Thursday, September 16, 2021


Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

The Washington Post is reporting that according to a new soon-to-be-released book, "Twice in the final months of the Trump administration, the country's top military officer was so fearful that the president's actions might spark a war with China that he moved urgently to avert armed conflict."

The Post continues, "In a pair of secret phone calls, Gen. Mark A. Milley, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, assured his Chinese counterpart...that the United States would not strike"...and if there was a strike China would be notified in advance.

The Washington Post and most news organizations are trying to cast Milley's actions as heroic, but the Patriot Post is asking if this was "Treason?"

Here's what happened. You can decide.

Be informed, not misled.

The Washington Post is quoting from a soon-to-be-released book by the Post's associate editor Bob Woodward and national political reporter Robert Costa.

Both hate Trump.

Apparently, Gen. Milley feels the same. Or he was simply intoxicated by his own importance.

The Patriot Post is asking the same question I asked myself when I first saw this: 

Is this treason?

By reading the lengthy Washington Post article and other similar reports, you are led to believe it was an act of patriotism---love for our country--- that motivated Milley to make secret calls to China promising that the US would not attack them.

But a closer and more honest look reveals something very different. More sinister.

Milley's calls.

In a pair of secret phone calls, he promised his Chinese counterpart---Gen. Li Zuocheng of the People's Liberation Army---that the United States would not strike.

One call took place on October 30, 2020, four days before the election that put Joe Biden in the Oval Office. The second call was made on January 8, two days after the January 6 demonstration at the Capitol.

The authors and the Post agree, of course. They say the first call was prompted by Milley's review of intelligence suggesting the Chinese believed the United States was preparing to attack. That belief, the authors say, was based on tensions over military exercises in the South China Sea, and "deepened by Trump's belligerent rhetoric toward China."

Milley told Li, "General Li, I want to assure you that the American government is stable and everything is going to be okay. We are not going to attack or conduct any kinetic operations against you."

According to the book, Milley went so far as to pledge he would alert his counterpart if the US [Trump] attacked them: "General Li, you 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."

The authors say Li believed him.

The second call addressed the Chinese fears of the events of January 6, the book says. According to the authors, Li wasn't totally convinced after the second call, so Milley promised him, "We are 100 percent steady. Everything's fine. But democracy can be sloppy sometimes."

Milley's decision to place himself between President Trump and China was, according to the book, triggered by a January call from Nancy Pelosi who demanded to know "what precautions are available to prevent an unstable president from initiating military hostilities or from accessing the launch codes and ordering a nuclear strike?"

Milley assured her there "were a lot of checks in the system."

The transcript of the call, according to the author's, also shows Pelosi telling Milley, referring to Trump; "He's crazy. You know he's crazy...He's crazy and what he did yesterday is further evidence of his craziness."

Milley replied: "I agree with you on everything."

Is Milley concerned about Biden's cognitive decline?

There's no evidence of concern on Milley's part. 

In fact, according to the book, Milley delivered a speech to the Joint Chiefs recently in which he said this: "Here's a couple of rules for the road here that we're going to follow. One is you never, ever box in a President of the United States. You always give him decision space."

Referring to Biden, he said, "You're dealing with a seasoned politician here who has been in Washington, DC, 50 years, whatever it is."

Gen Milley has said he sees parallels between Jan. 6 and the 1905 Russian Revolution, which set off unrest throughout the Russian Empire and, though it failed, helped create the conditions for the October Revolution of 1917, in which the Bolsheviks executed a successful coup that set up the world's first communist state.

Who is executing a coup?

Back in June during his testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, Gen Milley said he "wanted to understand white rage" and what caused "thousands of people to assault the Capitol and try to overturn the Constitution of the United States of America."

Why would he believe those people on Jan 6 were trying to "overthrow the Constitution" rather than protest an election they believed was deeply flawed?

The National Review notes that "Truman fired MacArthur for much less."

Where's Joe Biden? Like Milley said, he's "been in Washington DC for 50 years."

Apparently, Gen Milley believes he and he alone decides who leads America, including the Defense Department, and the State Department's diplomacy.

Who is actually executing a coup? Milley? Or an elected President of the United States?

Under our Constitution, military leaders are not permitted to conduct their own personal foreign policy. They do that in third-world countries. I have personally been in some of those countries when a coup was taking place.

America is not a third-world country---regardless of how much some apparently want it to become one.

Milley's boss is a civilian, the Sec. of  Defense. And his boss's boss is also a civilian, the President of the United States.

If Milley has done what these authors are claiming he did, his actions are "insubordination" at the least.

Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin refused to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this week. Was it because he was afraid to be held accountable for the Biden debacle in Afghanistan for which he and his Gen. Milley were ultimately responsible to coordinate?

Or does it have to do with Gen. Milley?

Could this be treason?

We'll see. One thing is certain, Milley is quickly running out of friends.

Remember Alexander Vindman? He was an obnoxious witness that couldn't stop talking about himself in the first Trump "impeachment" hearings.

Even he, who hates Trump, is saying: "If this is true, Gen. Milley must resign. He usurped civilian authority, broke the Chain of Command, and violated the sacrosanct principle of civilian control over the military. It's an extremely dangerous precedent. You simply can't walk away from that."

And how does President Biden feel about all this? 

Well, his press secretary, Jen Psaki, answered that yesterday: "The president has complete confidence in his leadership, his patriotism, and his fidelity to our Constitution. The president believes he is patriotic. His fidelity to the Constitution is unquestionable."

She added that it was necessary due to Trump "fomenting an insurrection."

To the so-called "progressive," their end is so noble that any means to achieve that end is justified.

Including violating the Constitution of the United States.

Be Informed. Be Discerning. Be Engaged. Be Prayerful.