(WND)—On Dec. 10, 2018, just before the traditional Army-Navy football game, President Donald Trump made an announcement. While a well-coached Army team would go on to win 17-10 in what proved to be an exciting contest, more than two years later Trump would learn the consequences of his pregame announcement that day – one unfortunately made against the advice of his military “coaches.”
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS), Marine Gen. Joseph F. Dunford, was due to retire in 2019. Thus, Trump had to designate a replacement. For some reason, Trump was high on the U.S. Army chief of staff, Gen. Mark A. Milley, despite the advice, not only of Dunford but Secretary of Defense James Mattis, that Milley was not their first choice. Nonetheless, Milley got the nod and was sworn in as CJCS on Sept. 30, 2019.
During his confirmation hearings, Milley assured the Senate he would resign before doing anything improper, such as obeying an “illegal, unethical or immoral order,” and would never soft-pedal his advice to the president. Just before being sworn in as CJCS, he told Trump, “I will always provide you informed, candid, impartial military advice.” Trump responded with, “You’re my friend. You’re my adviser, and you deserve this position. I never had a doubt. Congratulations.” Based on the insights of a whistleblower who personally witnessed how the events of Jan. 6, 2021, at the U.S. Capitol unfolded, it appears Milley may have acted improperly, making the accolades given to him by Trump unwarranted.
A key issue concerning the January 6 incident is the National Guard’s failure to immediately deploy to stop the pro-Trump mob from entering the Capitol. But, instead, there was a four-hour delay. U.S. Army Col. Earl Matthews was in a position to know exactly what happened that day as he was serving as the National Guard’s legal adviser. But, after hearing two of Milley’s senior minions testify, allegedly contrary to what Matthews knew happened, he could no longer remain silent. In December 2021, he sent a shocking memo to the congressional committee investigating the incident.
The two senior officers involved were Gen. Charles Flynn, the deputy U.S. Army chief of staff, and Lt. Gen. Walter Piatt. Matthews held nothing back, accusing them of providing “perjured testimony.”
Despite his memo, Matthews was recommended for promotion to brigadier general in November 2022, only later to have it denied. This led to him filing a 37-page complaint on Jan. 3, 2024, claiming retaliation by the Army for blowing the whistle on his seniors. His complaint called them “absolute and unmitigated liars” in their testimony before Congress.
It was primarily due to testimony by the two generals that reports by both a Pentagon inspector general and the House committee investigating the January 6 incident found no impediment was deliberately placed by senior military leaders to delay the National Guard’s deployment. It is the Army’s narrative of the events of that day, supported by these reports, upon which the Colorado Supreme Court relied to justify getting Trump’s name removed from the ballot.
But in a recent interview, Matthews identified the person who delayed the Guard’s deployment, someone who had no authority to do so – Milley. Although the National Guard falls directly under presidential control, Milley circumvented his role.
Matthews made some fairly damning statements about the former CJCS in a recent interview. “Milley is the Don Barzini (a reference to the crime family in the ‘Godfather’ movie) of the Deep State,” said the Harvard Law School graduate. “He’s the most powerful chairman of the joint chiefs in history. It was Milley all along, and I didn’t realize it. Milley was manipulating this entire stuff from point start.”
Matthews shared that Milley projected himself outside of his authority. As CJCS, Milley was only to serve in an advisory capacity to the president with no legal authority within the chain of command. However, through his position and exploitation of other generals, he was able to maneuver himself into controlling the Army. Matthews explained:
“The problem was not with Donald Trump; it’s Mark Milley and the Army leadership in control. They stopped the Guard from coming, then lied about it and said the Guard acted at sprint speed. This is about civilian control of the military. There was none. There is none. I argue that – Mark Milley had more control over the D.C. Guard on Jan. 6 than Donald Trump did – if Donald Trump wanted to call the Guard to go to the Capitol, Milley wouldn’t let him do it.”
Among those supporting Matthews’ account are several District of Columbia law enforcement officials, including former Capitol Police Chief Steven A. Sund. He reported that the Pentagon seemed more concerned about the “optics” of military personnel engaged in crowd control as opposed to quickly deploying the Guard. He noted,”I got on a call with the Pentagon and pleaded for the National Guard. There was delay after delay after delay.”
Matthews reported once Sund’s request was received, it took more than three hours to receive the authorization to move Guard troops – who already had been equipped and pre-positioned – to the Capitol. He squarely faults Milley, stating, “I’m saying that his people delayed us, but Milley is in the center of everything, making the decisions – no question about it.”
Both Biden and Trump have leveled charges against each other that the other’s actions endanger democracy. What both should be demanding now is an investigation specifically into Milley’s actions for a rogue CJCS may well have violated his oath of office. If Matthews’ claims are accurate, they strongly make the case for a CJCS to have breached his constitutional authority, contrary to the clear intent of our Founding Fathers that the military at all times remain under civilian control. Absent such an investigation, Milley may well have gotten away with taking an unconstitutional walk on the wild side.
Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].
Safeguarding Your American Dream: Discover the Power of America First Healthcare
In today’s economy, healthcare costs remain one of the biggest threats to financial stability and family security. Americans work hard to build a better life, yet rising medical expenses can quickly erode savings, force tough trade-offs, and even push families toward debt or bankruptcy. Medical bills continue to rank as the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States, with millions facing underinsurance or unexpected out-of-pocket burdens that no one plans for. Many turn to government-run marketplace plans under the Affordable Care Act, hoping for relief, only to discover that what appears affordable on paper often delivers higher long-term costs, limited real protection, and coverage that may not align with personal values or family needs.
