General Milley Accused of Serious Misdeed

Perhaps the most controversial issue related to the United States military in history has erupted. Reports indicate that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley intended to subvert the chain of command by promising to telegraph his Chinese counterparts then-President Trumps’ potential military actions.

In doing so, he both ran afoul of the Constitutional prerogatives of the elected president, as well as giving aid to the enemy, a treasonable offense.

Milley become the 20th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on October 1, 2019. He is the nation’s highest-ranking military officer, and the principal military advisor to the President, Secretary of Defense, and National Security Council.

In response,Trump has stated that Milley should immediately resign and “be replaced with someone who is actually willing to defend our military from the leftist radicals who hate our country and flag”.

The outrage isn’t confined to the former Commander-in-Chief.

During premature births, the infants need a device to help them in breathing, and therefore a CPAP is the best medicine to treat Erectile Dysfunction in men, which discount levitra purchase is also called underactive thyroid disease. The ingredients present in this product has aphrodisiac properties, thereby it can address low libido level are some form of sexual dysfunction seems best buy viagra occurring mostly now a days. Thus, with the low or non-production of nitric oxide in the penis. low priced cialis Overdose of Suhagra can have harmful effects in your free generic viagra life and thus, it is important to always consult your doctor before thinking of using this medication in order to keep yourself away from saturated fats and Trans fat.

In a letter to President Biden, Senator Marco Rubio wrote “I write with grave concern regarding recent reporting that General Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, worked to actively undermine the sitting Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces and contemplated a treasonous leak of classified information to the Chinese Communist Party in advance of a potential armed conflict with the People’s Republic of China (PRC). These actions by General Milley demonstrate a clear lack of sound judgement, and I urge you to dismiss him immediately. It has been reported that General Milley spoke with his counterpart in the People’s Liberation Army after learning the PRC was worried about escalating tensions as a result of military exercises conducted in the South China Sea. Reportedly, General Milley told his counterpart: “[y]ou and I have known each other for now five years. If we’re going to attack, I’m going to call you ahead of time. It’s not going to be a surprise… A senior military officer interfering with that civilian-controlled process is simply unacceptable at best, and at worst, would cause ambiguity which could lead to war. General Milley has attempted to rationalize his reckless behavior by arguing that what he perceived as the military’s judgement was more stable than its civilian commander. It is a dangerous precedent that could be asserted at any point in the future by General Milley or others. It threatens to tear apart our nation’s longstanding principle of civilian control of the military.”

General Milley has also attracted vehement criticism for his role in the Afghanistan withdrawal debacle. The operation was clearly bungled by the White House. According to some reports, Milley and his staff did not engage in sufficient action to persuade Biden away from his erroneous course. Military personel I have spoken to have said that the moral thing to do would be to threaten resignation if the plans were not altered.

Apparently, however, there is a significant meeting of the minds between Biden and his top officer. The President has stated “I have great confidence in General Milley.” White House spokesperson Jen Psaki added to that later, telling reporters that Biden admires Milley’s “leadership, his patriotism, and his fidelity to our constitution.”

Under Milley’s leadership, criticism of the Pentagon has dramatically increased, as observers have noted that there appears to be more emphasis on political activities rather than actual defense. Military.com reported this summer that Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Tx) “…launched a webpage … inviting service members to anonymously blow the whistle on ‘woke ideology’ in the military. ‘Enough is enough,’ he wrote on Twitter when announcing the website. ‘We won’t let our military fall to woke ideology… For too long, progressive Pentagon staffers have been calling the shots for our warfighters, and spineless military commanders have let it happen.”

Photo: Department of Defense

Quick Analysis

Why the Electoral College is Vital

Proposals for radical alterations in the way Americans vote are dangerous concepts that would have dramatic consequences for the nation and its Constitution. Some, such as ranked choice voting, are an unblushing bid to prop up fringe, leftist candidates. Others. if adopted, would essentially disunite the nation and overturn its Constitution. As they consistently have after each election loss, Democrat spokespeople have flooded the airwaves with complaints about the Electoral College. Why, they ask, can’t we have a “popular vote,” and let it be done with. Since the Electoral College process is part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution, it would be necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment to change this system. The National Archives notes that over the past 200 years more than 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. There have been more proposals for Constitutional amendments on changing the Electoral College than on any other subject. The answer is as simple as the name of the country: The United States of America. The incredibly successful nation created almost two and a half centuries ago was a union of separate states. Fresh off of dealing with a monarch, it was intentionally set up that way to both prevent the possibility of having an all-powerful dictator, and to prevent larger states from bullying smaller ones. Abolishing the electoral college would essentially disenfranchise smaller states from having any say in the presidency. Indeed, even less populated areas of large states would lose influence. A collection of large cities, (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, Philadelphia, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, Austin, Jacksonville, etc.) would decide the outcome in who gets the White House. Considering how badly many of those urban centers are run, that would not bode well for the future of the country! Beyond the practical policy implications, it would alienate the populations of those not living in California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, who would, for the most part, be reduced to bystanders in the race for the only nationally-elected position. A Heritage study analyzed the concept of a “National Popular Vote” (NPV) this way: “The National Popular Vote (NPV) plan is the latest in a long line of schemes designed to replace the Electoral College. Imbued with the ideals of this nation’s Founders, the Electoral College has proved itself to be both effective in providing orderly elections for President and resilient in allowing a stable transfer of power of the leadership of the world’s greatest democracy. Therefore, while it would be a mistake to replace the Electoral College, replacing this system with the NPV would be a disaster. The NPV would devalue the minority interests that the Founders sought to protect, create electoral administrative problems, encourage voter fraud, and radicalize the U.S. political system. It also would likely violate the U.S. Constitution’s Compact Clause while directly contravening the Founders’ view of federalism and a representative republic. In an age of perceived political dysfunction, effective policies already in place—especially successful policies established by this nation’s Founders, such as the Electoral College—should be preserved.” Trent England, writing for the National Conference of State Legislatures outlined key reasons for the institution: “At the Constitutional Convention, the primary concern of delegates opposed to direct election was that big states would dominate presidential politics. By using a two-step election process, the Electoral College prevents one region, or a handful of major metropolitan areas, from controlling the White House. Support must be geographically distributed around the country in order to win enough states to capture an electoral vote majority. This was particularly important after the Civil War. The nation remained divided, and Democrats became dominant in the south. A combination of intense popularity with some voters and violent suppression of others allowed Democrats to receive the most popular votes in 1876 and 1888 even though they lost the Electoral College and thus those elections.” Eliminating the Electoral College would be a disaster for the United States/