Image 01 Image 03

Samantha Power Implicated in Obama Unmasking Scandal

Samantha Power Implicated in Obama Unmasking Scandal

“she averaged more than one request for every working day in 2016”

When Trump claimed months ago that his campaign was wiretapped by Obama, liberals in media scoffed. The very idea that Obama or anyone on his team would be part of anything so untoward was unthinkable.

Then it was revealed that Susan Rice had unmasked members of Trump’s team, a fact that she previously lied about on national television. Now there is reason to believe Samantha Power, Obama’s ambassador to the UN, unmasked hundreds of people in the final months of the Obama administration.

Catherine Herridge and Bret Baier of FOX News wrote the explosive report:

Samantha Power sought to unmask Americans on almost daily basis, sources say

Samantha Power, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, was ‘unmasking’ at such a rapid pace in the final months of the Obama administration that she averaged more than one request for every working day in 2016 – and even sought information in the days leading up to President Trump’s inauguration, multiple sources close to the matter told Fox News.

Two sources, who were not authorized to speak on the record, said the requests to identify Americans whose names surfaced in foreign intelligence reporting, known as unmasking, exceeded 260 last year. One source indicated this occurred in the final days of the Obama White House.

The details emerged ahead of an expected appearance by Power next month on Capitol Hill. She is one of several Obama administration officials facing congressional scrutiny for their role in seeking the identities of Trump associates in intelligence reports – but the interest in her actions is particularly high.

In a July 27 letter to Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., said the committee had learned “that one official, whose position had no apparent intelligence-related function, made hundreds of unmasking requests during the final year of the Obama Administration.”

The “official” is widely reported to be Power.

FOX And Friends covered the story Thursday morning:

While the media has been pushing a narrative of wrongdoing on the part of Trump since election day, it’s beginning to look like the Obama administration was involved in something far worse.

Daniel Greenfield of Frontpage Mag has written an amazing essay on the subject which I’ll excerpt below, though I highly recommend reading the whole thing:

Why Obama Really Spied on Trump

Last week, CNN revealed (and excused) one phase of the Obama spying operation on Trump. After lying about it on MSNBC, Susan Rice admitted unmasking the identities of Trump officials to Congress.

Rice was unmasking the names of Trump officials a month before leaving office. The targets may have included her own successor, General Flynn, who was forced out of office using leaked surveillance.

While Rice’s targets weren’t named, the CNN story listed a meeting with Flynn, Bannon and Kushner.

Bannon was Trump’s former campaign chief executive and a senior adviser. Kushner is a senior adviser. Those are exactly the people you spy on to get an insight into what your political opponents plan to do.

Now the latest CNN spin piece informs us that secret FISA orders were used to spy on the conversations of Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort. The surveillance was discontinued for lack of evidence and then renewed under a new warrant. This is part of a pattern of FISA abuses by Obama Inc. which never allowed minor matters like lack of evidence to dissuade them from new FISA requests.

Desperate Obama cronies had figured out that they could bypass many of the limitations on the conventional investigations of their political opponents by ‘laundering’ them through national security.

If any of Trump’s people were talking to non-Americans, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) could be used to spy on them. And then the redacted names of the Americans could be unmasked by Susan Rice, Samantha Power and other Obama allies. It was a technically legal Watergate.

If both CNN stories hold up, then Obama Inc. had spied on two Trump campaign leaders.

Greenfield essentially suggests that the Obama team went on a fishing expedition and then couldn’t stop until they found something. Heads should roll over this.

Featured image via YouTube.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Of course none will roll!!

    Matt_SE in reply to mailman. | September 22, 2017 at 11:05 am

    Not with that attitude.
    History has a very simple lesson: citizens get the justice they demand. If you accept corruption, then that’s what you’ll get.

    If your efforts are stymied by a corrupt establishment, then throw them out of office, year after year until they’re gone.

      mailman in reply to Matt_SE. | September 22, 2017 at 12:06 pm

      When was the last time a senior Democrat was ever held to account for their criminal activities. Im not talking about some unknown senator/congressman/minor politician BUT the very top senior Democrats like this woman.

      Simple fact is these guys are untouchable. The propaganda arm of the DNC (the mfm) has seen to that.


          notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Paul. | September 22, 2017 at 9:44 pm

          Thanks to Mike who posted this in his article above.

          I recommend everyone read it.

