Their behavior is clearly seditious, and rightly addressed by military tribunals. Once this is established, the runway is cleared for using military tribunals for other acts of sedition and treason.
Comments (27)
sorted by:
The military is the only way.......I've heard.
Wouldn't want to be in their shoes right now.
Christmas is coming soon. Let's fucking go.
Right on fren
Captain Kelly will be the lead case. Others will follow.
Welcome back to the Navy, Captain.
Everything they do backfires. Who was it that said, "These people are stupid?"
Ok, I am obviously not seeing what everyone else is seeing.
This is the quote that people are upset over:
“Our laws are clear: you can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders. No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution.”
Now, according to actual military law, this is 100% true. https://ucmj.us/
When I see people talking about how what the Democrats said was "seditious", they conveniently leave out the word "illegal" in that quote.
So....are people completely oblivious that Democrats were talking about illegal orders? Or do they know Democrats were indeed talking about illegal orders, yet aren't aware that this is an actual law on the books? Or do they know Democrats were indeed talking about illegal orders, and that what the Democrats said was exactly what our actual laws say, and just don't care because...why?
What am I missing here?
Because reality as I know it is not lining up with how people are behaving over this.
Hopefully, this will clear things up for you.
https://x.com/BskiMike22802/status/1991879924328624366
Says can not retrieve posts at this time...
I woks for me...
mike bski @BskiMike22802 Look, there's been a lot of confusion about why this video from Senator Alyssa Satkin and her Democrat colleagues has the military community absolutely furious. Let me break down exactly what's wrong here.
First off, let's address the elephant in the room - Senator Alyssa Satkin ( @SenSlotkin ), Senator Mark Kelly ( @SenMarkKelly ), Representative Chris Duzio (@RepChrisDuzio), Congresswoman Maggie Goodlander ( @RepGoodlander ), Representative Chrissy Hulahan ( @RepHoulahan ), and Congressman Jason Crowe ( @RepJasonCrow ) are using PRESENT TENSE throughout their entire message. "We know you ARE under enormous stress and pressure RIGHT NOW." "This administration IS pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens." "RIGHT NOW, the threats to our Constitution aren't just coming from abroad, but from right here at home." Notice something? They're claiming there's an ACTIVE threat happening THIS VERY MOMENT that requires military members to refuse orders. They're not warning about hypothetical future concerns - they're explicitly stating that illegal orders ARE BEING GIVEN RIGHT NOW and that service members MUST refuse them RIGHT NOW. This isn't subtle. They're directly implying that CURRENT orders from the lawfully elected Commander-in-Chief ARE ILLEGAL.
The thing is - they haven't identified a SINGLE illegal order. Not ONE. Lindsey Graham served as a military lawyer for 33 years - prosecutor, defense attorney, military judge - and he called them out IMMEDIATELY, demanding they name just ONE unlawful order. Crickets. Nothing. Because there aren't any.
But what's TRULY dangerous about this video? It's planting seeds of SEDITION in the minds of brand-new service members. Lower enlisted troops who may not yet fully understand the nuances of lawful versus unlawful orders. Liberal college-educated junior officers arriving at their first duty station already predisposed to distrust this administration.
These politicians are creating DOUBT and CONFUSION where crystal-clear legal standards exist. They're weaponizing the constitutional oath against the very chain of command that oath supports. Picture this - a fresh E-1 or a newly commissioned butter-bar lieutenant who's been marinating in progressive ideology watches this video and thinks, "Well, if these senators and representatives say there are illegal orders being given right now, maybe I should question everything." That's EXACTLY the insubordination these politicians want to cultivate.
Now let's talk about what's REALLY insulting here. These politicians are PRETENDING to educate our service members about the Uniform Code of Military Justice and their oath to the Constitution. Are you kidding me? Every single military member receives MANDATORY briefings on the UCMJ regularly - I'm talking quarterly, semi-annually, annually (depending on their branch of service and their component), and absolutely BEFORE every deployment. These briefings cover Article 92 (Failure to Obey Order or Regulation), what constitutes a lawful order, when orders become unlawful, and the LEGAL OBLIGATION to refuse unlawful orders. Newer SM are the most vulnerable to this video, because they may have only had this brief two or three times, and many have just left the echo chamber of Orange Man Bad from their families, schools, and colleges.
