2 people

    • Wend says:

      Thomas Wictor…and POTUS back General McMaster.

      No. No concern

      Liked by 9 people

      • wolfmoon1776 says:

        That’s right. POTUS!!!

        Please forgive this rant to EVERYBODY, but especially those who FOOLISHLY want McMaster out.

        Trump backs McMaster. WHY? Because TRUMP has an exceptional understanding of the military and military history, having spent years in military school. He KNOWS two things (which I can tell by observing him):

        (1) Military performance is independent of personal political stance, outside of a very few dingbat activists who Obama introduced, or infiltrating Islamists, who are still (thankfully) rare. The military are professionals who only care about winning, when the fight comes.
        Trump gets WINNING more than anybody. You are wasting your time letting the tail wag the dog if you care about ANYTHING but the real job metrics of the military, which are basically historic qualities.

        (2) Some of the absolute best generals of history are ones who seem to show some SYMPATHY for their enemy. Why? BECAUSE THEY STUDIED AND RESPECT THEM. Sherman. Patton. McArthur. This isn’t a fluke – it’s a pattern! These generals always show a degree of knowledge which is ATTRACTIVE to a leader looking to win. I am SURE this is part of the McMaster charm which Trump senses. Trump has followed his gut, and his gut is RIGHT.

        Please, Lee and others. Stop trying to “help” Trump in military matters! We do NOT have the proper perspective as civilian political operatives. It is WRONG for us to contradict military decisions like this. WRONG!!!

        Liked by 8 people

        • wheatietoo says:

          Yep.
          And I think the question we should be asking is…
          Were those guys who were fired, fired for being Cernovich’s WH ‘sources’?

          Cernovich freaked out and went to eleventy right after they were fired.
          Cernovich hasn’t been talking about “My White House sources” since then.

          In fact, the leaking seems to have stopped altogether.

          We keep hearing the fired guys referred to as “Trump loyalists”.
          As though that is ‘why’ they were fired.
          But it may have had nothing whatsoever to do with it.

          Being loyal is good…but it doesn’t entitle you to getting away with leaking info or causing drama.

          Liked by 8 people

          • wolfmoon1776 says:

            Agreed. POTUS wanted the leaks shut down, and McMaster delivered!

            Trump would be a hypocrite and possibly even subject to trouble if he shut down leaks with any kind of political selectivity. Even though the NSC leaks were of a mild nature, and not sharing classified information, they are embarrassing and potential weaknesses, subject to blackmail. GET ‘EM OUT AND TAKE THEIR COATS!

            Liked by 2 people

          • Homesteader says:

            Really appreciated this comment, wheatietoo.

            Liked by 2 people

          • Delilah says:

            “Cernovich freaked out and went to eleventy right after they were fired.
            Cernovich hasn’t been talking about “My White House sources” since then.”

            DING DING DING DING, we have a winner!!

            Liked by 3 people

          • bigsky1970 says:

            Which explains Cernovich’s interest in national security after Trump was inaugurated and referring to himself as a “national security reporter”. People like Alex Jones need to stay the hell away from Cernovich. Cernovich is only looking out for himself. He’s selling a product, which is himself.

            Ever since Rich Higgins was canned, Cernovich has gone in to “radio silence” on the national security front.

            I’ll believe Thomas Wictor before I believe someone like Cernovich. At least Wictor sources his claims with internet links and leaves you to check out his claims.

            Cernovich just goes with the “my sources say…” and any rube who is too stupid to research what he’s saying gobbles up his tweets like gospel.

            Liked by 4 people

            • adombom says:

              bigsky1970…I liked Cernovich during the primaries when he was doing street work and confronting the pro-fascist (anti-fa) scum. But gradually, the more I saw of him, the diminished he became in my sight, to the point now that he just turns me off. You’re right, he’s exposed himself as a fraud, imo. And I no longer pay any attention to his Tweets.

              Liked by 1 person

            • wolfmoon1776 says:

              Yes – they are ALL flawed. Knowing their flaws is the only way to read them.

              Compare to people like K.T. McFarland, Catherine Herridge, and Tony Shaffer – the national security *opinions* frequently seen on Fox (Herridge being a reporter per se, the others being more like analysts, having sources AND insider perspective). IMPORTANT POINT: One does not get like those people overnight.

              Indeed, I would go so far as to say that Cernovich may have outed his sources himself. I know from some of his tweets and articles that he uses some classic techniques to avoid giving up his sources. First of all, why talk openly about those methods? UGH! But then he also said some things, after that, which show he DIDN’T know some of the basics on his computers and phones. Frankly, I’m surprised that McMaster didn’t know Cernovich’s sources from the very beginning. If anything, it shows me that protections of journalists must indeed be working as intended.

              Like

        • Chuck Finley says:

          Of course there aren’t any other highly intelligent, capable generals in the country that would be more in sync with Trump’s plans. And also Trump’s never made a mistake, definitely not in personnel of his advisors…oh wait.

          The proper perspective is that McMasters, despite his capabilities as a soldier and general, is against Trump’s agenda. To defend him is asinine, particularly when the only defense is “he’s Trump’s guy” and “he’s a great general and military tactician”.

          Liked by 2 people

          • Sherlock says:

            I don’t know whether McMaster is the right guy or not, but I believe that the exact wrong way to get the President to do anything is to endlessly harp and run clumsy PR campaigns telling him he “must fire X”, like Breitbart and many others are doing. It will likely fail, and in the process the collateral damage will likely be Bannon, a guy we definitely DO need in there.

            Like

          • wolfmoon1776 says:

            I stand by my asinine statements. You are welcome to stand by yours.

            Like

    • Deplorable_Vespucciland says:

      Concerning indeed. The DC swamp quicksand is closing in and thank goodness our president is not there. For MAGA’s sake McMaster should be gone by Labor day.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Payday says:

      Maybe this is all manufactured to distract from the Russia narrative. Seems to be having that effect regardless.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Freedom says:

      I have read elsewhere that McMaster is also supported by CAIR, which is truly alarming. What gives w/ POTUS here?

      Like

    • The Boss says:

      Hey Marina Galli! Your bitch lost. Scram!

      Liked by 1 person

    • uvaldegirl says:

      If the end game is have Bannon lose this false dues – then yes, I see why they “support” McMaster here.

      Like

      • Sherlock says:

        Yep, that easily explains the motives of a guy like Tapper. I don’t think he gives a rat’s behind about whether McMaster stays or goes, but he DOES see a way to get at Bannon. So many here are blind to what is happening, and the various players involved, and their separate motives. There are at least 4 players here:

        First: Israeli lobby wants McMaster out because they perceive he is insufficiently obsequious to their desires. Single issue for these guys. Breitbart and WND mouthpiece this group, which is where most organized heat coming from (ZOA, etc.) Second group: some MAGA people got sucked in due to to smears from first group. Third group: Some MAGA people don’t like McMaster for other reasons, some good, some not so good. Fourth: Left media like Tapper don’t really care about McMaster at all, but use the noise to go after Bannon, their target. That’s what this threat today was meant to focus upon.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Sherlock says:

          BTW, Tapper, in exhaustively listing all the “anti-McMaster forces” (and laughably including Russia) assiduously OMITTED group 1, and as predicted by this site over a week ago, CHOSE to instead cast it as Bannon v. McMaster.

