Nancy Pelosi seemed to suggest to Milley that he should usurp the President's powers as Commander in Chief by subverting any Trump order to launch a nuclear attack. Was this just theatrics or a subornation to treason? Did the Democrats, having fantasized about removing the President from office by force collude with Gen Milley to do exactly this? Did they plan a military junta to save democracy?
As a public servant, sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution, Gen Mark Milley is obliged to answer these questions. Most men of honor would have stepped down in shame over the Afghanistan debacle alone. Integrity, not to mention the law, demands that if the allegations make by Woodward and Costa are true, he should immediately submit himself to disciplinary action and removal from his position in the U.S. military.
Wow! In one paragraph, Biden goes full authoritarian, shredding both the concept of Federalism and the separation of powers according to the Constitution. For a member of the party always screaming– “Democracy! Democracy! Democracy!” he doesn’t sound like he’s very into democracy here, does he?
Wow! In one paragraph, Biden goes full authoritarian, shredding both the concept of Federalism and the separation of powers according to the Constitution. For a member of the party always screaming-- “Democracy! Democracy! Democracy!” he doesn't sound like he's very into democracy here does he?
https://open.spotify.com/show/7FnPUW5tNzUfFPysYYKQ14 The LR Podcast is available on many platforms, including Spotify.
The situation creates a potential hostage situation that could dwarf the Iran hostage crisis. (In 1979 Iranian militants took over the American embassy in Tehran and held them for 444 days.)
It took much more violence for the Allies to remove the fascists from power than it took for the fascists to gain that power in the first place. The most common of all regrets is not saying saying or doing something earlier, or at all, then suffering the consequences.
We've all heard someone ask: “Who are you to judge me?” or some variant of that question. It's a defensive question usually asked by someone who reasonably expects to be judges harshly by their peers for some ethical or moral transgression. It's safe to say that someone secure in the notion that society or their peers would judge their actions favorably, is not going to pose this rhetorical question. A good retort to that question might be: “Who are you that you are above judgment?”
The public who support these policies get to feel good about themselves too, but only for a little while, until the bill comes due. By the time they're paying $5 for a loaf of bread, and $6 for a gallon of gas, it's too late.
Today, we can see the Left is still using the same playbook, as their motivations and political goals remain the same. They retain all of the moral shortcomings that Rand wrote about over fifty years ago, including when in 1964 she wrote a chapter in her nonfiction book, The Virtue of Selfishness, which is a collection of essays written by her and Nathaniel Branden that lay out the principles that make up her Objectivist philosophy.