Is The NYT Op-Ed Fiasco Really An Attack On Trump, Or Is It An Attack On “Q”?

The NYT really struck a cord with President Trump, and now he’s livid about this “anonymous” source, but was the op-ed really an attack on Trump?

Editor’s Note: This is an op-ed about an op-ed.


A New York Times opinion piece on the “resistance” from within the Trump Administration has dominated the news since late yesterday afternoon.

For those who have not read it, it’s called I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration, here it is from this “anonymous” member of the Administration as it was released in the NYT:

I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration

President Trump is facing a test to his presidency unlike any faced by a modern American leader.

It’s not just that the special counsel looms large. Or that the country is bitterly divided over Mr. Trump’s leadership. Or even that his party might well lose the House to an opposition hellbent on his downfall.

The dilemma — which he does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.

I would know. I am one of them.

To be clear, ours is not the popular “resistance” of the left. We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous.

But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.

That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office.

The root of the problem is the president’s amorality. Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making.

Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people. At best, he has invoked these ideals in scripted settings. At worst, he has attacked them outright.

In addition to his mass-marketing of the notion that the press is the “enemy of the people,” President Trump’s impulses are generally anti-trade and anti-democratic.

Don’t get me wrong. There are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more.

But these successes have come despite — not because of — the president’s leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective.

From the White House to executive branch departments and agencies, senior officials will privately admit their daily disbelief at the commander in chief’s comments and actions. Most are working to insulate their operations from his whims.

Meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails, he engages in repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back.

“There is literally no telling whether he might change his mind from one minute to the next,” a top official complained to me recently, exasperated by an Oval Office meeting at which the president flip-flopped on a major policy decision he’d made only a week earlier.

The erratic behavior would be more concerning if it weren’t for unsung heroes in and around the White House. Some of his aides have been cast as villains by the media. But in private, they have gone to great lengths to keep bad decisions contained to the West Wing, though they are clearly not always successful.

It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans should know that 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 result is a two-track presidency.

Take foreign policy: In public and in private, President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, and displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded nations.

Astute observers have noted, though, that the rest of the administration is operating on another track, one where countries like Russia are called out for meddling and punished accordingly, and where allies around the world are engaged as peers rather than ridiculed as rivals.

On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant to expel so many of Mr. Putin’s spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with Russia, and he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior. But his national security team knew better — such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable.

This isn’t the work of the so-called deep state. It’s the work of the steady state.

Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president. But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until — one way or another — it’s over.

The bigger concern is not what Mr. Trump has done to the presidency but rather what we as a nation have allowed him to do to us. We have sunk low with him and allowed our discourse to be stripped of civility.

Senator John McCain put it best in his farewell letter. All Americans should heed his words and break free of the tribalism trap, with the high aim of uniting through our shared values and love of this great nation.

We may no longer have Senator McCain. But we will always have his example — a lodestar for restoring honor to public life and our national dialogue. Mr. Trump may fear such honorable men, but we should revere them.

There is a quiet resistance within the administration of people choosing to put country first. But the real difference will be made by everyday citizens rising above politics, reaching across the aisle and resolving to shed the labels in favor of a single one: Americans.

Now, one read and this is obviously MSM Deep State propaganda.

And the piece has drawn criticism from “both sides of the isle” as well as the LA Times.

But, what if this wasn’t really an attack on President Trump, but an attack and/or set-up of “Q”?

Why do I ask that?

Well, what is the MSM most worried about?

The alternative media.

And who thrust onto the scene less than one year ago and has amassed a massive following probably quicker than any other person or entity has ever amassed before?


As in Qanon.

As in the anonymous person or group either in with, or in very close ties to, the President.

There are many people who blindly follow “Q” without ever questioning a single “Q” drop, but there are also people who think “Q” is an elaborate psy-op, or “hope porn”, and some even think “Q” is an elaborate marketing campaign strategy with the purpose of getting President Trump re-elected in 2020.

Has “Q” woken people up?


But we basically knew about all of the evil nastiness done by the Deep State, the globalists and the satanic “elite” that “Q” drops are about anyway, albeit it is now provided with a cult-like coded detail that was before lacking, just for the alt-media researchers to research to their hearts’ content.

Yet all of these evil Traitors still walk free.

The standard argument as to why the mass arrests haven’t happened yet is “it would be too much of a shock to the American people”.

Would it?

We’ve had lot’s of shocks, and we have always come out just fine, and change is good, especially if it is for the better.

But I digress.