          Like

    • skifflegirl says:

      Did you read what Sundance wrote, Marina? “It took about 24 hours for the professional left to identify the benefit, but as soon as they did they immediately took action to fuel the angst against McMaster. They know just how to play it out. Liberal activists are much more Machievellian-minded from years of tutelage at the knee of Alinsky’s ideologues.

      They know e.x.a.c.t.l.y how to play this out, and create a Win/Win.

      The real target is Bannon.

      The professional-left know how to use the McMaster crisis as an opportunity to engage their real target. If leftists can help create a division between Bannon and McMaster they are more than willing to do so.

      Ultimately they know if they can force a binary-choice between McMaster and Bannon, President Trump will have to choose HR McMaster.”

      The ‘wrong people’ are using their ‘support’ of McMaster to divide Trump’s base. It’s the Alinsky method at work.

      Like

  3. Dehbashi says:

    Sundance. I have been with you on McMasters from the beginning and I agree with most of this article. The only difference is that I think Stranahan is being sarcastic with CNN. The problem is that he is such a moron to realize that actually hurts Bannon. The Anti-McMasters crowd are so focused on their mission that they are blind at seeing the end result.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. ZurichMike says:

    Jake Tapper citing Bill Kristol and Lee Stanahan as dispositive? These are NeverTrump media whores churning garbage because *there is nothing else they can report on*. They can’t report on factual positive things happening under Trump because they are anti-Trump 100%. They can’t report on *factual* negative things because there are none. This breathless “reporting” by Jake Tapper with his vaunted “digital forensic team” (a fancy way of saying a summer intern is on Twitter looking at hashtag traffic — hardly a “forensic” activity) is as vacuous as his fat head — like 6th-grade girls writing in bubble letters in their Hello Kitty diaries and putting angry faces over each “i” about the mean kid in the dodge ball game.

    Color me not worried. The nation is on summer vacation, Congress is out of town, the White House is being renovated (and probably being stripped of spying devices by Trump’s security team), and Trump himself is at Trump Tower regrouping. He does not act in any way as if he is not in control, or doesn’t know what’s happening with his staff.

    Liked by 18 people

  5. Donna in Oregon says:

    “In GOP land, apologies and resignations are never enough”
    Andrew Breitbart

    This is what I know about Steve Bannon. He knew Andrew Breitbart. He continued the mission.

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2014/03/01/remembering-andrew-breitbart/

    McMaster’s is a military man. A good man. Whatever is important to President Trump, McMaster’s is meeting those goals.

    We will fight the MSM to the bitter end….AND we will never give up.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Flova says:

      Gannon is a military guy too.

      Like

    • PNWLifer says:

      Bannon is a military man as well. He spent 7 years on active duty as an officer in the US Navy. He also earned a Masters Degree in national security studies. The idea that Bannon doesn’t understand these military guys and doesn’t know how to get along with them is hilarious.

      It wouldn’t surprise me if Bannon/McMaster et al have created this drama deliberately. A little kabuki palace intrigue to keep the media whores busy while team MAGA gets sh$t done.

      Liked by 2 people

      • oldschool64 says:

        You know, it’s funny, every time I read about this Bannon/McMaster feud I imagine those two sitting on the KellyAnne couch and Trump leaning against his desk facing them.

        All three are laughing their a$$es off!

        Like

  6. Sylvia Avery says:

    I don’t follow all of these Twitter warriors and You Tube stars, so my thoughts aren’t directed and manipulated by them. I’ve tried to follow the McMasters vs. Bannon thing, but the drama over it is exhausting.

    I think about Keln’s comment from a week or so ago and I think it applies nicely here, too. I don’t know General McMasters, or Mr. Bannon, and I don’t know anyone who actually does. President Trump knows both of these men. I trust President Trump and it has been a really long time since I could say that about a President. He can choose his advisers. His business, not mine.

    I pray for President Trump and his advisors. I feel at peace. I hope each of you can find some peace, too.

    Liked by 10 people

  7. stats guy says:

    I watched the video until Kristol came on. Really grotesque. A slimy hit job against Trump at a key time, with a combo of #nevertrumpers left over from the Bush II period, plus the left.

    here’s their tracking website…that tracks all the ruskie influence. Really a very clumsy site…a couple of days ago they had TGP as a target and putting every post on their twitter feed.

    Now they have Russia Today tweets with 60 retweets….oh, so scary, 60 retweets…so sad!

    http://dashboard.securingdemocracy.org/

    And Kristol sits right in the middle of it

    http://www.gmfus.org/press-releases/alliance-securing-democracy-launches-gmf

    And in the vid they really look like a cheap knock off of inforwars, with the visuals of Bannon and use of ‘cabal’.

    You know, if it weren’t for the Norks and other stuff, it would just be damn funny to see Tapper/CNN go off the deep end.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Contrarymary says:

      During the primaries, I was the only one pushing trump. My middle son told me he was insulted at me. He said I was the one who taught him his values and morals and I was backing the man who was a strip club/casino owning philanderer. I told him three things even tho I wondered if I was being set up, about trump that made me back him. 1. He put phis money up about obozos birth certificate when everybody ridiculed him. 2. He came out against the immigration mess and if we didn’t rein it in, we wouldn’t have a country left to fight for. 3. I told him being a businessman, he would surround himself with the best of the best. When Bannon joined his team, I was settled that I’d done the right thing. I was ecstatic. He’s had some iffy picks for me with demonrats and globalist neocons. Bannon is the one who is the constitutional, man of the free citizen, in the White House. Don’t much trust the rest. The economy isn’t the litmus test. If we can get back to righteous leadership instead of this Bolshevik/corruptocratic mess, our country is in, our economy will correct itself.

      Liked by 3 people

    • And that is what you get with 2nd rate Has Beens…Regurgitation of FAILED policies before. If these morons could think multi-dimensional then they would be the ones that PDJT would be listening too. Instead, they are on the outside looking in and have the NEED to be in front of a camera and spout failed policies of yore. Sorry, when you have the enemy cornered and HAVE the upper hand, yes, compassion is something that is shown, however, PDJT has made their decisions for them…It is up to The Powers to be to see the light. And yes, If one doesn’t go along with the outcome, then they will be destroyed.

      Like

      • singingsoul says:

        eagledriver50
        “And that is what you get with 2nd rate Has Beens…Regurgitation of FAILED policies before. If these morons could think multi-dimensional then they would be the ones that PDJT would be listening too. Instead, they are on the outside looking in and have the NEED to be in front of a camera and spout failed policies of yore. Sorry, when you have the enemy cornered and HAVE the upper hand, yes, compassion is something that is shown, however, PDJT has made their decisions for them…It is up to The Powers to be to see the light. And yes, If one doesn’t go along with the outcome, then they will be destroyed.”
        ________________________________
        Well said. Thanl you..!!!!