          “If you want to understand why Samantha Power was unmasking names, that’s why. The hysterical obsession with destroying Trump comes from the top down. It’s not just ideology. It’s wealthy and powerful men and women who ran the country and are terrified that their crimes will be exposed.

          It’s why the media increasingly sounds like the propaganda organs of a Communist country. Why there are street riots and why the internet is being censored by Google and Facebook’s “fact checking” allies.

          It’s not just ideology. It’s raw fear.

          The left is sitting on the biggest crime committed by a sitting president. The only way to cover it up is to destroy his Republican successor.

          A turning point in history is here.”

        Ragspierre in reply to mailman. | September 22, 2017 at 3:01 pm

        IF you’re too ill-informed to ask that question…well.

        How ’bout Mendendez, most currently?


        Congressman Jefforson?

        Going back a bit, Dollar Bill Clinton?

        IF you can’t name any, it’s because you’re either an idiot or pretending to be.

        BTW, where in England are you? Or is it a commonwealth territory?

      MattMusson in reply to Matt_SE. | September 22, 2017 at 4:19 pm

      Baloney. I demanded justice throughout the Clinton years and still nothing has been done.

      We live in a two tiered system of Justice in this country. The Elites in Washington skate.

Pelosi Schmelosi | September 22, 2017 at 10:59 am

The Greenfield article nailed it. This is easily a bigger scandal than Watergate, but the media is complicit so…

And BTW I’m very disappointed that I wasn’t unmasked…MUST.TRY.HARDER…

I agree 100%: read the Greenfield article. It is fantastic.
The only thing he leaves out is probable collusion by the GOPe in protecting certain elements of the conspiracy like the IRS.

regulus arcturus | September 22, 2017 at 11:09 am

Samantha Power is a Harvard academic. That tells you all you need to know.

Bill Buckley’s axiom takes on new, darker meaning with this revelation.

Additional theories are swirling about a larger conspiracy which includes GCHQ, mention of which got Judge Napolitano yanked from Fox News for a short spell last Spring, surveilling on behalf of DOJ and FBI (and possibly others).

So good to keep seeing Obama’s name in the news…for this sort of cr*p, that is. Let the good times roll…and some heads, too!

The reason Sessions won’t investigate is because he already knows who is guilty. I’m increasingly getting the feeling that Sessions was a GOPe ringer inserted into the Trump campaign to ensure that the DoJ wouldn’t do its job.

Which answers a question for me of why an iconoclast Senator like Sessions would back someone like Trump over a colleague like Cruz.

P.S. The GOPe is also suspiciously protective of Sessions remaining in his current position. The last time Trump publicly got angry with Sessions on Twitter, there were a lot of threats thrown around by GOPe Senators if Trump should remove him.

    While the continual flow of actual evidence of actual democrat crimes is sickening, it is not surprising.
    What is stunning is the blatant unwillingness of any Republican to actually take any action regarding the democrats’ crimes. Lots of closed sessions, followed by the Republicans announcing that the democrats are just fine people, without any intent to harm others or do anything wrong. This in the face of Mueller’s blatant fishing expedition, to which there is no effort to bring under control.
    Jeff Sessions: Would any less action against democrats be taken by Eric Holder?
    Trey Gowdy? Just another camera hog who produces no action, like the formerly wonderful Darrell Issa.

      tom swift in reply to Rick. | September 22, 2017 at 4:53 pm

      Professional politicians are in their jobs for the long haul, by definition. They won’t do anything which jeopardizes their own survival prospects.

      We might conjecture that Republicans are concerned that if they pursue Democrats for their crimes when they’re in a position to do so, the Democrats—when the voters put them back in power, as they inevitably will at some future time—will hound the Republicans for their crimes … and if there aren’t any, they’ll make some up. It would take a courageous man to risk unending subjection to Show Trials. They won’t be quite as dramatic or lethal as Stalin’s, but they’ll be ruinous nonetheless. Consider the entirely imaginary Plame affair in the Bush era, but magnified into daily routine. No pro is going to run that sort of personal risk if he can possibly avoid it.

      This, incidentally, is another argument for term limits. If a cushy career near the top of the political ladder simply isn’t possible, then nobody will be tempted to preserve it by steering clear of anything which would annoy the enemy party.

      notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Rick. | September 22, 2017 at 9:02 pm

      RE: “What is stunning is the blatant unwillingness of any Republican to actually take any action regarding the democrats’ crimes….”

      Rick that’s because the GOPe are just as guilty of just as evil of crimes as the Democrats.