If you do not know who or what “Q” is, we have presented many pro and anti “Q” positions over the last several months when “Q” first burst onto the scene.

It’s like all of the sudden having this ISIS, right?

I was fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq, but all of the sudden there was a new group – ISIS.

Weird how these groups, whether they are overt, covert, anonymous, cyber, or real, just pop onto the scene and dominate all of the headlines – ISIS in the mainstream, “Q” in the alt-media.

Who created ISIS?

It’s rhetorical.

Who created “Q”?


Back on track.

What if the NYT editorial wasn’t an attack on the President at all, but rather, an attack on “Q”?

Why wasn’t it an attack on the President?

Well, let’s ask ourselves what can President Trump really accomplish over the next two years, assuming he is a good guy?

After nearly two years in, the President has chosen to be surrounded by, both in his cabinet and influencing him, corrupt swamp creatures and deep staters galore (apologists say it’s keeping your friends close and your enemies closer), so to the extent that the President can accomplish something, it will get the Deep State seal of approval, and the NYT would not be against that, seeing as how they are one of the tools in the propaganda arm of the Deep State.

Furthermore, here’s a question: If the President has already made America Great Again, which he says he did, then why can’t he have a cabinet and an administration without the DC swamp creatures and Deep State? If America is great again, and again, his words, not mine, then he doesn’t need to have these corrupt, evil people all around him.

Moving on.

The President does have fierce supporters, and now, after this NYT boondoggle, even those on the “left” are calling out the NYT for this one.

And the op-ed really got the President livid.

Have a listen:

Notice how the President is really angry about the NYT’s use of an “anonymous” source.

He wants the “gutless” source to be known.

In fact, he ordered the NYT to name the source for “national security reasons”:

Now, this brings me to my theory that it may not have been an attack on the President at all, but an attack on “Q”.

What is one of the hot topics of the day, certainly in the alt-media?

Internet censorship is a hot topic.

Look at what happened to Alex Jones.

You see, it is widely known that the MSM and the Deep State are actively trying to turn the tide of the mid-terms and beyond by attacking and shutting down the alt-media.

Well, who is arguably the most powerful of the alt-media right now, that is not only exposing all of this stuff, but apparently from inside some sort of intelligence community and either working with or directly under the President?



And “Q” is anonymous. Hence the “anon”.

That said, doesn’t the President’s demands to name this “anonymous source” give the Deep State ammunition to make its own demands to name and shut down “Q”?

Assuming “Q” is a good guy or guys, the white hats as some call them, then yes it gives the Deep State ammunition, because the Deep State can just as easily claim that for “national security reasons” they need to root out this whole “Q” movement because it is seeking to disrupt the political and democratic process of the US.

One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter, right?

As a side note, after the Army, I spent 2 years studying computers, networking, cyber-security, and all that stuff. I even got a bunch of certificates to prove it. That said, for anybody to assume that the actual intelligence community doesn’t know who or what “Q” is, well, anyone who thinks “Q” is anonymous does not understand networking and cyber-security.

It’s just like all those people who thought Bitcoin was anonymous.

Bitcoin is not anonymous.

“Q” is not anonymous.

If some computer or networking hardware or software has been developed, it has been hacked, and if it has been patched, it has been re-hacked.

There is no real such thing as pure cyber-security. It really comes down to this: Have you done something online that will cause someone to come after you?

If they haven’t gone after “Q”, what does that mean?

I don’t know, I’m asking.

Because “Q” really can’t even be considered “alternative” anymore.

In fact, you could even say that “Q” went into a “bubble”, a lot like a stock market or Bitcoin bubble:

Side note – what is going to happen to interest in “Q” if there are no mass arrests made come November?

Interest has already peaked, according to Google trends, so it is safe to say that now it is only the die hard “Q” supporters and researchers.

All that said, wouldn’t the MSM like to nip this whole “Q” thing in the bud, just to make sure “Q” will not be a factor?

I think so.

Which is why I think the op-ed wasn’t an attack on the President at all.

It was an attack on “Q”.

Stack accordingly…

– Half Dollar


About the Author

U.S. Army Iraq War Combat Veteran Paul “Half Dollar” Eberhart has an AS in Information Systems and Security from Western Technical College and a BA in Spanish from The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Paul dived into gold & silver in 2009 as a natural progression from the prepper community. He is self-studied in the field of economics, an active amateur trader, and a Silver Bug at heart.

Paul’s free book Gold & Silver 2.0: Tales from the Crypto can be found in the usual places like Amazon, Apple iBooks & Google Play, or online at Paul’s Twitter is @Paul_Eberhart.