The Deep State Theory, Defined and Explained

The Deep State Theory, Defined and Explained The seed for many tantalizing conspiracy theories, the term â€Å"deep state† in the United States implies the existence of a premeditated effort by certain federal government employees or other persons to secretly manipulate or control the government without regard for the policies of Congress or the President of the United States. Origin and History of the Deep State The concept of a deep state - also called a â€Å"state within a state† or a â€Å"shadow government† – was first used in reference to political conditions in countries like Turkey and post-Soviet Russia. During the 1950s, an influential anti-democratic coalition within the Turkish political system called the â€Å"derin devlet† – literally the â€Å"deep state† - allegedly dedicated itself to ousting communists from the new Turkish Republic founded by Mustafa Ataturk after World War I. Made up of elements within the Turkish military, security, and judiciary branches, the derin devlet worked to turn the Turkish people against its enemies by staging â€Å"false flag† attacks and planned riots. Ultimately, the derin devlet was blamed for the deaths of thousands of people. In the 1970s, former high-ranking officials of the Soviet Union, after defecting to the West, publically stated that the Soviet political police – the KGB – had operated as a deep state secretly attempting to control the Communist Party and ultimately, the Soviet government. In a 2006 symposium, Ion Mihai Pacepa, a former general in the Communist Romania secret police who defected to the United States in 1978, stated, In the Soviet Union, the KGB was a state within a state.† Pacepa went on to claim, â€Å"Now former KGB officers are running the state. They have custody of the country’s 6,000 nuclear weapons, entrusted to the KGB in the 1950s, and they now also manage the strategic oil industry renationalized by Putin.† The Deep State Theory in the United States In 2014, former congressional aide Mike Lofgren alleged the existence of a different type of deep state operating within the United States government in his essay titled â€Å"Anatomy of the Deep State.† Instead of a group comprised exclusively of government entities, Lofgren calls the deep state in the United States â€Å"a hybrid association of elements of government and parts of top-level finance and industry that is effectively able to govern the United States without reference to the consent of the governed as expressed through the formal political process.† The Deep State, wrote Lofgren, is not â€Å"a secret, conspiratorial cabal; the state within a state is hiding mostly in plain sight, and its operators mainly act in the light of day. It is not a tight-knit group and has no clear objective. Rather, it is a sprawling network, stretching across the government and into the private sector.† In some ways, Lofgren’s description of a deep state in the United States echoes parts of President Dwight Eisenhower’s 1961 farewell address, in which he warned future presidents to â€Å"guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.† President Trump Alleges a Deep State Opposes Him Following the tumultuous 2016 presidential election, President Donald Trump and his supporters suggested that certain unnamed executive branch officials and intelligence officers were secretly operating as a deep state to block his policies and legislative agenda by leaking information considered critical of him. President Trump, White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon, along with ultra-conservative news outlets like Breitbart News claimed that Former President Obama was orchestrating a deep state attack against the Trump administration. The allegation apparently grew out of Trump’s unsubstantiated claim that Obama had ordered the wiretapping of his telephone during the 2016 election campaign. Current and former intelligence officials remain divided on the question of the existence of a deep state secretly working to derail the Trump administration.   In a June 5, 2017 article published in The Hill Magazine, retired veteran CIA field operations agent Gene Coyle stated that while he doubted the existence of â€Å"hordes of government officials† operating as an anti-Trump deep state, he did believe the Trump administration was justified in complaining about the number of leaks being reported by news organizations. â€Å"If you are that appalled at the actions of an administration, you should quit, hold a press conference and publicly state your objections,† said Coyle. â€Å"You can’t run an executive branch if more and more people think, ‘I don’t like the policies of this president, therefore I will leak information to make him look bad.’† Other intelligence experts argued that individuals or small groups of individuals leaking information critical of a presidential administration lack the organizational coordination and depth of deep states such as those that existed in Turkey or the former Soviet Union. The Arrest of Reality Winner   On June 3, 2017, a third-party contractor working for the National Security Agency (NSA) was arrested on charges of violating the Espionage Act by leaking a top-secret document related to the possible involvement of the Russian government in the 2016 U.S. presidential election to an unnamed news organization. When questioned by the FBI on June 10, 2017, the woman, 25-year-old Reality Leigh Winner, â€Å"admitted intentionally identifying and printing the classified intelligence reporting at issue despite not having a ‘need to know,’ and with the knowledge that the intelligence report was classified,† according to the FBI affidavit. According to the Justice Department, Winner â€Å"further acknowledged that she was aware of the contents of the intelligence reporting and that she knew the contents of the reporting could be used to the injury of the United States and to the advantage of a foreign nation.† The arrest of Winner represented the first confirmed case of an attempt by a current government employee to discredit the Trump administration. As a result, many conservatives have been quick to use the case to bolster their arguments of a so-called deep state within the United States government. While its true that Winner had publicly expressed anti-Trump sentiments both to co-workers and on social media, her actions in no way prove the existence of an organized deep state effort to discredit the Trump administration.