    AmandaFitz in reply to Matt_SE. | September 22, 2017 at 4:39 pm

    I’m torn about Sessions and cannot decide if he’s weak because he is an “old school” gentleman or because he’s part of the GOPe. After reading Sidney Powell’s book, “Licensed to Lie, Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice” and seeing so many “investigators,” on the Mueller task force (including Mueller himself), whose behaviors were cited in the book as borderline criminal, I’m wondering why the DOJ itself isn’t investigated. Sessions may be too much “of the system” to even see the violations and to be able to reform it.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Matt_SE. | September 22, 2017 at 9:00 pm

    Sounds as though you’re thinking about the CIA’s “controlled opposition” strategy.

    In it, the CIA puts up “faked conservatives” so the can control things for the Leftist Democrats………..

RICO. If it’s good enough for Operation Rescue, it’s good enough for the Democrats.

No worries, NOTHING will happen! Doesn’t fit dinosaur media’s narrative

Bitterlyclinging | September 22, 2017 at 11:26 am

The Fifth Amendment is a beautiful thing. Samantha will hide behind it, as Lois Lerner did.
There’s an attempted coup coming, Barry cant let President DJT undo all the wonderful work Barry did during his 8 years in office, setting the stage for the Islamic conquest of North America. “The future does not belong to those who slander the Prophet” Obama’s hijrah was only the beginning.

A few observations…

Samantha Power is a terrible, awful, really bad person.

Susan Rice is a terrible, awful, really bad person and an unquestioned liar.

It is being “widely reported” that Samantha Power has “unmasked” hundreds of people (which is only noteworthy…if true…for the number involved, since it’s been done before). That doesn’t make it true (though I suspect it is true).

Much of the reporting by Fox folks is from unnamed sources. I thought that was bad.

Greenfield (who I like, generally) is is “journalist”. His piece is pure polemics and opinion. It is not “reporting”.

“When Trump claimed months ago that his campaign was wiretapped by Obama, liberals in media scoffed.”

That isn’t what he said.

Now, it seems, CNN is an impeccable source.

Additionally, Jeff Sessions…held up by T-rump suckers as THE proof that Der Donald WAS a “conservative” AND that nobody likes Cruz (with whom Sessions worked on important stuff that stopped the Collective)…is now a “GOPe plant”. Which Der Donald was/is too stupid to know. Or too weak a sister to do anything about.


Carry on…

    Just to clarify.

    First, the wording used by Trump, “wiretapping” is irrelevant. There are almost NO cases of physical wiretapping in the US, in this day and age. The NSA monitors all communications from various points [communication nodes and nexuses] outside of a specific target’s home, business or other location. With the Stingray technology, cellular communications can be tapped without even entering the physical network. So, if the federal government was monitoring communications going to and from Trump Tower [which reportedly occurred under the FISA warrant for the server in the Tower] or to and from any Trump associate, it was essentially “wiretapping Trump and his campaign.

    The unmasking, while it infers that it was done for political purposes rather than for a valid national security reason [given the suspected person responsible, Powers] the unmasking is not really the issue here. What is the issue here is the fact that President Obama had expanded the pool of people eligible to view the unmasked names to the point where the security of those names evaporated. As a result they were leaked all over the place.

    Now Jeff Sessions. Sessions is and always was a member of the GOPe and the greater Establishment. One simply does not survive very long in DC unless they toe the Establishment Party line. Sessions became the AG and suddenly went on holiday. he recused himself from the Russia Collusion BS and simply began phoning in his job. He did nothing. When Trump suggested that Sessions might enjoy retirement, suddenly Sessions does something. First he brings in Rosenstein who has Trump fire Comey, something which Trump wanted to do anyway. Then, he appoints Mueller as a SC. Really? what possible advantage could there be to having Mueller investigate Trump? Certainly none for Trump or his agenda. Then to show how he is identifying leakers, he arrests some low-level government employee in Atlanta. I guess they couldn’t find one ni Boise. Since then? Crickets on the leaker front. It is amazing that the DOJ has been unable to i9dentify a single leaker in the DC bureaucracy. How did we ever crush the Mafia. Now, Jeff has moved on to MS13. While laudable, local law enforcement is perfectly capable of identifying and rounding up MS13 members and all the DOJ has to do is deport them.

