Deep State Boasts: We’re Sabotaging Trump from the Inside

deep state boasts

By William F. Jasper   The New American   December 31, 2017

In a recent pre-Christmas interview with C-SPAN, Roger Stone, a former adviser to President Trump, dropped a bombshell: Members of President Trump’s own Cabinet are plotting to remove him. According to Stone, his sources within the administration say administration officials have discussed invoking the 25th Amendment to boot the president out of office.

Stone’s sensational charges came only a few days after top members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), commonly known as “the American establishment,” crowed that operatives of the “Deep State” (their fellow CFR members) inside the Trump administration are writing and deciding policy contrary to President Trump’s announced agenda.

Writing for the CFR’s website on December 18, CFR Senior Fellow Max Boot commented on President Trump’s recently issued National Security Strategy (NSS), describing it as a “cri du coeur [cry of the heart] from inside the Deep State signaling to the outside world that Trumpian thinking has not entirely taken over the U.S. government.” Max Boot was joined by CFR President Richard Haass and CFR Senior Fellow for Global Governance Stewart M. Patrick, both of whom also penned articles triumphantly announcing that except for a few noxious “Trumpian” notions, the Trump NSS actually reinforces the internationalist schemes that the CFR one-worlders have labored (successfully) to insinuate into our official governing doctrines and operations. Of course, President Trump’s rejection of the UN Paris Climate Accord and his NSS repudiation of President Obama’s anti-energy regulations (which we covered here) get brickbats from the CFR critics. But most notable in their articles is their overwhelmingly positive reaction (one could even describe it as gleeful delight) to Trump’s NSS, as reflecting deliberate sabotage by Deep State veterans inside the administration undermining the president’s stated objectives. We will return to look more closely at these stunning admissions, but first let’s direct our attention at the aforementioned C-SPAN interview with Roger Stone.

“Do you have any evidence that anyone is actively plotting or attempting or laying the groundwork right now inside the Cabinet — inside the administration — to make that removal?” Associated Press reporter Tom LoBianco asked Stone. LoBianco also asked Stone if he would name the Cabinet members who have been party to these discussions, which Stone declined to do.

“I have sources, and I work my sources, and yes, I believe there are some who have had this discussion. This is both outside the Cabinet and in. I think it’s the fallback plan for the establishment. That’s why I’m trying to sound the clarion call,” Stone replied. Stone did say that he may name names at the appropriate time.

Coup Plotters and Saboteurs

The “establishment” to which Stone refers has been leaving very big clues ever since Donald Trump’s election that they intend to remove him from the White House “by any means necessary.” Edward Klein, the best-selling author and former editor-in-chief of the New York Times Magazine, covers much of the vicious campaign against the president in his most recent book, All Out War: The Plot to Destroy Trump. However, typical of many conservative critiques, Klein focuses on the anti-Trump attacks coming from the Left: Hollywood, the “mainstream” media, Obama, Clinton, Soros-funded “Resistance” groups, Antifa, etc. The real threat to the Trump presidency — as well as to America’s constitutional rule of law — comes from the “establishment” groups that provide support, direction, and credibility to all of these leftwing attack dogs — and, at the same time, labor inside the Trump administration to weaken and overthrow it.

For nearly a century, the Council on Foreign Relations has been the pre-eminent Brain Trust and guiding hand of powerful internationalists promoting plans for concentrating global wealth and power under a world government. This government would require a ruling class, right? And the CFR “wise men” (as they smugly refer to themselves) stand ready to “serve” as a planetary oligarchy. The CFR’s elite membership, which now numbers slightly over five thousand (according to its 2017 Annual Report), includes 517 members “serving” in government, as well as 334 from “media and news services,” 759 from “financial Institutions” (read Wall Street “Too Big To Fail” mega-banks), 959 from “non-profit and international organizations” (read tax exempt foundations and activist NGOs), and 1,096 from “education” (read Marxist-globalist university professors).

Left-wing journalist and CFR member Richard Rovere described the CFR as “a sort of Presidium for that part of the Establishment that guides our destiny as a nation.” As a member of the Communist Party during the 1930s, and a lifelong ultra-leftist, it is telling that he would choose the term “Presidium” (i.e., the dictatorial oligarchy that ran the Soviet Union) to describe the organization to which he belonged. Another notorious CFR leftist, Richard J. Barnet, wrote in his 1972 book, Roots of War, that “failure to be asked to be a member of the Council has been regarded for a generation as a presumption of unsuitability for high office in the national security bureaucracy.” Barnet served as an aide to Wall Street banking insider and presidential adviser John J. McCloy, the longtime CFR chairman who was also known as “the Chairman of the American Establishment.” (Barnet was also a co-founder of the Institute for Policy Studies, IPS, a Marxist “think tank” that colluded with the Soviet KGB, the Cuban DGI, and other communist intelligence services.) Barnet’s evaluation is nonetheless true: The CFR has gained a lock-hold on the federal government — most especially the executive branch — and they have become very effective at assuring that opponents of their internationalist vision are prevented from attaining high office — or are soon weeded out. We have now added a couple more generations onto the organization’s growing control since CFR member Barnet made that statement back during the administration of Richard Nixon.

“Cri du Coeur [Cry of the Heart] From Inside the Deep State”

CFR Senior Fellow Max Boot makes an amazing admission (and sends a signal to fellow globalists) in his assessment of President Trump’s NSS, titled “Trump Security Strategy a Study in Contrasts.” “The president’s first national security strategy eloquently sums up the U.S. role in the world and what should be done to defend it, but much of the document is at odds with what the president himself believes,” says Boot, in his opening sentence.