5 Common Grammar Mistakes to Avoid in Business Writing - BestEssay.education

5 Common Grammar Mistakes to Avoid in Business Writing 5 Common Grammar Mistakes to Avoid in Business Writing If you own, operate or represent a business, it is extremely important that you are able to communicate effectively in writing. This includes communicating in advertisements, in blog posts, when sending emails, when posting on social media, and when interacting with customers or vendors. A big part of this is learning to avoid embarrassing grammar mistakes. The problem with bad grammar is that it damages credibility. If your writing is riddled with spelling and grammar errors that you have left uncorrected, people will wonder about the care you put into your products and services. Grammar errors also make your writing less effective. In fact, if you are stating a strong opinion, or you are making an emotional appeal, poor grammar can make your words unintentionally humorous. There are many grammatical errors that you can make in business writing. However, there are 5 that we believe are most common. Here they are, along with some advice on how to recognize and avoid them 1. Confusing i.e. and e.g. The reason that these two abbreviations are commonly confused is that they both have Latin roots and they have somewhat similar meanings. The translation of the abbreviation i.e. to English means 'that is'.   When you see this abbreviation, replace it in your head with the phrase, 'in other words'. The abbreviation e.g. means for example. You would use this at the beginning of a list of supporting examples after you make a statement. Usage Examples: We aren't getting the foot traffic we used to get on Sunday afternoons, i.e., we only had five customers come through our door last Sunday. We employ several different methods of measuring the success of our brick and mortal location, e.g., number of customers per day, dollars in sales per week, and the feedback on our customer comment cards. 2. Using I Instead of Me and Vice Versa For some reason, many of us instinctively want to replace the word me with the word I when we are referring to more than one person. How many times have we sent or received emails with sentences like the following: Will you follow up with David and I via email? Just tell David and I when you are ready to go forward with the project. At first glance, they might seem okay, but they are both incorrect. How do you tell? One way is to take the other person out of the equation, then look at the sentences again. Will you follow up with I via email? Just tell I when you are ready to go forward with the project. Grammar Hint: Now, it is easy to see the difference. It may help to try and remember that... I do something, and something is done to me. 3. Writing Utilize Instead of Use This one is fairly black and white. If you are writing the utilize in your business writing, you should stop doing that. It is one of those words that appears to be more formal and more professional, but it simply is not. If you find yourself typing the word utilize, back space and replace it with use. Better yet, set up an auto correct option to change the word when you type it. 4. Participles that Dangle Any word that ends in 'ing' is a participle. They are intended to modify the word or phrase that follows them. If you place the noun following the participle in the wrong place, you can unintentionally change the meaning of your sentence. Here's an example: Working more efficiently than ever, the computer room staff were thrilled with the new servers. This sentence appears to say that the computer room staff was working more efficiently than ever. However, if that is true, what about the servers? Here is the sentence after it has been corrected: Working more efficiently than ever, the new servers thrilled the computer room staff. 5. Using Quotation Marks Where They Are Not Needed For some reason, many people believe that placing a word or phrase in single or double quotes indicates emphasis. It does not. In fact, single quotes around a word or a phrase, especially one that makes a claim is read as an indication that something is not quite true. For example: We keep your financial information 'safe' and 'secure'! Customers will read this as if you are stating that you won't keep their information safe or secure. It may help to visualize a very sarcastic man using air quotes while reading your statement aloud. There are times when it is okay to use quotes around a word or phrase. If you are indicating to the reader that something isn't exactly true, it is acceptable to use quotes. Here is an example: We offer a vegan wrap with hummus, diced cucumbers, lettuce, tomatoes, and 'cheese'. Your readers would know both from the context clues and the apostrophes that you were referring to a cheese like food, but not to real cheese. Replacement Options: Try using bold print, underlining, or even beginning and ending a word or phrase with an asterisk. Each of these indicates emphasis. Just remember to avoid using all capital letters for emphasis. This is often interpreted as anger or hostility.