    The issue with Ted Cruz is that, while identified as a “conservative”, he was still closely linked with the Establishment. He was a close associate of the Bush family, hardly Goldwater conservatives. He has enjoyed a very close association with the global financial establishment through his wife’s employment at Goldman Sacks. His “populist” activities in Congress were fruitless. Similar to the Republican “efforts” to repeal Obamacare, impossible to do when Obama was in the WH and the GOP did not have a super majority to override his vetoes, Cruz’s actions did not stop anything that the Congress wanted to do. Cruz brilliantly positioned himself to cash in on the growing anti-establishment feeling among the electorate, especially Republican voters. Then along came The Donald, the ultimate outsider and knocked Ted out of the box. Trump is not, nor has he ever been, a “conservative”. But, the conservative [whatever that means today] versus liberal ship sailed years ago. Some people are still waiting on the dock for it to return.

    Now, Greenfield is spot on as to the reason for the surveillance, to protect the Obama Administrations and President Obama himself. When you look at what has happened since Comey was fired, it makes perfect sense if it is assumed that the underlying motive is not to “get Trump” but to protect Obama by deflecting potential investigations into Obama Administration activities.

No doubt Greenfield is on target. But … NOTHING will come of it. Attention Jeff Sessions: The feckless phone is ringing, and it’s for you.

(There will be) nothing to see here; move along.

Two words: Cass Sunstein

    regulus arcturus in reply to Daiwa. | September 22, 2017 at 12:48 pm

    What about Cass?

    Other than the fact he is the only sucker blind and dumb enough to marry this dangerously clueless shrew?

People have to understand the environment in DC. It is wholly controlled by the Establishment. And, until the election of Donald Trump, everyone in it was a member of Establishment, or controlled by it. A rogue member of Congress might get elected, from time to time. But, they were powerless to achieve anything and either joined the ranks of the Establishment or exited, state left, at the next election.

So, nothing will happen to Sessions, unless the mass of unwashed deplorables demand it. The Establishment will continue to protect6 its own.

    Ragspierre in reply to Mac45. | September 22, 2017 at 1:14 pm

    “The buck stops here”.

    Harry S. Truman (who was a leader, if a very bad Collectivist).

    Every day Sessions is in office is SOLELY because Mr. Establishment wants him there.

    Rationalize that, T-rump sucker.

      So, exactly WHO is Trump going to replace Sessions with? There is no one in the DOJ or even in DC who isn’t part of the Establishment. Maybe Ted Cruz for AG? Maw, to close to the money. So, who is going to pass muster with an Establishment Senate?

      I’m sure that trump would have fired Session months ago, when he took him to task for phoning in his responsibilities. But, the problem arises, who does he replace him with. trump is not a dictator. He can not simple install anyone he wants into a position. The Senate has to approve his cabinet level appointees.

      Perhaps you should take a moment and review how our federal government works.

        Henry Hawkins in reply to Mac45. | September 22, 2017 at 2:22 pm

        Trump picked the wrong AG, but it isn’t his fault. Trump can’t fire him and fix the mistake, but it isn’t his fault. And so on, and so on.

        Wow, talk about justifying Trump’s poor choice of Sessions for AG. Anytime Trump fails, his supporters immediately conjure excuses for it.

        Do you realize each of these tortured justifications for Trump’s mistakes only serve to further paint him as inept and incapable?

          So, once again, how does Trump fix the AG problem? Who is on your short list for AG who can gain Senate approval? Once you answer that, we can move forward.

          Now, how does one build a wall? It requires money. Where does the President of the United States get money to build the wall? From Congress. So, exactly who is holding up the building of the wall? Try the Republican members of Congress.

          Is Trumps inept? Maybe. He is naive. He also is in the totally unrepresented position of having no party support in DC. No support in Congress. No support in the bureaucracy. No support in the media. So, he is a lot like the last member of the Alamo.

          Ragspierre in reply to Henry Hawkins. | September 22, 2017 at 4:35 pm

          During his lie-fest…er, campaign…he was going to get the money for the wall from “embargoing” transfers of money to Mexico.

          Several of us mocked that bullshit. Several of you T-rump suckers swore it would happen.

          Is he the last man in the Alamo? Well, THAT would likely have been Santa Anna, but he said, “Only I can do it”. Which, if that isn’t the statement of a pathological narcissist, nothing is.

          So far, he’s provided no…as in NONE…leadership. It’s what he ain’t got. Never has had.