        Like

  8. omyword says:

    One little jaunt over to BrietBart will tell one all they need to know. Even TGP is onboard with it and a lot of “Conservative” media. BB’s headlines even when there was breaking news was all Bannon against HR. I stepped away from BB after that. The MSM support for McMaster, is camouflage. HEAP BIG FAT FACE SPEAK WITH FORK IN TONGUE!

    Liked by 5 people

    • RG says:

      I have basically left Brietbart. I became aware and very interested in politics with Andrew. Since his death the Brietbart brand has evolved into something I don’t like. There are other places that life my spirit and provide the knowledge I need without having to read all the negatives. I do think they do a good job with Texas and often read about what is happening along the border but as far as DC politics, I stay away from Brietbart.

      Liked by 4 people

      • Atticus says:

        I’ve left them (or more correctly they left me) as well. They’ve turned into a real clickbait/tabloid publication.
        Frankly I don’t need “The Enquirer” in my life.

        Liked by 1 person

    • singingsoul says:

      I am beginning to think that the conservatives are imploding between the Cruz faction and Trump. People are so stupid is not even funny.
      What business of ours is it if for instance McMaster and Banon have differences..?
      Does not seem to bother POTUS why does it bother us..?
      This goes much deeper people and the Cruz supporter are useful idiots. Ah, POTUS supported the wrong guy not the Crus guy..?
      I will never be so conservative to support Cruz and hither will be this country. There are conservative factions who keep playing this game over and over and always loose.
      The one time when all came together was when we defeated Hillary and elected Trump. I was hoping Trump could keep us together but no greed is creeping in and people want their people in Senate not Trump’s people.
      I am truly disapointed. at the turncoats.

      Like

  9. ZurichMike says:

    Regarding “hashtag” research — the entire “memetic warfare” (warfare of twitter memes) is all the rage and a specialty of online Twitter ratings whore Mike Cernovich (self-styled national security reporter who brags about getting 150 million clicks per month). But for him, it’s all about attention and respect (the former bullied kid is now an online bully) and sales of his books. Paul Joseph Watson is another Twitter sensation who confuses clicks with value.

    Yeah, I’m going to being influenced by one-line tweets by people who get their “news” from other breathless reports based on rumor.

    Liked by 9 people

  10. jeans2nd says:

    My goodness, all this pedantic internecine warfare is wearying. In all honesty, every single member of the Trump Administration is expendable. The only one who is not is My President, President Donald J. Trump.

    Never knew Andrew Breitbart. Would never dream of sullying the Tea Party by claiming allegiance with those fine people.
    But one might hazard a guess and postulate that Andrew Breitbart would not be a participant in this banality.

    The incorrigible in me is secretly expecting (hoping?) LtG Mcmasters and Mr. Bannon to be arm-in-arm at Monday’s press conference censoring China. Would that not just be the best, evah?

    Please listen attentively.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. TKA says:

    I don’t have any interest in this story, and full confidence if DJT felt McMaster had to go, he’d make the decision when the time was right. That said, that all the knuckleheads on CNN, and yes that includes Bill Kristol, are defending McMaster and “feel better about the country because McMaster is there” certainly could be cause for concern. As determined never Trumpers, and doing everything they can to stand in his way, that they feel comfortable should make many feel very uncomfortable.

    Also, at the very least DJT has marginalized Steve Bannon and likely keeps him around to keep the Infowars crowd calm. With all the opposition DJT is faced with, he needs to hold on to every vote he can.

    Like

    • singingsoul says:

      I remember at a conference Bannon was he sad paraphrased ” I keep the president focus on the promises because there are many voices trying to divert him.” Something to that affect he said. I now can see it if door were open and anyone could walk into the Oval Office bringing their own agenda to POTUS.
      Kelly seems to stop this practice what I read. People who work for POTUS need to have one agenda that is his agenda for America and if they want their agenda they need to run for President. I am with President’s agenda .

      Like

  12. scott467 says:

    This issue is not lacking in confusion.

    Unless Bannon is the person fueling the ‘fire McMaster’ media frenzy, why should Bannon be fired? It solves nothing (doesn’t satisfy the anti McMaster media) and potentially upsets a fair number of Trump supporters. That’s a lose-lose.

    If Bannon is fueling the frenzy, I can see why DJT might fire him for cause. But if Bannon is NOT fueling the frenzy, then why can’t Trump simply ignore it? He is certainly not beholden to anyone but us… certainly not to anyone in the anti-McMaster media.

    Having said that, I have looked at a few articles on the ‘McMaster’ subject.

    There do seem to be some legitimate questions regarding McMaster ties and personnel decisions, and if the truth has no agenda (it doesn’t), then why not examine the questions to see if they have merit?

    If they DON’T, then we can blow their hit pieces out of the water.

    If they DO… then isn’t that relevant?

    To the truth, I mean?

    Horowitz’s FrontPage Mag: ‘There Are No Fact-Based Defenses of McMaster… Just Hagiography’
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2017/08/09/horowitzs-frontpage-mag-there-are-no-fact-based-defenses-of-mcmaster-just-hagiography/

    “From FrontPage Magazine (via Breitbart):

    There’s a textbook style for a media piece defending NSC boss McMaster.

    Refer to him as a “warrior and a scholar”. Or maybe, if you want to mix it up a little, “a scholar and a warrior”. Mention that he’s brilliant and a deep thinker. (Or the other way around.)

    Dismiss all the criticism as an “alt-right conspiracy” or a war waged by Bannon. Ignore anyone who doesn’t fit that template. Mention staff firings as little as possible. Mention hirings even less. (Especially if you are, sort of, on the right.) Close by reminding everyone that McMaster is a deeply brilliant warrior scholar being harassed by Twitter trolls. Finale.

    None of this amounts to any kind of argument. It’s shoddy propaganda.

    I would be interested in a defense piece that delves into the history of the personnel that McMaster hired and fired the way my own article did. And I’m still waiting. There are no fact-based defenses of McMaster. There is just hagiography. And that’s how you know something is wrong.”

    .
    .

    McMaster’s NSC Coup Against Trump Purges Critics of Islam and Obama
    http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/267473/mcmasters-nsc-coup-against-trump-purges-critics-daniel-greenfield

    .
    .

    McMaster’s Media Sycophants Refuse to Address the Issue
    http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/267526/mcmasters-media-sycophants-refuse-address-issue-daniel-greenfield

    .

    I’m not taking sides, just trying to figure out what the truth is.

    I understand the CTH perspective that certain elements of pro-Israel media are out to get McMaster, and that certainly appears to be true.

    But does that make their concerns invalid, or unworthy of examination?

    If what they are claiming is true (firing Trump loyalists who warn of Deep State and Deep state connections, while retaining Obama holdovers, connections to Soros-funded enterprise, etc., etc.), that would be a legitimate reason to give one pause, would it not?

