Doubts on Deep State Dispelled by New York Times, but doubts about "Anonymous" Linger

In March of 2017, New York Times columnist, Max Fisher, wrote an article stating that the “deep state” was not real, and implied there would be real consequences for blaming the Trump’s administrative problems on the deep state if it does not exist. (What Happens When You Fight a ‘Deep State’ That Doesn’t Exist? – March 10, 2017). Unfortunately, the reality today is that either the New York Times were in error before when they published propagandist Fisher, or they are wrong now. Nevertheless, since the Times hired Sarah Jeong, whose racist tweets ("Oh man it's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men.") may have secured her the spot on their editorial board, and since the Leftist narrative against President Donald Trump has escalated, one may conclude the editors decided to risk presenting a portion of the truth of the Deep State to the public to hurt the old white man in the White House.

Leftist/Marxist publication

This represents yet another example of a Leftist/Marxist publication (it makes no matter how much tradition is behind the Times) caught in previous attempts of deception, or denial of reality, or outright omission of coverage (too numerous to count). If such a blatant reversal of perspective is not enough for the average citizen to distrust the mainstream media, there are perhaps thousands of examples of how deceptive the MSM is when advancing an agenda as opposed to reporting the news. With regard to the New York Times, one must remember that it is only the news “that’s fit to print” that matters. Such media moguls would hope that average Americans still believe that only the elitists have the intelligence or “wisdom” to determine the news that is “fit to print” or disseminate to the masses. The intelligent question American citizens should be asking is who are the ones who sit in the city citadels of propaganda and determine in their elitist wisdom all the news that is “fit to print,” or to disseminate to the mindless peasants. Wolf Blitzer recently reacted to a Trump statement that had been distorted, regarding whether the media is the enemy of the people. Blitzer attempted to make a rebuttal stating that the media is not the enemy of the people. It was similar to a point emphasized by Jeff Mason, past President of the White House Correspondents Association, in 2017 at the Correspondents Dinner: “We are not fake news. We are not failing news organizations. And we are not the enemy of the American people.” Yet, despite how much MSM apologists would like to believe in their self-importance and value within American society, we the people are the ones who should have the final word on whether we buy the lie. When considered at face value, it is ludicrous to think that the British Crown could have dictated to the American colonists what to think, as they were systematically destroying colonists rights as British citizens. It is absurd to think that anyone’s enemy could dictate whether or not they are viewed as the enemy. The American people are the ones who should have the final word on that, and despite whether the media moguls want to face reality or wallow in denial, they are the enemy.

---

Positive treatment of the “resistance” in the Trump Administration only provides a further demonstration that the MSM has “sided with the enemy.”

The Times story reveals another kind of enemy to America, and the positive treatment of the “resistance” in the Trump Administration only provides a further demonstration that the MSM has “sided with the enemy.” One simple way to look at the revelation in the news is to question how the story would have been covered if it had happened in former President Obama”s Administration. The simple answer would be that it would have been covered quite differently, to say the least. Especially, for someone so thin-skinned as Barack Obama, the MSM would have arisen en-masse to decry the traitor in the White House. The Left would have circled the wagons if such a dangerous intrusion had been made into the Obama White House. From an objective viewpoint, all American citizens should be concerned if there truly is resistance within the Trump Administration because in the very least, it represents a clear and present danger to the president, and on a more extreme level, it can reveal seeds of treason. All of the federal employees swear an oath of allegiance to the U.S. Constitution according to chapter 33 of title 5, United States Code:

An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: “I, ———-, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

The oath of office for federal employees originates from the Constitution. Article VI has a requirement that all government officials in the military, and in the states, “shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution.” This requirement was passed by the very first Congress. It means that someone who has sworn this oath can believe in their allegiance to the Constitution, or they swore the oath under the deliberate purpose of evasion. Either way, for “Anonymous” to come out of the closet, it means he, she, or they will be serious enough to carry out actions against a sitting president, who is also sworn to to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

---

Support Canada Free Press

---

Has America come full circle to this point of divided allegiance?

Many people may be shocked that this condition exists at this point in America’s history. But such actions have been taken before. While most American history books regarding the era of America’s Civil War do not delve too deeply into the treasonous activity in the White House prior to Abraham Lincoln’s swearing his oath of office, treason occurred -- it was just never dealt with properly. Immediately after taking office in 1861, newly- elected President Abraham Lincoln, found that he had inherited the greatest challenge of any previous American president to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” It is a bit eerie that current wording of the oaths for federal employees dates back to the American Civil War. This originated in 1862 when the U.S. Congress demanded what was then known as the Ironclad Test Oath. It was administered in two parts, and the first part included a type of vetting that required people to affirm that they had not been, nor were they presently supporting the Confederate States of America. Secondly, people had to swear a public oath of future accountability. Has America come full circle to this point of divided allegiance? Certainly, the party of the Confederacy is the same political party today that takes a very dim view of solemnly supporting and defending the U.S. Constitution. It seems to be in their political DNA. In the time when the Democrat Party of the South transitioned into the Confederate States of America, they were also committed to doing whatever it took to resist Abraham Lincoln because he appeared to be the seminal threat to their “fiefdoms” in the South. In like manner, a president who has publically sworn to drain the swamp in Washington, DC, has become a seminal threat to the swamp creatures who reside there. In this time, it is not about a Confederacy, it is not about Democrats or Republicans, or Yankees and Rebels. In this time, one’s allegiance to the Constitution means allegiance to the ideals, principles, and values that were enshrined in the Constitution. And, it does not matter whether someone has publicly sworn to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States,” it matters whether the person understands the oath enough to realize that one's loyalty may not be misplaced to equate with loyalty to future fame, or guaranteed glory, or promised wealth or power. If there are those in the resistance who have misplaced loyalties, or within the Deep State, who seek to disrupt the U.S. government as it has emerged from the legitimate elections of 2016, such individuals may want to carefully consider their actions before they commit treason because such actions will not be tolerated by those who love the Constitution and love the U.S.A.