          If he’s not a Democrat, and he’s not a Republican, how big a liar is he? He ran as a Republican. He also claimed to be a conservative…even in the mold of Reagan.

          I go back to my previous question. What are YOU…???

          Ragspierre in reply to Henry Hawkins. | September 22, 2017 at 4:46 pm

          “So, once again, how does Trump fix the AG problem? Who is on your short list for AG who can gain Senate approval? Once you answer that, we can move forward.”

          Horseshit, buckwheat.

          First, I’ve hired and fired people. If someone I’d entrusted a job to is NOT performing, they don’t get to stay until I find their replacement. They go.

          Second, Session’s replacement is not the Gordian Knot you’d like to pretend here. Rudy Giuliani, Mike Hucksterbeeeee, any number of AUSAGs, several sitting judges, governors, etc. You’re a fool (who doesn’t understand how the federal goverment works or is preferring to lie) if you don’t think that there are scores of replacements available to Mr. Establishment OR that the AG office would remain long unfilled.

          It’s just more of your T-rump suckery, which is dialed up to 11.

          T-rump LIKES Sessions exactly where he is. And NOTHING contradicts that truth.

          Were you awake when the excrement impacted the rotary oscillater when trump told Session to get back to work? remember the explosion from the Dems, the MSM and many Republicans? And, how many of the people that you mentioned really want to jump into the snake pit that being appointed AG would be? Being Trumps AG is likely to be a career-ender, unless you play the game like Sessions does. Actively go after HRC, the rest of the Clinton family, political criminals and you can never rest easy again.

          Sure, Trump could fire Sessions. He could find another Establishment shill for the job. But, it is unlikely that he would find anyone not acceptable to the Establishment who would make it through the Senate. Look how his more independent appointees fared in the confirmation hearings.

          Well, if we define a conservative as anyone who opposes the liberal/progressives in some areas, then he was as much a conservative as Ted Cruz. Just remember, there are very few ideologue politicians. The staunchest communist politicians somehow seem to become immensely wealthy. The loudest supporters of moral values end up being arrested in a prostitution sting or caught leaving a tryst in a hotel. Politicians are in the business of helping themselves. Never forget that. It is a big mistake to attribute idealistic motivation to them. It will only lead to disappointment.

A small refresher to put things in context.

’08 “the most transparent administration in history” takes office.

’10 complaints start rolling in that the IRS is “slow-walking” conservative groups. Later we find that the IRS-IG confirms they did this and used “inappropriate criteria”. Lois Learner is found to be using an off the books email address in her dogs name to prevent FOIA request from finding her communications. Further Ms. Learner is found to have used I’M to communicate as the records were not retained.

AG Holder was found to have been using a fictitious, off the books email for communications – which, like Ms. Learners, could never be found.

Sec. Jackson was found to be using an off the books email in the name of her dog and she was so proud of her dogs EPA email profile that her agency awarded “him” an ethics award.

Sec. Sebulis was found to be using an off the books email address which like the folks mentioned above kept her information from the media and the public. You can’t FOIA what you don’t know exist.

CIA & DOJ testimoney, this year, let us know that in ’09, ’10, ’12, ’13, ’14 & ’16 the Obama administration was told directly thar Russia was using cyber-warfare to spread propoganda stories and per the Congressional testimoney the WH did nothing. Well, they did have Sec. Clinton present Russia with a “reset” button. Pres. Obama did tell the Russian ambassador to let Putin know after the ’12 election he’d have more “latitude”. Pres. Obama did laugh at Gov. Romney during a ’12 debate when the Gov said, “Russia is our biggest geo-political threat” and good OL’BHO yucked it up by ssying, “Mitt the 80s called and want their policy back”. Pres. Obama did invite Russia to the table in the negotiations to dispose of Syrian chemical weapons and even had them at the table during the Iran Nuclear negotiates! Oh, and Pres. Obama took no appreciable action as Russia took part of the Ukraine.

Sec CLinton didn’t just use and off the books email address she owned the server and her staff had unknown email addresses connected to it. Fact is Sec Clinton had her IT guy appointed to the DOS and while he was being paid by the US Gov he was being paid privately by Sec Clinton and neither one of them disclosed this relationship as required. Further Sec Clinton allowed classified material to be migrated to a non DOS agency (Platte River) that lacked a security contract with the Gov and had not a single employee with a clearance. Although there’s so much more on the Clinton debacle I’ll end with the fact that from that cluster-phuck we learned that Pres. Obama has actually exchanged emails with Sec Clinton through her private server and that like Learner, Holder, Sebulis, Jackson and Clinton good OL’BHO also used an unknown email address that would have kept his communications from FOIA discovery and away from the Pres. Records Act.