    I don’t know if it’s true or it isn’t, I just haven’t seen anyone address the anti-McMaster claims directly and debunk them.

    Why is that?

    Liked by 5 people

    • smiley says:

      good post, scott.

      very good.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Oldschool says:

      I distinctly remember at the time Trump announced this pick, there were several others who Trump wanted who had withdrawn their names from consideration. It seemed mac was a third choice and these concerns about McMasters were batted around back then. By and large Trump supporters were not cheering this pick and I remember KT McFarland got caught in mcmaster crosshairs. I don’t know what the real story is, but all the push back from Trump supporters in conjunction with support from GOPe made me wary then and still does now. But I will continue to trust Trump, but more importantly God.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Delilah says:

      Why defend McMaster when you haven’t given one iota of evidence that he did anything wrong?

      You guys are no different than the Liberals who are convicting Trump based on lies and innuendoes. You’re convicting McMaster based on lies and innuendoes.

      I really do not see any difference in the level of malevolence in both movements.

      If you’re wanting to be different from the Liberals, you have to actually be different than the Liberals.

      Liked by 1 person

      • singingsoul says:

        If McMaster had done something wrong would anyone not believe POTUS would take care of a problem…? In one way we think POTUS is briliant and other times when it suits our insecurity he is foolish knows nothing about people and leaves a traitor in his circle..?

        Like

      • smiley says:

        suggestion : try reading the articles he linked.

        Like

        • singingsoul says:

          smiley says:
          suggestion : try reading the articles he linked.
          _____________________________________
          I do not click on URL posted specially if I do not know the agenda of the writer.
          POTUS is happy with McMaster and I stick by that unless Trump tells us otherwise.
          Over the past six months almost every adviser to POTUS has been smeared.
          Maybe some people are having a swell head and think they know what the WH needs and POTUS does not..?

          Like

          • smiley says:

            my comment wasn’t directed to you.

            calm down.

            just do a search of your own at those sites, if you don’t want to click on the link.

            it’s not complicated.

            Like

          • scott467 says:

            singingsoul wrote: “I do not click on URL posted specially if I do not know the agenda of the writer.”

            _______________

            I was under the impression that the truth has no agenda.

            Did I not specifically state:

            ……………………………
            I’m not taking sides, just trying to figure out what the truth is. I understand the CTH perspective that certain elements of pro-Israel media are out to get McMaster, and that certainly appears to be true.

            But does that make their concerns invalid, or unworthy of examination?
            ……………………………

            The links I posted are to very well known organizations, Breitbart and FrontPage Magazine. I am not a regular visitor at Front Page Magazine. I check Breitbart daily, and that is where I found the first article referenced above, which referenced Front Page Magazine.

            .
            .

            singingsoul wrote: “POTUS is happy with McMaster and I stick by that unless Trump tells us otherwise.”

            _______________

            I have never known Treepers to be afraid of refuting claims if they are false.

            Now all of a sudden, we have a number of Treepers who seem to want to whistle past the graveyard, without even looking to see whether it’s an actual graveyard, or whether it’s nothing at all and we can blow it out of the water, as is our customary practice.

            It is THAT aspect which is drawing all of the attention to itself.

            When you are among a group of hunters, and everyone suddenly looks the other way as the usual prey does the tango (with full orchestra in tow) through the middle of the camp, it makes me wonder WTH is going on…

            .

            Like

          • scott467 says:

            singingsoul wrote: “Maybe some people are having a swell head and think they know what the WH needs and POTUS does not..?”

            ______________

            I am only asking questions.

            The kind of questions that are normal and expected around here, of any ‘story’ or ‘subject’ or ‘controversy’.

            Except this one, apparently.

            Doesn’t that seem just a little bit odd to you?

            It does to me.

            Bigly.

            Why are you attacking people for asking questions?

            Doesn’t THAT seem just a little bit odd to you?

            I’m not taking it personally, I am trying to understand this atypical response from a group of people who are normally inquisitive to a fault.

            Do the questions threaten you… is that why you attack the person who asks them?

            .

            Like

        • Delilah says:

          FrontPage Mag.

          I’ve read all the articles, and I agree with Sundance: Consider the source…and then ignore it.

          Like

        • beanpole says:

          When you have have information from weeks ago that you know debunk the story, and you know it’s debunked by just reading the headline, why read it?

          I see other people here mentioning that other sites that have analyzed the McMaster issue and presented their opinions, with rationale, so I know I’m not the only one reading them.

          Add to that, posters here saying they have no need to view other sites, nor to be manipulated by them. which I guess must be the stock answer to the ‘try reading article’ schtick, so maybe I can use that excuse.

          Another way would be to say that I have decided via my readings, etc,, that McMaster actually has 4-legs and is covered in long brown fur. If, Subsequently, i saw a headline that said, “Mcmaster is a duck”, should I read that, too, just to be sure?

          It could be that there really are things that are bullshit, A Priori.

          edit: I did scan through the article earlier at some point, before I read about here. Not particularly convincing to me to tell the truth. It in no way matches up to observations laid out elsewhere AFAIK.

          Like

      • adombom says:

        bigsky1970…I liked Cernovich during the primaries when he was doing street work and confronting the pro-fascist (anti-fa) scum. But gradually, the more I saw of him, the diminished he became in my sight, to the point now that he just turns me off. You’re right, he’s exposed himself as a fraud, imo. And I no longer pay any attention to his Tweets.

        Like

      • adombom says:

        Delilah… That seems to be a rather harsh response to those who have questions about McMaster’s purpose and intent, comparing them to Libs. With very few exceptions most on this site are solid Trump supporters. I personally, don’t know wth is going on. And many commentators are just trying to get at the truth. Are these Leftist connections true? Is he a globalist shill? From what I’ve heard so far, it IS a bit disturbing to know about his ties to Soros. But I’ve made no accusations or definitive statements about McMaster. But my loyalty is to Trump, and to our agenda, and anyone who gets in the way of that is an enemy. I’m with scott467 on this issue and agree with his post.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Delilah says:

          That is the perfect example to which I refer: “ties to Soros.”

          If I use your same yardstick to determine that someone is a Soros troll because a company he worked for received funding, then that means Trump is more of a Soros troll.

          You haven’t followed your logic to its final conclusion: That would mean that Flynn is a Russian spy/puppet because he took money from the Russian government. That would also make Manafort a Russian/Ukrainian spy as well. That would also mean that no Republican can ever be paid to give a talk to any Democrat group lest they become a Democrat spy…

          Surely you can see the fallacy in that line of thinking…..

          Like

          • adombom says:

            Fine, but let’s refrain from attacking one another, shall we. We get attacked enough from the left.

            Like

            • Delilah says:

              “Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.”

              How does he do that? By sowing the seeds of discord and doubt and confusing and scattering the herd.

              The evidence is the only thing that separates us from a false witness. Friends don’t let friends become a false witness.

              Like

          • scott467 says:

            Delilah wrote: “That is the perfect example to which I refer: “ties to Soros.”

