According to an anonymous author of a New York Times editorial President Trump is erratic, prone to anger and a clear and present danger to the Republic. His leadership style is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective. But don’t worry the author writes; along with other like-minded people inside the administration they are actively thwarting the President and his efforts at every turn. Well except when he is doing what they want and the author readily takes credit for any successes achieved so far. I guess The President doing exactly what he promised voters he’d do on the campaign trail is ineffective to the author.

There is no Deep State we are assured but rather a Steady State looking out for us, which by definition actually corroborates the entirety of the whole Deep State narrative. Unelected members of the administration appointing themselves to run the show is not how this is supposed to work.

The arrogance of the author is breathtaking.

Don’t worry we are actively stopping the duly elected President of The United States from doing his job but we’re doing the things that we like and we think need to be done. In fact the author explains there is a “two-track Presidency” and I would agree. You have an elected one and now we are able to confirm with some certainty, an unelected one running roughshod over the country.

The author details that early on there were whispers in the cabinet and considerations given to the 25th Amendment to remove The President from office- if that were true then what the hell are you doing writing secret articles for the New York Times? I’m sorry, but isn’t that the only question that leaps to mind.

Anonymous however defends the feckless inaction as noble as to avoid a “Constitutional crisis.” Crisis, what crisis? Triggering the 25th Amendment would not be a Constitutional crisis but actually following the Constitution as ratified. Doing what is spelled out is why we have a Constitution but that is of no concern to the author it seems.

Doing nothing is not an option we learn because this group of self-appointed saviors has taken flight to defend the nation against the worst ‘impulses’ of the man in the Oval Office. Did these unelected, unaccountable xxxxxx consider the result of their impulses? I doubt it.

In one passage we read; “It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans should know there are adults in the room. We fully recognize what is happening. And we are trying to do what’s right even when Donald Trump won’t. The impertinence to the voters and the nation is galling.

Again; if things are really this bad and this dangerous then by God stand up and be heard man. If you are the Patriot you clearly fancy yourself to be throughout the self-righteous commentary then why are you hiding in the shadows?

Instead of coming clean and making themselves known for the preservation of The Union the author instead lets us know the “adults in the room” have it all taken care of. They are taking care of important policy matters like free trade, cutting taxes and more importantly they are gallantly defending “our Democratic institutions.” How are they doing that exactly? By undermining the President, The Presidency and The Constitution it seems. Talk about cold comfort.

So the “adults” in the room have decided we are told they know what is best for the rest of us peasants. In a 3 rd world nation this kind of notion has a name; it’s called a coup. Others would certainly refer to this behavior as treason. I believe that would be an accurate assessment all things considered.

If we accept the article at face value it is a dark day for America and a dark day for journalism too. It is one thing for newspapers, magazines and television news programs to use anonymous sources to substantiate stories that otherwise would not get published or broadcast. It is something quite different for The New York Times to elevate anonymous sources to become part of its editorial staff to write Op- Ed pieces.

The problems for the New York Times are myriad.

The Times allowed its disgust and anger with the current administration to override editorial guidelines and give an anonymous author free-reign to do a self-serving smear job on the office of The President of The United States.

There are literally hundreds of so-called senior administration officials that could be behind the hit piece and that is very problematic. Readers have no idea what ax this writer may have to grind or any part of the backstory for that matter. Why is this person feeling so entitled to usurp the powers of The President and then given an audience to do a self-congratulatory lap around the swamp? Unelected bureaucrats think they are actually the ones in charge. This is treasonous be definition.

I am having a difficult time figuring out which is worse; the reckless behavior of the author or the reckless behavior of The New York Times allowing them to have an anonymous platform to brag about their exploits.

I find the actions of the author and The New York Times to reflect great cowardice. It seems both are afraid to be completely honest with their fellow Americans and one must wonder why?