Now we have the unmasking and everything associated with it yet the media still pretends BHO was the most honorable, wonderful, magnificent guy ever to hold the office!


The excuse for Samantha Power seems to be that she was a member of the NSC. Has any member of the NSC ever unmasked that many people before? I thought unmasking was supposed to be extremely limited. Anyone know?

MAGA: Make America Gutless Again.

Donald? Your turn to act.

    So, what should Trump do? Trump is not an ideologue. He does not care about the antics of the former administration. His goal is to continue his agenda to boost the US economy and elevate the American worker. That is all he wants to do. All of his actions are geared toward that goal. Once he achieves most of his goals, vis-a-vis the economy, then he may actively address HRC, the rest of the Clinton Cartel, the Obama Administrations, the DC Swamp, etc. Until then, all of these things are simply distractions for him.

    Once you understand what the man’s goals are, his actions, or lack of them, become understandable.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to Mac45. | September 22, 2017 at 2:26 pm

      “Once you understand what the man’s goals are, his actions, or lack of them, become understandable.”

      LOL. All you’ve done is rewritten Trump’s goals for him in order to defend him. Trump’s two main campaign promises were to build the wall and drain the swamp. But you’ve demoted draining the swamp to a distraction and you’ve eliminated building the wall altogether. You ought to be embarrassed.

      Paul in reply to Mac45. | September 22, 2017 at 2:28 pm

      So you’re saying “Lock Her Up!” was just a lie then?

      Ragspierre in reply to Mac45. | September 22, 2017 at 2:32 pm

      “Lock her UP!”


      “He does not care about the antics of the former administration.”

      So you’re admitting he’s a liar who played people for fools.


      AND who’s charged with enforcing the law? POTUS. First and always. He doesn’t have to do it himself. He just has to assure it is done.

      According to you, he can’t.

      Gotcha, again.

        Have any of you ever priorities? Apparently not.

        Trump’s priority has always been the recovery of the American economy. Not being a partisan, he really doesn’t care about payback. I suppose that he could divert his attention from his primary goal to micromanage the investigation and prosecution of HRC right this minute. But, HRC is not going anywhere. HRC is not in a position to influence the course of this nation. Priorities. Give him time, and DJT will eventually get around to everything his constituency wants.

        Trump has done nearly all that he can, unilaterally, to effect the direction of this country and its economy. To move forward, he has to have Congressional assistance. That is NOT going to be forthcoming. Electing DJT to office did not win the war. It was simply the first true victory in the war between the elitist establishment and the common people. There is a battle going on now for the judiciary. This battle has to slide below the radar to offset Congressional opposition. The next big battle, for the common people, is the 2018 elections. In order to progress, we will have to cull out the Establishment stooges. It will probably take several election cycles to do that. In the meantime, DJT has to remain in office.

        You have to understand that Trump, as with most people and virtually all politicians, is not an ideologue. He does not subscribe to a “conservative” or “liberal” ideology. Nor to a Republican or Democrat ideology. He is simply here to fix the broken American dream, starting with the economy. Immigration control helps the economy by releasing jobs to American workers from illegal aliens. It reduces the social welfare support that illegal aliens use. Tax reform benefits the economy which benefits the workers. Healthcare reform, particularly Obamacare repeal, benefits the working man and woman. Renegotiating trade agreements and climate agreements, to make them fairer to America, benefits the American economy which benefits the American worker. Reducing environmental regulation benefits the economy and the American worker. See the common denominator here? That’s right, it’s the economy.

        Get ready for the long haul. Because until the obstructionists are removed from office along with the Quislings in the bureaucracy, things are going to be bogged down. And, that is the point. The Establishment wants to bable to point to the fact that trump was not able to accomplish things that require support from those actively working against him and his agenda.

          Ragspierre in reply to Mac45. | September 22, 2017 at 4:56 pm

          “Because until the obstructionists are removed from office…”

          This is where you prove yourself completely delusional.

          Luther Strange is McConnell’s boy in Alabama. Mr. Establishment’s, too. Campaigning for him, in fact.

          Mr. Establishment ENDORSED John McAnus…and every other incumbent. You think that’s going to magically reverse>

          You are certifiable.