            If I use your same yardstick to determine that someone is a Soros troll because a company he worked for received funding, then that means Trump is more of a Soros troll.”

            _______________

            No one (to my knowledge) has said McMaster is a ‘Soros troll’. No such determination could be made (one way OR the other) without further information… a lot more, information which could either exonerate or lead to further questions.

            I am happy to give Mr. McMaster the benefit of the doubt. He certainly has an impressive resume. I just don’t understand the reluctance — in this specific instance — to examine charges and refute them, rather than dismissing them without looking.

            That is the weirdest reaction I have seen on CTH since I began reading here shortly after the election campaign began.

            I am a STRONG Trump supporter, and have been since the first debate.

            I am not your enemy or your adversary.

            I am seeing something which doesn’t add up here, something unusual, and I am asking questions about it.

            .
            .

            Delilah wrote: “You haven’t followed your logic to its final conclusion: That would mean that Flynn is a Russian spy/puppet because he took money from the Russian government. That would also make Manafort a Russian/Ukrainian spy as well. That would also mean that no Republican can ever be paid to give a talk to any Democrat group lest they become a Democrat spy…

            Surely you can see the fallacy in that line of thinking…..”

            ________________

            Yes, I do see the fallacy in that line of thinking.

            It is called a non-sequitur.

            Your conclusion does not logically follow from your premise.

            Whatever the truth may be about McMaster, it has no relation whatsoever to Mr. Flynn, or what Mr. Flynn has done, or what Mr. Flynn has not done.

            Likewise, what Mr. Manafort has done (or not done) is (as far as we know) unrelated to what either Mr. Flynn or Mr. McMaster has (or has not) done.

            They are each separate individuals, and to the best of my knowledge, each of their current controversies are wholly unrelated.

            Unless you are alleging a conspiracy among them?

            Like

      • scott467 says:

        Delilah wrote: “Why defend McMaster when you haven’t given one iota of evidence that he did anything wrong?”

        _______________

        Come now, if the allegations were a mystery or unknowable, we wouldn’t be having this discussion, because there would be no controversy.

        I understand the instinct to defend DJT, and I share it.

        Why does your instinct to defend the president not extend to an honest, open-eyed examination of those around him, who could potentially do him the most harm?

        It’s a fair question, isn’t it?

        .
        .

        Delilah wrote: “You guys are no different than the Liberals who are convicting Trump based on lies and innuendoes.”

        _______________

        But this is not true, it is a false charge against me, and I deny it outright.

        A) I am as far from a Liberal (Leftist) as you can get

        B) I am convicting no one of anything, I am only asking questions. Is it not okay to ask questions? Are we to be no different than the purple Kool-Aid guzzling loons on the Left?

        .
        .

        Delilah wrote: “You’re convicting McMaster based on lies and innuendoes.”

        _______________

        That is demonstrably false.

        I have asked questions.

        Good questions, I think.

        If you tried to answer them, I think you might discover that you also find them to be good questions. Will you try to answer them?

        Here are the questions I asked:

        1) Unless Bannon is the person fueling the ‘fire McMaster’ media frenzy, why should Bannon be fired? It solves nothing (doesn’t satisfy the anti McMaster media) and potentially upsets a fair number of Trump supporters. That’s a lose-lose.

        2) If Bannon is fueling the frenzy, I can see why DJT might fire him for cause. But if Bannon is NOT fueling the frenzy, then why can’t Trump simply ignore it? He is certainly not beholden to anyone but us… certainly not to anyone in the anti-McMaster media.

        3) There do seem to be some legitimate questions regarding McMaster ties and personnel decisions, and if the truth has no agenda (it doesn’t), then why not examine the questions to see if they have merit?

        4) If they DO [have merit]… then isn’t that relevant? To the truth, I mean?

        5) I understand the CTH perspective that certain elements of pro-Israel media are out to get McMaster, and that certainly appears to be true. But does that make their concerns invalid, or unworthy of examination?

        6) If what they are claiming is true (firing Trump loyalists who warn of Deep State and Deep state connections, while retaining Obama holdovers, connections to Soros-funded enterprise, etc., etc.), that would be a legitimate reason to give one pause, would it not?

        .

        Like

      • scott467 says:

        Delilah wrote: “I really do not see any difference in the level of malevolence in both movements.”

        _______________

        What ‘malevolence’ have I engaged in here?

        …………………………………………
        malevolent [muh-lev-uh-luh nt]
        adjective
        1. wishing evil or harm to another or others; showing ill will; ill-disposed; malicious: His failures made him malevolent toward those who were successful.
        2. evil; harmful; injurious:
        ………………………………………….

        If I have said or written anything ‘malevolent’ here, will you please copy and paste that sentence or paragraph, which you deem to be ‘malevolent’, so that I may see and understand your accusation against me?

        .
        .

        Delilah wrote: “If you’re wanting to be different from the Liberals, you have to actually be different than the Liberals.”

        ______________

        We are in much agreement here.

        Attempts at ‘chilling’ or shutting down debate by attacking someone who is merely asking relevant questions, is this not a standard tactic of the LEFT?

        Who is really acting no different than a Liberal here?

        Did I not plainly state “I’m not taking sides, just trying to figure out what the truth is.”?

        I don’t know if the claims against McMaster are true or not, I just haven’t seen anyone address the claims directly and debunk them.

        Why is that?

        Since when is our side afraid of anything? We LOOK for the fight, we walk around with an open can of whoopass, just waiting to use it against someone who is making false charges against us, lol!

        Our side practically LIVES for that opportunity!

        So why hasn’t that happened here?

        Why hasn’t every charge against McMaster been batted down so forcefully that it could never rise again?

        That is standard operating procedure when false claims are made against ‘our side’.

        There has been an obvious deviation from standard operating procedure in this matter. That alone ought to give all of us pause.

        I am not accusing or convicting anyone of anything.

        I’m just noting that while the motives of those who are attacking McMaster have been explored, the basic claims appear to have been skipped over and remain unrebutted.

        If the truth has no agenda (and it does not…), then why is that the case?

        Why not examine the claims, refute them, end the controversy among ourselves, and put this thing to bed?

        We (conservatives) are no strangers to false accusations… refuting false claims is probably HALF of what we do, that is what ALWAYS happens, like clockwork.

        Except this time.

        And the absence of that happening is notable, drawing attention to itself, by its absence.

        Why is that?

        Is that not a fair question?

        .

        Like

        • Delilah says:

          “Why hasn’t every charge against McMaster been batted down so forcefully that it could never rise again?”

          So let’s apply that same logic to what the moonbats are saying….

          “Trump is a Russian spy. Prove that I’m wrong so forcefully that it could never rise again.”

          You’re the one making the claims. It’s your job to come up with evidence for your claims.

          Like

          • scott467 says:

            Delilah wrote: “So let’s apply that same logic to what the moonbats are saying….

            “Trump is a Russian spy. Prove that I’m wrong so forcefully that it could never rise again.”

            You’re the one making the claims. It’s your job to come up with evidence for your claims.”

            ________________

            Not so.

