Skip to comments.Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal Tries to Take Over Trump White House for McMaster, Globalists
Posted on 08/10/2017 10:55:01 AM PDT by HarleyLady27
The Wall Street Journal and its publisher Rupert Murdoch appear to be using President Donald Trumps national security adviser H.R. McMaster as their latest weapon in their continuing battle against Trumps America-first agenda and movement that enabled Trump to shock the world on election night.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Everyone and the Mother knows McMaster is excrement except Trump. Where the hell are his advisors?
A couple of things are odd. Trump’s tolerance for McMaster and his generous endorsement of this Strange guy in Alabama, over the seemingly crusty and devoted MO BROOKS.
Possibly there is some horse trading going on, but the media noise on these two intrigues is simply creating a chaotic question with no real answers.
Sundance was suspicious of the gaggle who despise McMaster and want him out. Every other conservative publication seems to base their opinion toward ousting McMaster from real evidence, of bad associations, bad comments and bad actions that are all anti-conservative and anti-Trump.
Now we see Buchanan defending Bannon against Steve’s constant enemies and saying if Bannon goes so goes our “nationalist economy”, of America First.
McConnell blasted President Trump, who works about 20 hours a day to get things done for America, and McConnell can't keep up, have you ever notice a ‘turtle’ that was fast???
President Trump has McMaster close to him to keep an eye on him, don't kid yourself, Our President knows everything that is going on...and if you think he's out in left field, you need glasses to keep up...
He lets people have all the rope they need, and all the stuff coming out of Mueller's little side show is all the dirt on the dems...I hope they keep digging, there is more dirt in those piles on the dems that there will ever be on the President Trump!!!
You partly make my point. However, the factors of influence on these odd endorsements seem to me to have a more complicated universe than landing on a citation of Trump’s genius.
If we look with our eyes, McMasters needs to be gone already and Strange (R-AL) has all the wrong backers, (bad actors like McConnell), while Mo Brooks (R-AL) seems to be one of us, in spades.
My question asks why would Sundance be differing from the conservative media herd on McMasters? Brietbart, for example, blasts McMasters. Sundance is a dependable Trump supporter, but he did not. (Unless I missed it.)
Sundance was/is suspicious of those pushing McMasters out. And, Trump defends McMasters, as well. Bannon reportedly recommended McMasters, or was among those who approved him.
The NSC, imho, is no place to have McMaster’s firing three of Trump’s swamp killers, without wondering about why. The NSC is no place for sabotage by McMaster because the president wants to watch him.
What’s to watch? Who is left to do the watching? Bannon was kicked out. The aides who differed with McMaster are fired. Who are the observers of McMaster now? According to the media implications, there are none left.
This is an article on Bannon and McMaster...I never seen where Bannon supported McMaster...and Breitbart has been against McMaster for some time now...
Do you have links to anything different?
With due respect Rita, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
I was with Bannon last Friday. He and McM have differences. So did Hamilton and Jefferson. So did Seward and Stanton. It’s in ALL administrations. Schultz and Weinberger differed in Reagan’s administration.
Bannon, Gorka, Pompeo, Sessions (who, yes, is on the NSC) comprise a very powerful lobby, even if Bannon isn’t a voting member. He still attends. They are as powerful, if not more so, than McM. If you want an admin with absolutely no different views, no dissenting voices, you’ll end up with a Third Reich. Bannon doesn’t want that and Trump doesn’t want that.
Trump took ALL our advice (including Bannon’s) to hire McM. Try trusting him.
Why oh why is he still there???
Not at all surprised.
It is been a Leftward downward slide at the WSJ ever since Murdoch acquired the WSJ’s parent company.
It’s one remaining saving grace is that deal ceded editorial control of the WSJ opinion page to the former owners.
To evade that condition, the Murdochs added some columns in the main section which are actually opinion columns. Even the lead editor of WSJ has his own column attempting to direct you to what he thinks is most important to read. You can be sure it has the same Left-slant as the paper itself has become.
Slowly it has been mirroring Pravda on The Hudson.
Sometimes Sundance is off.
Bannon and McMaster seem to clash all the time, I'm not sure what Kelly thinks of McMaster, and there have been some information that McMaster is a Soros puppet...so there's that...
I'm waiting for the ahem ‘heating and air conditioning’ to get finished and then see what happens then...