          Mac45 in reply to Mac45. | September 22, 2017 at 5:05 pm

          You really don’t understand what the last election was all about, do you. Trump did not run as the leader of any party or group. He ran on the platform of attempting to do certain specific things for the nation. He has no interest in leading a revolution, or even a political party. When his term(s) is up, he will not attempt to continue to be a leader in politics. He will go back to being a real estate mogul. He will endorse anyone who he feels will help him advance his agenda. That is why he endorsed McCain and was nice to Ryan. This is naive, but not unexpected from someone from outside the political swamp. He expected the Republican Party to back him up, as the rank and file membership of the party endorsed him as their candidate.

          If people want the revolution to continue, they are going to have to get off their butts and find like minded candidates to run for office and support them at the polls. Nobody is going to do the job for you.

          Ragspierre in reply to Mac45. | September 22, 2017 at 5:33 pm

          Such Strange behavior.

          So much delusional bullshit.

          Just damn…

      Ragspierre in reply to Mac45. | September 22, 2017 at 2:46 pm

      “Trump is not, nor has he ever been, a “conservative”. But, the conservative [whatever that means today] versus liberal ship sailed years ago. Some people are still waiting on the dock for it to return.”

      Say, Mac, since you admit you are not a conservative and don’t even know what one is…

      1. define for us here what you ARE, and

      2. explain your role here on a conservative legal blog (which is not to say you can’t post here, but it would be nice to know your real POV.)

        Let’s start by defining a “conservative”. Let’s take a look at a few “conservative” Presidents shall we?

        Ronald Reagan was not a Goldwater Conservative, which was the standard for conservatism at the time he was elected. He governed as a conservative moderate in foreign and fiscal matters, but was a liberal moderate in terms of social issues. He is now heralded as the quintessential conservative. GHW Bush was much the same. GW Bush was again similar. None of them were what could be considered true conservatives in the Goldwater mold. So, what constitutes a conservative? It seems that the traditional lines between conservative and liberal/progressive have been blurred extensively.

        Then we have individual “conservatives”. Their position on the current issues tend to be all over the map. Fiscal conservatives can be social liberals. And then the degree of “conservative” viewpoint varies considerably. The only thing that seems to define a modern conservative is a general opposition to modern liberals.

        So what am I? I view myself as a traditionalist. I have traditional views on most issues. Low taxes, the most individual freedom consistent with the well being of the rest of society, fiscal responsibility, and the rule of law. I also strongly adhere to the use of common sense. What I do not do is label myself as part of a group which changes its positions and membership constantly.

        Finally, the election of DJT was not a contest between conservatism and liberalism. It was the contest between Establishmentism and anti-Establishmentism. Like it or not, Trump was the only political outsider in the race. Even the self proclaimed conservative candidates were members of the Establishment, all of them. Some were more liberal or conservative than others, but they would all have towed the Establishment line, if elected.

        So, what kind of a conservative are you? Goldwater, Reagan, Bush 41 or 43, Cruz, Jeb Bush. McCain, Graham? They all ran as conservatives.

        Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | September 22, 2017 at 5:23 pm

        You don’t get to define what a conservative is after disclaiming knowing what one is.

        Plus, fluck your categorizations.

        But, to answer you directly…

        I’m the kind of conservative who makes marriage vows and keeps them.

        I’m the kind of conservative who volunteered (after any chance of being drafted) and served in uniform honorably. I didn’t seek deferments, and I never equated avoiding STDs with service in Vietnam.

        I’m the kind of conservative who makes contracts and keeps them. I don’t lie, steal OR cheat.

        I’m the kind of conservative who would never dream of making up an alter-ego, partly to flak my conquests.

        I’m the kind of conservative who does not, never has, and would never brag about how women allow me to touch them.

        I’m the kind of conservative who believes in free people making choices and dealing with the consequences. I’m a free market guy, and I don’t believe any billionaire has any right to tell me who I may or may not trade with.

        In keeping with that, I don’t believe in Keynesian economics. I know them to be false and stupid.

        I really am a small government guy, and not like your Mr. Establishment, who chose to swim in the cesspool of New York City as a thorough=going, fully crap-tac-ular member of the Establishment, full dues paid up to Deemocrats until his campaign conversion.

        I suppose you stand…with your cult member “he’s anti-Establishment”…delusions as a warning for all sane people.

        “This way lieth madness…”

“.. liberals in media scoffed.”

Some evidence of this claim