            Those who are promoting “Muh Russia” conspiracy have concocted their scheme in such a way that it is impossible to prove a negative. How do you “prove” that you did NOT do something?

            By contrast, this is very different.

            Did McMaster actually fire loyal Trump supporters who attempted to bring concerns about globalists and NeverTrumpers to the president’s attention?

            Either he did, or he didn’t. If he didn’t, then the claim that anyone was fired is provably false. If he did, then the claim that he fired anyone is provably true.

            Has McMaster purposely retained Obama holdovers?

            Either he has, or he hasn’t. If he has, that is readily provable, and if he has not, if they have been let go, that should readily provable as well.

            Is McMaster actually associated with the think-tank or other organization(s) mentioned by the pro-Israel media who are making the claim?

            Either he is, or he isn’t. If he isn’t, we should blow that claim out of the water. If he is, then is further investigation not merited?

            Is the think-tank or other organization to which McMaster is claimed to be associated funded, at least in part, by George Soros?

            Either it is, or it isn’t. If it isn’t, then we should (again) blow that charge out of the water.

            If it is, then would that fact not merit further investigation?

            I’m just asking questions, basic questions, the kind of questions we ask around here all the time.

            The reaction to these basic questions, in this case, is drawing attention to itself.

            Bigly.

            Why is that?

            It is rapidly becoming a bigger issue than the underlying controversy.

            Like

            • Delilah says:

              Your claim is that he fired Trump loyalists and kept Obama hires…

              As one of his very first acts, he fired the Obama hire and kept the Trump hire….

              So next false claim….

              Like

              • Delilah says:

                Next false claim: McMaster is a Soros puppet.

                If I use your yardstick to determine whether someone is a Soros troll, then that means Trump is the biggest Soros puppet of all…

                So which is it? McMaster and Trump are Soros puppets?

                Like

                • scott467 says:

                  Delilah wrote: “Next false claim: McMaster is a Soros puppet. If I use your yardstick to determine whether someone is a Soros troll, then that means Trump is the biggest Soros puppet of all…”

                  ________________

                  But it is not “MY” claim, I don’t even recall whether the actual claims included any usage of the word ‘puppet’.

                  You are making false attributions and almost certainly mischaracterizing the actual claims which have been made. This does not serve to clear anything up, but rather to muddy the water, which is counterproductive.

                  Secondly, I have no ‘yardstick’, neither have I referenced one. I have ‘determined’ nothing, because I do not have enough information to make any determination, one way or the other.

                  What I have done is to ask questions, basic questions, and then explain the reasons for those questions, while under consistent and repeated attack, because… well, I don’t know why, exactly.

                  But I am curious to understand why.

                  .
                  .

                  Delilah wrote: “So which is it? McMaster and Trump are Soros puppets?”

                  _______________

                  Having observed DJT fairly closely for some 18+ months, and having read his 1987 book “Art of the Deal”, and having seen his actions since becoming president, I am persuaded that DJT is not a Soros puppet.

                  I have not observed Mr. McMaster to anywhere near the same degree, neither has he presented himself for such examination, as a candidate for the presidency (excluding Democrats, who go unexamined) normally does.

                  I know almost nothing about Mr. McMaster besides his resume.

                  I would like to know more about him. Is that so wrong?

                  I would like to know if Mr. McMaster has a problem with the term ‘islamic terrorism’ or similar terminology that identifies islam as the root source of violence being perpetrated against civilians.

                  And if he does have a problem with identifying islam as the source of the violence against civilians, I would like to understand why. Maybe he has a good reason. If it is a good reason, I would like to test that reason, to see if it can withstand critical scrutiny.

                  I would like to know why ANY Obama ‘holdovers’ are still in place, ANYWHERE in the government.

                  I would like to know exactly which think-tanks and NGOs are funded by Mr. Soros, and who the members are of those organizations, and how any such person can reconcile the president’s MAGA agenda with membership in any organization influenced or funded by George Soros.

                  Don’t you want to know and understand that?

                  My perspective is that George Soros is an objective threat to practically everything I believe in or hope for my country. He is fantastically wealthy, with a decades-long history of using his wealth to effect radical interference in the affairs of sovereign nations, including OURS.

                  Does that not concern you as well?

                  If not, why not?

                  .

                  Like

              • scott467 says:

                Delilah wrote: “Your claim is that he fired Trump loyalists and kept Obama hires…”

                ______________

                But it is NOT ‘my’ claim, I have no idea what the truth is here, it is one of the claims made in the articles I referenced.

                Professional ‘conservative’ journalists and columnists, people who (presumably) have a reputation that is worth something to them, have made a series of claims which ordinarily would merit investigation.

                Except in this case, investigating the motives of those making the claims — while certainly important to understand — seems to have been used as a substitute or reason to NOT investigate the claims.

                I realize that the motives of the pro-Israel media are not aligned with DJT, at least not on this subject. That in itself is interesting, since DJT is himself pro-Israel.

                But that, in and of itself, does not mean their claims are wrong. It may mean their claims come with a higher level of skepticism — but why are they being rejected outright, without even cursory examination, when they are the kinds of claims which can easily be proven true or false?

                Moreover, what is the meaning of this overreaction to asking the kind of basic questions that would normally be asked about any subject around here?

                I am not your adversary. I voted for DJT, enthusiastically, and I would vote for him again today. He is so much better than any of the alternatives that the alternatives don’t even count.

                .
                .

                Delilah wrote: “As one of his very first acts, he fired the Obama hire and kept the Trump hire….”

                ______________

                Okay.

                A) what is your source for that claim? Who was it that was fired, what was his connection to Obama, and who was the Trump hire which he kept?

                B) what does that have to do with what has happened since then?

                Like

                • Delilah says:

                  http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/mcmaster-national-security-council-staff-changes-235579

                  A) what is your source for that claim? Who was it that was fired, what was his connection to Obama, and who was the Trump hire which he kept?

                  Dave Cattler, who was named deputy assistant to the president for regional affairs, will return to the office of the Director of National Intelligence, where he worked during the ****Obama administration****.

                  Brad Hansell, who had been serving as acting deputy assistant to the *****president**** for transnational issues since the beginning of the administration, is returning to his post as the NSC’s senior director for transnational threats.
                  ————————————-
                  B) what does that have to do with what has happened since then?

                  So then your claim now must be that not all of the people that were fired were Trump loyalists but only some were and that that is proof that there was wrongdoing.

                  Or you could just also say that many people were fired, some of whom happened to be Trump loyalists.

                  Tomato, tomahtoe….

                  It’s just not proof of anything at all…

                  Like

                • Delilah says:

                  As for your concern that McMaster is a Soros troll, you must show evidence that McMaster altered his course of action in some way as a result of Soros’ money, and from everything I’ve seen, you have no proof of that.

                  If my enemy was to give me money and I didn’t have to do anything differently, why not? Their stupidity, and I’d take full advantage of it.