America First Healthcare stands out as a private insurance agency dedicated to helping conservatives and families secure better coverage and better rates through customized, values-aligned options. By conducting free insurance reviews, the agency uncovers hidden gaps in existing policies and connects clients with private alternatives that emphasize personal responsibility, small-government principles, and genuine affordability—often delivering up to 20% savings while providing stronger protection for the American Dream.
The allure of marketplace plans is easy to understand: open enrollment periods, premium tax credits for many households, and the promise of “comprehensive” benefits mandated by law. Yet recent data reveals a different reality, especially after the expiration of enhanced premium subsidies at the end of 2025. Enrollment for 2026 dropped by more than one million people compared to the prior year, with many shifting to lower-tier bronze plans to keep monthly premiums manageable.
These plans feature significantly higher deductibles—averaging around $7,500 nationally—and greater cost-sharing requirements. Families who once paid modest amounts after subsidies now face average premium increases of $65 or more per month, even as they accept plans that leave them responsible for thousands in upfront costs before meaningful coverage kicks in.
High deductibles create a dangerous barrier to care. Studies show that people in such plans are less likely to seek timely treatment for chronic conditions, attend preventive screenings, or fill necessary prescriptions. A seemingly minor illness or injury can balloon into major expenses when patients delay care until problems worsen. For a family of four, a single hospitalization, cancer diagnosis, or unexpected surgery can easily exceed the deductible, triggering coinsurance and out-of-pocket maximums that still leave substantial bills. One recent analysis noted that some proposed changes could push family deductibles toward $31,000 in future years, further exposing households to financial risk.
Beyond the numbers, marketplace plans often carry structural limitations. Coverage for certain critical services may include waiting periods or narrower networks that restrict access to preferred doctors and specialists. Preventive care is required to be covered without cost-sharing, but everything else—lab work, imaging, specialist visits, or ongoing treatment—typically waits until the deductible is met. This reactive model contrasts sharply with the proactive, holistic approach many families prefer, especially those focused on wellness, early intervention, and maintaining health to enjoy life rather than merely reacting to illness.
Values alignment represents another growing concern. Government-influenced plans operate within a framework shaped by federal mandates and political priorities that may not reflect conservative principles of limited government, personal freedom, and ethical stewardship. Families who want to direct their healthcare dollars toward providers and benefits that honor traditional values sometimes find marketplace options feel misaligned, forcing a compromise between affordability and conviction.
Private alternatives, by contrast, offer year-round flexibility without the restrictions of open enrollment windows. Independent agents can shop across a wider range of carriers to design plans tailored to specific family needs—whether that means lower deductibles for frequent medical users, broader provider networks, or add-ons that support wellness and preventive services from day one. Clients frequently report more stable premiums that do not automatically escalate each year, along with genuine cost savings once the full picture of deductibles, copays, and coverage depth is considered.
Take the experience of real families who made the switch. Amanda C. shared that her new plan felt “way better” than what she had through the marketplace. Johnny Y. noted his previous coverage kept increasing annually until he found a more stable private option. Sofia S. expressed delight with her plan and began recommending it to others. These stories echo a common theme: when families move beyond one-size-fits-all government marketplaces, they often discover customized protection that better safeguards both health and finances.
Founder Jordan Sarmiento’s own journey underscores the stakes. In 2021, a six-day hospitalization generated a $95,000 bill. Under a well-structured private “Conservative Care Coverage” plan, his out-of-pocket responsibility would have been just $500. That stark difference illustrates how thoughtful planning and private options can prevent a medical event from becoming a financial catastrophe.
Practical steps exist for anyone questioning their current coverage. Start with a no-obligation review of your existing policy to identify gaps—high deductibles, limited critical-care benefits, or escalating premiums. Compare total projected costs (premiums plus potential out-of-pocket expenses) rather than monthly premiums alone. Consider family health history, anticipated needs, and lifestyle priorities. Private agencies can present side-by-side options that include stronger wellness incentives, broader access, and plans built on shared values of self-reliance and freedom.
In an era when healthcare inflation continues to outpace general cost-of-living increases, relying solely on marketplace solutions carries growing risk. Families who proactively explore private alternatives frequently achieve meaningful savings while gaining peace of mind that their coverage truly works when needed most.
America First Healthcare makes this exploration straightforward through its free review process. Families and individuals receive personalized guidance to close coverage holes, reduce unnecessary expenses, and secure plans that align with conservative principles—protecting wallets, health, and the American Dream without government overreach. Many who complete a review discover they can enjoy better benefits for less, often saving up to 20% while gaining the customization and stability that marketplace plans struggle to deliver.
Ultimately, protecting your family’s future requires looking beyond the marketing of “affordable” government options. By understanding the long-term costs hidden in high deductibles, shifting coverage tiers, and values mismatches, Americans can make empowered choices. Private, values-driven insurance offers a smarter path—one that rewards diligence, supports wellness, and delivers real security. For those ready to move beyond the limitations of traditional marketplace plans, a simple review can reveal options designed to serve families, not bureaucracies. The American Dream thrives when individuals and families retain control over their healthcare decisions, and thoughtful private coverage plays a vital role in making that possible.
That would mean Milley was guilty of disobeying a Presidential (Commander-in Chief) order. An act of Treasob. A Capital Crime. This too is on the agenda moving forward.
If capital punishment is NOT metted out publicky for tgese crimes the Traitors will have NO REASON not to try again.
Afghanistan withdrawal and then the J6 screwup? At least Thoroughly Marxist Milley is consistent.