by William Skink

After Trump’s shocking election, his supporters claimed a “deep state” was working against his efforts to enact policy, like removing troops from Syria. The idea of a deep state was at first mocked and ridiculed, but an interesting phenomenon at the New York Times has occurred over the years.

Thanks to the German blogger who runs Moon of Alabama, the transformation of the New York Times from dismissing that a deep state exists to embracing this deep state is well documented.

Here is how b ends his post:

If the deep state is allowed to make its own policies against the will of the elected officials why should we bother with holding elections?

The Democrats are stupid to applaud this and to even further these schemes. They are likely to regain the presidency in 2024. What will they do when all the Civil Service functionaries Trump will have installed by then organize to ruin their policies?

Personally, I think Trump is a terrible, dangerous president, but unlike those who have come down with TDS, I don’t think the ends justify the means in taking him out.

Democrats seem to have taken a Vietnam-era mentality that in order to save America from Trump the results of an election need to be destroyed by unelected military personnel and the technocrats of the permanent state.