                  Like

    • Sherlock says:

      The truth is: The oust McMaster effort will fail because Trump is not about to can the guy now. He said so yesterday, again. Should he? Maybe so, but he WON’T. So, if you believe that, pushing that effort will get Bannon canned because of the perception (being pushed by CNN and others) that it’s a Bannon move. If you believe the effort to oust McMaster will succeed, by all means forge ahead. But remember the old adage–“If you’re gong to kill the king, you’d better kill the king.” Otherwise, CNN gets their wish and bye bye Bannon–I’d sort of hate that, wouldn’t you?

      Liked by 1 person

      • singingsoul says:

        The perception of danger to the media and next election is Bannon and that is why the media is gunning for him. When Joe Scarborough guns after Bannon I know Bannon is our man. He strikes fear into those left wing doodles because they convinced themselves to rid Bannon weekend POTUS and separates POTUS donor from POTUS. Maybe even the crazy Cruz bunch is mocking for POTUS job and would love to pick up Bannon for their guy.

        So many red herrings flying around and believe me I know much about herring..:) (s

        Like

      • adombom says:

        Sherlock…I don’t think the Don is falling for any of it. Whatever the truth is, he knows about it. And yes, it would be a damn shame if Bannon would be forced out.

        Like

    • Garrison Hall says:

      “Unless Bannon is the person fueling the ‘fire McMaster’ media frenzy, why should Bannon be fired?’

      Because he’s not part of the ‘general’s club”? I’m all for the president surrounding himself with combat generals but these are guys that made rank within one of the most aggressive, back-stabbing bureaucracies known to man. President Trump is going to have to keep these guys on a short leash or their natural instincts will emerge and they’ll try to take over. My suspicion is that there are progressives in the white house who see Bannon as standing in the way of their agendas. They’re right, of course, he is doing just that.

      Liked by 1 person

    • skifflegirl says:

      Inspired by Thomas Wictor, I researched for myself who makes hiring and firing decisions for the National Security Council staff. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/28/presidential-memorandum-organization-national-security-council-and

      Wictor is correct when he says that it is the NSC Chief of Staff, Keith Kellogg, “a retired U.S. Army general officer who also served as a foreign policy advisor for Donald Trump’s presidential campaign since March 2016. Kellogg served in the 101st Airborne Division in the Vietnam War, and he would later take command of the 82nd Airborne Division in the 1990s. During the Iraq war, he commanded the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad. In recent years, Kellogg worked for Oracle Corporation, a computer technology company”. http://heavy.com/news/2017/02/donald-trump-national-security-council-list-of-staff-members-employees-michael-flynn-kt-mcfarland-keith-kellogg-anton-kevin-harrington-derek-harvey/

      HR McMaster has no authority to hire or fire anybody. This ‘Fire McMaster’ effort is, as Sundance might say, all chaff and countermeasures by people who have an agenda and it ain’t to put America first.

      Like

      • skifflegirl says:

        Also, I thought that it was very telling that during President Trump’s phone call with the Governor of Guam, he made a point during their comments regarding the partisan agenda of those seeking to obstruct him. “The military is not partisan.” Enough said.

        Like

  13. n1ghtcr4wler says:

    What’s interesting is that the msm is pretending to be concerned about that Breitbart is attacking McMaster and making his job harder by doing so WHEN they are constantly attacking Trump. Doesnt their attacks make Trumps job harder? I wanna puke on these hypocrites. How dumb do they think people are?

    Like

    • singingsoul says:

      POTUS has Kelly to keep order in the WH one less task on the President. He can focus on real job not squabbles and palace intrigue .
      Ask yourself why now what is happening..? The swamp is loosing its grip and POTUS is putting the the screws on the swamp. What bothers me more is how conservatives allow themselves to be used and manipulated. I am conservative but have never been political and do not like to go to far left or right.
      What I am shocked at is I see a Cruz faction emerging here and fight the Trump faction.
      Maybe trolls..?

      Like

  14. JRD says:

    Some of us have developed critical thinking skills and have powers of discernment. Thus, we can see the forest for the trees.

    1,) Stranahan, Cernovich, and also Posobiec behave like 15 year old boys that are trying to make a name for themselves. Their look at me, me, me, I’m so wonderful has grown tiresome.Their reporting is not about President Trump and the Populist Movement. It’s about them. They are their news reporting just like Acosta’s is.
    Stranahan was FIRED by Breitbart. He was among the old school Breitbartians, the ones who missed Andrew Breitbart desperately and didn’t like what the new regime under “Executive Chairman” Steve Bannon had become.
    http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/09/lee-stranahan-fired-by-breitbart-news-after-being-rehired-what-gives/
    In other words, there is no love lost between Stranahan and Bannon.
    Stranahan also has a problem with getting along with people. He is not a team player.

    2.) POTUS Trump does not have the same agenda as candidate Trump. That happens in every administration. However, to deny this fact is sheeple to the nth degree.
    POTUS Trump’s foreign policy is especially not the same. McMaster and Dina Powell are the foreign policy of the Bushies. If we wanted that we would have elected Jeb.
    I especially have a problem with Dina Powell. She is toxic to me.
    http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/267533/dina-habib-powell-mcmasters-huma-abedin-daniel-greenfield

    Here is her Congrats from Ted Cruz

    As much as I like Trump I never would have voted for him if I knew Ivanka would be in his administration. Dina Powell is there because of Ivanka. Ivanka’s politics are “Big Government” and has nothing to do with America First.

    Trump has hired the swamp. That he had to hire some of these swamp rats was a given. However, Bannon is alone. He will most definitely not be part of Trump’s administration in the future. It is only a matter of time.

    3,) Bannon has already been demoted. Reince and Bannon were equals. Bannon and Kelly are not. Kelly came in and pissed on his turf as every new executive always does. One doesn’t rise to the level of general without being a political animal.

    4.) For one to not be concerned with all of the generals in Trump’s administration is to be a fool. Many libertarians voted for Trump because they were fed up with the military industrial complex and their stupid little wars.

    I love Wilbur Ross and Stephen Miller but that’s all.

    We all fell in love during the campaign for president and believed that the swamp would be drained. But, everyone’s version of the swamp being drained is different. Once the new administration takes office we all get a dose of reality.

    You either accept reality or move on.

    Liked by 1 person

    • smiley says:

      very very well-put, JRD.

      Like

      • singingsoul says:

        Up to now POTUS Trump has not disappointed me but maybe some were voting for a dictator I did not.
        Reality is POTUS works within constrain of 3 equal branches of government and thank God guideline of the Constitution.
        Non of us, I believe, anticipated the power grab from other branches of government the persecution of our lawfully elected President. The swamp is getting careless and making itself vulnerable to us the voters. We see their true agenda.
        We can help clean the swamp we the voters.
        Concerning that POTUS gave his kid and son in-law an advisory position, I do not like it smacks to much of entitlement instead of proven skills. This has nothing to do with nice people and beautiful people but more that many people crave a monarchy . Ivanka is the princess and as many wish for her to be the next President after her father. We are so taken in our culture with appearance. Wonder what would have happened if Ivanka was short chubby and average looking..?
        This is not a private company but it is what it is and I learned something to expect the unexpected when I vote for a person.

