“God bless the ‘deep state’” is the title of an op-ed written by Pulitzer Prize-winning Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson praising the efforts of the “Deep State” to frustrate the actions of President Donald Trump.

“God bless them,” Robinson (shown) wrote in his column for Friday. “With a supine Congress unwilling to play the role it is assigned by the Constitution, the deep state stands between us and the abyss.”

“The abyss”? Just how bad does Robinson think Trump is? The title of another of his recent columns is “Trump can’t make America white again,” wherein he claims that that “racism is a feature of the Trump administration, not a bug.”

Of course, if one actually reads the Constitution, one finds three branches of government listed — the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. The president is the chief executive officer of the U.S. government, and as such he is over the executive branch, which includes the personalities in the Deep State. The president is specifically mentioned in the Constitution, but nothing is said about the CIA, the FBI, the NSA, or any other intelligence agency. In short, they have no constitutional role to subvert the actions of the president, but instead serve at his pleasure.

Just who is meant by the term “the Deep State?”

The “Deep State” is defined by bestselling author Jerome Corsi in his new book Killing the Deep State: The Fight to Save President Trump as including the intelligence agencies such as the FBI, CIA, and the NSA. He charges that these agencies have targeted Trump with a virtual coup d’état attempt. (Representative Steve Cohen, a Democrat from Tennessee, actually suggested a military coup against Trump in a Tweet last week: “Where are our military folks? The Commander in Chief is in the hands of our enemy!”). Corsi said this “shadow government” operates secretly with the willing cooperation of a corporate-owned and government-controlled mainstream media.

Regardless of who is president, individuals in the “Deep State” usually continue to hold their jobs, and they tend to regard a president such as Trump who does not share their views as a mere temporary occupant of the White House. As such, they just continue on the path of advancing their globalist agenda.

Robinson, of course, hates Trump and views the Deep Staters who are blocking his agenda and even conspiring to get him removed from office as patriots. These Deep Staters believe, or at least say that they believe, that Russian President Vladimir Putin, in Robinson’s words, “helped [Trump] beat Hillary Clinton.”

No evidence has been presented that any actions taken by the Russian government changed one vote in the last presidential election, and certainly no evidence that Trump and Putin colluded to defeat Democrat Hillary Clinton.

Ample evidence does exist, however, that the same “Deep State” that is being blessed by Robinson for opposing Trump now was quite active before the election, working against Trump. According to Corsi, Representative Peter King (R-N.Y.), a member of the House Intelligence Committee, “was among the first to insist that CIA Director John Brennan was responsible for orchestrating a ‘hit job’ against president-elect Donald Trump.” He did this, King said, by “leaking information to the press suggesting that Russia was behind the hack of Clinton chairman John Podesta.”

Corsi added that Brennan was a CIA “handler” for candidate Barack Obama in 2008. He was, in fact, an advisor on intelligence and foreign policy for Obama’s presidential campaign. After a stint as Obama’s deputy security advisor for homeland security and counterterrorism, Brennan was tapped for the CIA directorship in 2013. In short, Brennan is a partisan Democrat, though he did vote for the Communist Party candidate for president in 1976. It was Brennan, according to Corsi, who persisted in pushing the “Russian collusion” meme against the Trump campaign.

Despite this obvious bias for the Democrats and against Trump by Brennan and other figures in the “Deep State,” Robinson gushes with praise for them, implying they are motivated only by a deep love of country.

But Robinson’s own Washington Post reported recently that intelligence officials work around matters involving Russia when briefing President Trump, sometimes “leaving him out of the loop.” As the duly-elected president is the person empowered by the Constitution to conduct foreign policy in the executive branch, not unelected “intelligence officials,” one must ask just who are the disloyal actors here?

Yet, to hear Robinson tell it, these “Deep State” individuals somehow believe they have a duty to prevent Trump from carrying out his foreign policy, which includes seeking a better relationship with a nation that has nuclear weapons.

He concludes his column with a question: “But what if the president does not serve the best interests of the nation?” Of course, this is a subjective question. I don’t think Obama — or for that matter, the Bushes and Clinton — served the best interests of the nation. Robinson thinks Obama did serve the nation’s best interests, I presume. I certainly don’t think what happened in Benghazi was serving the best interest of our nation.

To resolve such differences of opinion, we have something called elections. Trump won one in 2016, and we have another one scheduled for 2020.

But Robinson seems to be offering an alternative to the ballot box: “In this emergency, the loyal and honorable deep state has a higher duty.”

A “higher duty” to what? The New World Order?

Photo of Eugene Robinson: AP Images