Service members don't need Senator Satkin to tell them about their oath. They recite it when they enlist. They live it every day. They're briefed on it constantly. The military takes this stuff SERIOUSLY because lives depend on proper adherence to lawful orders and proper refusal of unlawful ones. These aren't concepts that require a 90-second video from politicians with leather jackets and turtlenecks.
And here's what makes this even MORE suspicious. If these senators GENUINELY wanted to provide helpful public service information to service members, they would've submitted this video to the American Forces Network. You know, where ALL public service announcements for military members are broadcast? AFN reaches every military installation worldwide.
But they DIDN'T do that, did they?
Instead, they posted it on social media for POLITICAL CONSUMPTION by their base. This wasn't made FOR the military - this was made to APPEAR like they're supporting the military while actually undermining command authority.
And here's another thing - if this is supposed to be a public service announcement for service members, where are all the OTHER PSAs from these politicians? Where's Senator Satkin's video about SHARP (Sexual Harassment/Assault Response and Prevention)? Where's the video from these former intelligence officers about the critical importance of OPSEC? What about driving while tired - one of the leading causes of military vehicle accidents? Where's THAT video?
Funny how the ONLY topic that warranted a coordinated video from sitting senators and representatives just HAPPENS to be the one that undermines the Commander-in-Chief's authority. They don't care about actual threats to service member safety and readiness - only about political resistance disguised as constitutional duty.
Think about what they're REALLY doing here. Quinn's Law #2 states, "If you want to know what liberals are up to, pay attention to what they accuse conservatives of doing."
These are the SAME Democrats who spent four years claiming Trump was going to stage a coup, use the military against American citizens, refuse to leave office. None of that happened. Now THEY'RE the ones openly encouraging insurrection within the military ranks by telling service members to use their own subjective judgment about what orders to follow.
This is textbook Communist Goal #35 in action: "Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI." Except in this case, they're working on the military command structure. And Goal #38: "Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand or treat."
See the pattern? Undermine law enforcement and military authority by making everything subjective and emotionally driven rather than following clear legal standards.
What's particularly DANGEROUS is that these Democrats and former CIA officers are actively encouraging military members to commit CRIMES under the UCMJ. This isn't quiet-quitting - this is DERELICTION OF DUTY under Article 92. They're asking service members to VIOLATE their oath of enlistment, which explicitly states "that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."
Let me be crystal clear about what they're doing. They're setting up liberal service members for COURTS-MARTIAL. Especially those who consume progressive media. Some young troop watches CNN and MSNBC, then sees this video from sitting senators, and actually thinks they're being patriotic by refusing lawful orders from their chain of command.
Then what happens? They get charged under Article 92 for willful disobedience or Article 89 for disrespect toward superior commissioned officers. And they're gonna find out REAL FAST that "Senator Satkin's video told me to" is NOT a valid defense. These politicians will be safely insulated in Washington while some 19-year-old E-2 gets a court-martial on their record because they were manipulated into believing lawful orders were illegal.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth addressed this DIRECTLY in his speech to General and Flag Officers at Quantico. He emphasized that when civilian leaders issue LAWFUL orders, we execute them. PERIOD. That's the entire foundation of our constitutional system. He's already directed a drastic reduction in the ridiculous amount of mandatory training - giving service members MORE time in the motor pool and MORE time on the range instead of PowerPoint briefings - while these politicians want to ADD more confusion and political ideology into the mix.
The hatred of Trump has gone TOO FAR when it spills over into putting our men and women in uniform in jeopardy by creating confusion about lawful orders. These senators OWE the military a SPECIFIC example of an unlawful order. Just ONE. They can't provide it because THERE ISN'T ONE.
Bottom line? This video is NOT about protecting the military or defending the Constitution. It's political theater aimed at their progressive base while attempting to sow discord and insubordination within military ranks. Democrats encouraging government employees and military members to disobey the lawfully elected Commander-in-Chief based on nothing more than their own political disagreements disguised as constitutional concerns.
Service members are professionals. They know their obligations under the UCMJ. They don't need politicians playing dress-up in turtlenecks telling them what they ALREADY KNOW while simultaneously trying to undermine their chain of command.
But what do I know? I'm just someone who actually served 23 years as an Army combat medic, deployed to Iraq, and understands both the UCMJ and the absolute necessity of maintaining proper command authority while ALSO protecting the legitimate right and OBLIGATION to refuse ACTUALLY unlawful orders - not orders you simply disagree with politically.