        Like

        • singingsoul says:

          PS I now know when I vote I vote for the whole family not just the man/woman who runs for office.

          Like

          • smiley says:

            well…I have ultimate respect for PDJT and I truly believe that his heart is in precisely the right place : America, heart & soul….all the way.

            the issue(s) I have (jmo) re certain family members within the ranks is lack of experience in those specific matters while being given tremendous clout and responsibility that might be beyond their expertise…and that might not, necessarily, make America great again.

            as well as their having certain connections and leanings that I simply do not agree with…or trust.

            I agree with JRD’s opinion that “critical thinking” is a good thing.

            Like

            • Delilah says:

              Critical thinking requires evidence, and you get offended when people ask to see that evidence. Telling somebody what they’re supposed to think isn’t critical thinking.

              Like

              • smiley says:

                get
                a
                life
                delilah

                Liked by 1 person

                • Delilah says:

                  Pick just one thing out of your article that you will defend. I’ll let you choose any single item from those articles. Let’s see if you can defend that one item with evidence.

                  Like

              • Pam says:

                The more that I’m reading on all these comments, you’re not doing yourself, or anyone else, any good. You’re coming off as a biotch. Try to position yourself, as those asking questions, not jumping down their throats. Might make things a bit smoother. js

                Like

                • Pam says:

                  To Delilah

                  Like

                • Delilah says:

                  See, there it is, it’s emotions doing the thinking for you.

                  Facts are emotionless. They do not care if you like them or hate them. They exist regardless what choices you make about them.

                  I did not create the truth. I do not own it. I’m not the inventor of the truth. All I did was simply point out its existence. And for that sin, I will gladly take any condemnation for it that comes with the price of revealing the truth.

                  For above all, I stand with the truth.

                  Like

  15. C-Low says:

    Bannon is a key player to the movement he predates Trump and is rock rib solid. McMasters has allot of questionable associations and is definitely NOT a key player of the movement.

    The NUMBER one problem Trump is having is his attempt to work with the swamp i.e. dem/repub. Why are the leaks about Trump not say the myriad of names of political opponents O spied on via the national security apparatus? Why is there no prosecutions of even the low hanging fruit say the IRS scandal, or even why has the IRS not been literally GUTTED from the top down?

    Ryan, McConnel, McMasters, any and all associated with the ole corrupt guard are not I repeat NOT going to help Trump at best they are going to continue a fighting retreat to play out the clock while waiting for a opportunity to counter attack via their position. This is a revolution there is legitimate reasons why revolutions are followed by mass expulsions executions. Not saying execution is a option but political execution i.e. firing forced retirement enmass would go along way to getting movement members in place to gain experience and let the lower ranks understand the cost of “resistance”.

    Trump to be successful needs to say to hell with it and go balls deep like he did in the campaign. 2018 Trump needs to start campaigning against any and all establishment candidates up to and including McConnel Ryan being replaced after the election.

    Otherwise we should all get ready to mad frustrated and then defeated by the establishment in 2020.

    Never forget that this was a IS a non violent revolution. Failure will only eventually lead to the other kind of revolution. Fight Fight Fight and push hard to drive out as many of the establishment or such aligned as possible or we will see our opportunity squandered by internal subversion stopping or limiting longterm consequential accomplishments.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Delilah says:

      Bannon isn’t a key player to the movement. He was supporting Ted Cruz when we were fighting for the Trump movement.

      And what does Ted Cruz stand for exactly? Well, since he’s been largely silent the entire Trump term, that says that Cruz isn’t for our agenda; he’s only for his own agenda.

      Like

  16. Delilah says:

    You can’t trust anything Trannyhan says. And I highly doubt Bannon even knows who Trannyhan even is. Trannyhan is an editor for Sputnik, for gosh sakes. My impression of his tweets after reading them for several months is that he surely has to be a Russian plant, just stirring up trouble and mayhem, because that’s really all he’s good for.

    Like

  17. Sherlock says:

    “Ultimately they know if they can force a binary-choice between McMaster and Bannon, President Trump will have to choose HR McMaster.

    The removal of Bannon, they predict, will infuriate the Trump base of support and ultimately provide the fracture needed to weaken the president.”

    What is so hard to understand about this statement? “McMaster out” ORGANIZED movement not being pushed by Bannon. Very clear who is behind it if you’ve paid the least bit of attention. Left now sees opportunity to cast it as Bannon v. McMaster, thereby fooling some members of Trump base into piling on McMaster. McMaster will not be fired, but good chance that the pushing will get Bannon fired. Remember the old adage “If you’re going to kill the king, kill the king.” Those pushing for McMaster ouster won’t win,and Bannon may well be gone.

    It you can stomach watching Tapper for 12 minutes in the video at the start of the thread, note how among the long list of McMaster critics they somehow leave out the most OBVIOUS member of the list, and the actual organizer of the “movement”, and it ain’t Russia. This is truly CNN at its most manipulative, trying to oust Bannon.

    Like

    • Sherlock says:

      I am not a McMaster fan, far from it. But I understand that an unsuccessful effort to oust him, especially one falsely cast (as CNN does) as being primarily ORGANIZED by Bannon, will simply result in Bannon’s eventual ouster. I do NOT want Bannon removed.

      Liked by 1 person

      • singingsoul says:

        Who says POTUS has to choose between McMaster and Bannon…?
        The media the black hats in the shadows or self serving opportunists with their own agenda..???
        I stick with President Trump’s agenda for America and he will use the people who help him to get to his promises and his agenda.
        People should run for office if they want their own agenda realized.

        Like

      • Chuck Finley says:

        I think Sherlock hits the nail on the head and does it in a way that isn’t dismissive of those that distrust McMasters. This is an unsuccessful effort to oust McMasters, but Trump got the message that many in his base don’t believe McMasters is working towards Trump’s priorities.

        Like

  18. JRD says:

    “I highly doubt Bannon even knows who Trannyhan even is.”

    WRONG.
    http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/09/lee-stranahan-fired-by-breitbart-news-after-being-rehired-what-gives/

    I repeat:
    Stranahan was FIRED by Breitbart. He was among the old school Breitbartians, the ones who missed Andrew Breitbart desperately and didn’t like what the new regime under “Executive Chairman” Steve Bannon had become.
    There is no love lost between Stranahan and Bannon.

    One cannot allow emotion to cloud their thinking. Facts are stubborn things.
    And, I myself do not care for Stranahan’s self promotion.

    Like

  19. danield49 says:

    Man, this place is going downhill. “Trannyhan”… Really?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Delilah says:

      It’s like the term “useful idiot.” As derogatory as it may sound, it actually has political significance.

      Not meaning he has gender issues; it means that he’s not who he says he is.

      Like

  20. Matt says:

    “WATCH” (in caps and all red)

    Why would I? It’s CNN? I don’t even like watching ANY channel on TV, even clips — especially off YouTube.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s