It is so interesting to read your insights. Have you expressed an opinion on Gorka? It’s ok if you don’t want to, I just thought I’d ask. I have learned a lot from him.
I never heard one word of this explanation before.
My question was; 1) about conservatives Breitbart and Sundance differing about McMaster at the NSC; 2) the rejection of Mo Brooks vs the endorsement of Strange; 3) the oddity of both.
Grant it, I have had to catch FR on the fly lately, but if this concise explanation of yours has been posted, I did not see it. Knowledge is power. Wanting a little insight should not be taken as an insult to Trump.
If this fine tutorial of yours is confined to FR, then we’re in trouble. Not everyone out there is a FReeper.
No one at the White House has indicated anything near what you said. No one has reminded the general public, like me, of this scenario that you have just explained in your fine argument. Neither has conservative media made your point that all is just fine on the NSC.
Instead, hair is on fire among conservative media against McMaster. It is causing bewilderment whether anyone likes it or not, for readers learning that a McMaster is firing aides who are Trump defenders and that he is against the Trump agenda. That is all I hear from conservative Trump supporting media.
When someone is out of the insider loop, it is not a crime to be in the dark and therefore wonder why Breitbart is freaked out against McMaster, but Sundance is not. Rather, Sundance questions who is behind ousting him.
No one here or elsewhere has yet posited a thought on that question about Breitbart differing from Sundance. Nor, has anyone posited a thought on the reason for the odd Strange endorsement.
It is not a crime to wonder what the hell the strategy is for rejecting this Mo Brooks guy and for endorsing a McConnell/Establishment backed guy, named Strange.
I suggest the White House follow your lead— that’s what I suggest. Certainly, little ole me is not the only one subjected to the mixed signals we’re seeing, from the signals that we’re NOT hearing from anyone, until now, but you. Not from the WH, either.
Evidently, conservative media (that we all count on) doesn’t know any of your argument either, or surely they would be cooling down the frigging bewilderment they are causing by leaving this important background out of their coverage.
It’s astounding to me why Breitbart has not already tutored us, as you have, on the safety of Trump’s agenda, inside the NSC. Instead, they imply danger is in progress, or at least that McMaster is a rogue. It’s banishing McMaster that is being spread and not what you said.
We should be hearing an explanation on the Strange vs.Brooks endorsement thing. If it doesn’t get out there then isn’t it obvious that the base is differing openly with Trump, in Alabama? Comprende? It seems to be Mo Brooks the people are reportedly supporting, not Strange. It’s Brooks they believe is the Trump supporter, not Strange. It’s Brooks who is reportedly advantaged at 30%, not Strange.
With all due respect, I appreciate your explanation. If I did not want it, in order to pass it on, I wouldn’t have pinged you, in the first place.
With your explanation now in hand, there is no need for us to get defensive with those who don’t know these things and want knowledge and reminders and talking points, concerning who remains to defend Trump and his agenda, on the NSC. I am not talking about the Cabinet, but the NSC.
Accusing an inquirer of lack of trust, and calling my Simple Simon questions “not knowing what you’re talking about” is hurtful. Trump can make a mountain of mistakes and I am not going anywhere. You should know that.
No honest question should be instantly taken as an assault against Trump, or against FR wizards who are able to stay in-the-know, 24/7. We’re all grateful to them, but have a little empathy. We can’t all know everything at the same time.
Thanks, very much, LS.
I really appreciate your response. It helps. I have been out of the loop. You can get your cheeks smacked around here when trying to catch up and ask for insights. Yikes!
Read these series of tweets;
The first link has 32 in the series, make sure to click more replies if you don’t see all of them.
It is curious. It is probable to think that Breitbart would be on the same page as Bannon, right?
I mean it’s generally thought so, since Bannon was very tight with Breitbart and the editor, after all.
So, Trump defends McMaster and Breitbart writes against him, and we hear that there is no “feud” between Bannon and McMaster.
Just an example of the oddly mixed signals. I’m just wondering about them. The Alabama endorsement is confusing to me, as well.
Impressive. Thank you very much. Never heard of this guy, but for a block head I really like seeing a version of protocols and a live chain of command with names and faces and a chain of distribution of Top Secret information to certain parties first, and others second or not at all.
Grateful for your trouble. A great read!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.