“The NSS, as written, is mostly fine,” says Boot, an evaluation that undoubtedly surprised many readers. “In many places it is better than fine, an eloquent summation of the United States’ role in the world and a principled exposition of what should be done to defend it,” he continued. In the next breath, however, he explains the present conflict. “But it suffers from a debilitating credibility gap insofar as much of what it says is at odds with what the president himself believes. It might best be understood as a cri du coeur from inside the Deep State signaling to the outside world that Trumpian thinking has not entirely taken over the U.S. government, and that some influential public servants remain dedicated to the vision of U.S. global leadership enunciated after World War II.”

According to Boot, the Trump NSS “reveals an administration in conflict between the isolationist, protectionist impulses of the president and the more traditional, internationalist beliefs of his senior aides.”

Who Wrote the Trump NSS?

Boot notes: “The principal authors of this NSS are the national security advisor, Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster, and senior National Security Council staffer Nadia Schadlow — both conservatives who could easily have staffed a Jeb Bush administration.” Both “conservatives”? By whose definition? Boot neglects to mention that both McMaster and Schadlow are members of his internationalist club, the CFR. Surely, that was a mere oversight on Boot’s part.

Boot continues: “They have tried to smuggle as much of their own foreign policy thinking into the NSS as possible while still paying ritual obeisance to Trump’s America First rhetoric. Remarkably, given that this is the administration of a president at odds with decades of foreign policy thinking, much of the NSS reads as if it could have been issued by any of Trump’s immediate predecessors.”

According to the CFR’s Max Boot, McMaster, Schadlow, and other internationalists in the Trump administration are not to be criticized, but, rather, congratulated for acting as a 5th Column, thwarting, subverting, and sabotaging their president’s agenda.

“In fairness,” says Boot, “the actual policies of the administration have often been closer to those propounded in the NSS than the ones that Trump seems to believe in. That is a tribute to the success that McMaster and other officials have had in preventing the president from acting on some of his most extreme instincts.” “But the very tension between the president and his advisors” leaves it unclear, says Boot, “if the president will act in accordance with his America First impulses or defer to the internationalist vision of his aides.”

What is perfectly clear is that Max Boot is rooting for the internationalists. That is not a surprise, since besides being a fulltime CFR propagandist, he has been one of the most vociferous “Republican” Trump haters. Readers may recall that Boot said he would vote for Hillary Clinton or mass-murdering communist dictator Josef Stalin rather than Donald Trump!

“I would sooner vote for Josef Stalin than Donald Trump” he told the New York Times in a March 2016 interview. “There is no way in hell I would vote for him. I would far more readily support Hillary Clinton,” Boot added. Those are but a few of his “Never Trump” statements. But he went further than that, actually joining up with uber-Left Hollywood actor/director Rob Reiner (“Meathead” from All in the Family), former American Enterprise Institute’s Norman Ornstein (CFR) and The Atlantic’s David Frum, and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper (a CFR guest lecturer who should be in prison for lying under oath before a congressional committee) to attack Trump through their newly formed Committee to Investigate Russia. So there are pretty good grounds for seeing Max Boot as something less than objective when it comes to Donald Trump.

CFR President Richard Haass’s comments on the CFR website about the Trump NSS report are actually a short piece he did for Axios, the liberal-left internet media platform launched with the aid of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (A CFR corporate member) and Laurene Powell Jobs (CFR), the billionaire widow of Apple founder Steve Jobs. Titled, “Trump’s national security strategy is at odds with his own priorities,” the Haass piece, like Max Boot’s, criticizes Trump’s “America First” rhetoric, but celebrates the fact that internationalist sappers in the administration seem to be prevailing on many fronts. Haass offers this summation: “The bottom line: For all that Trump’s NSS stresses its break from tradition, it also departs from many of his own policies and professed opinions.” (For a sampling of Richard Haass’s attacks on national sovereignty and promotion of “global governance,” see here.)

Stewart M. Patrick, the CFR’s Senior Fellow for Global Governance, penned a critique of Trump’s NSS titled “Trump’s National Security Strategy: Sovereignty on Steroids.” In the CFR lexicon, “national sovereignty” is anathema, one of those atavistic artifacts that must be permanently interred. However, like comrades Boot and Haass, he sees much silver lining in the Trump NSS storm clouds — thanks, of course, to the CFR internationalists who are “moderating” Trump’s America First impulses.

“Considering how destabilizing Donald J. Trump’s foreign policy has been over the past year, the National Security Strategy (NSS) the White House released on Monday is surprisingly moderate,” Patrick avers. “Written under the direction of clear-eyed National Security Advisor H. R. McMaster, it frames ‘America First’ as compatible with U.S. global leadership, promotion of human rights, support for fair trade, and engagement with international institutions. After its nationalist preamble (which may be as far as the President got), much of the document reads like its several post–Cold War predecessors.”

Ah, yes, Mr. McMaster; all the one-worlders are singing his praises. These citations above are but a few of the many clues that H.R. McMaster, Nadia Schadlow, and many other CFR members and veteran internationalists at the top levels of the Trump administration are likely to be among those having “conversations” about removing President Trump. They are also, very likely, the sources for many critical leaks to the media that have been used to undermine the president. President Trump has received very bad advice with many of these appointments, and he would do well to employ his “You’re Fired!” signature exclamation to a large number of them — before they succeed in carrying out their coup against him.

Original article can be read here