#UCMJ #MilitaryLaw #Article92 #ChainOfCommand #LawfulOrders #ConstitutionalOath #MilitaryDiscipline #QuinnsLaws #StolenValor #PoliticalTheater #RespectTheMilitary #MAGA #Democrats #Progressives #NationalSecurity #TrendingNow #ViralNews #MilitaryCommunity
https://x.com/BskiMike22802/status/1991879924328624366
Thanks for pasting that for me.
Ok, from what I can gather from all that is because Democrats were using present tense, they're claiming that President Trump is giving them illegal orders right now, and that's what the claim of sedition is from?
Am I reading that right?
Nothing in the Democrats’ video states — or even implies — that “illegal orders are being given right now.” That claim appears nowhere in the transcript. What happened is simple: the speaker took ordinary present-tense language (“you are under pressure right now”) and substituted a completely different meaning (“illegal orders are being issued right now”), then labeled that invented meaning as “explicit.”
But for a claim to be explicit, it has to be in the actual words. It isn’t. Not once. Not even close.
The entire argument depends on adding language that doesn’t exist in the source, then responding to the added language as if it were real. That isn’t evidence, it’s self-generated fiction. And when an inference is relabeled as an explicit statement, it stops being analysis and becomes projection.
The mismatch between what was said and what is being claimed is obvious. If an argument only works after inserting words the speakers never used, the argument collapses on contact with the source material. And anyone and everyone can go back and look at exactly what they Dems said.
That’s the whole issue.
They are trying to inject chaos into the military. They have zero say over the military outside a couple areas, like funding, so for me, this was a huge no go.
If repeating an oath is “injecting chaos,” then the chaos was already there.
Service members don’t get their understanding of lawful vs. unlawful orders from a 90-second clip — they get it from boot camp, annual UCMJ briefs, pre-deployment briefs, command JAGs, field manuals, and the Constitution itself. Nothing in that video adds anything new, and nothing contradicts what every service member is already required to know.
If a reminder of existing law is a “huge no go,” then the problem isn’t the reminder — it’s the reaction to it.
If the foundation is solid, repeating the foundation doesn’t shake anything. If repeating the foundation does cause panic, that tells you exactly where the instability is.
They used this as illegal orders being done in present tense. This is clearly set up to plant a seed of dissent.
This is clearly seditious.
It's all in the wording. Communists are very slick. These tactics have been used for years to overthrow other governments. It was apparent to me that they were doing a psychological operation the first time I heard them.
Their wording is pretty clear. What the issue is is your interpretation of what they're saying. And a hell of a lot of projection, I think.
If this is “clearly seditious,” then it should be easy to quote the part where they say Trump is issuing illegal orders right now. Go ahead and paste the exact sentence.
If the only way to get there is by adding meaning that isn’t in their words, then what you're reacting to isn’t the video — it’s your own interpretation. Sedition can’t be “clear” if it has to be invented.
No, it's the way they want everybody else to interpret it.
While we wait for X to get their stuff working properly, let me take the time to ask you some simple questions. Which of the following statements do you disagree with:
"The United States boldly broke with the ancient military custom of swearing loyalty to a leader. Article VI required that American officers thereafter swear loyalty to our basic law, the Constitution. While many other nations have suffered military coups, the United States never has. Our American code of military obedience requires that, should orders and the law ever conflict, our officers must obey the law. Many other nations have adopted our principle of loyalty to the basic law. This nation must have military leaders of principle and integrity so strong that their oaths to support and defend the Constitution will unfailingly govern their actions. The purpose of the United States Military Academy is to provide such leaders of character."- plaque at West Point
“The Senators and Representatives… and all executive and judicial Officers… and all Officers of the United States… shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.”- U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Clause 3
“A soldier is obligated to refuse to obey a clearly illegal order, such as one directing the commission of a war crime.”- DoD Law of War Manual (2015, updated 2016), Section 5.3.3:
“A member of the armed forces is bound to obey only lawful orders. He must refuse manifestly illegal orders.” Army Field Manual FM 27-10, §509:
Or you can tell me what was in that X post, if you're set on discussing it.
They are trying to sew dissent and confusion. These are communist tactics.
What they are doing is clearly sedition.
No, it is not clearly sedition.
The only way what they're saying could be construed as dissent is if President Trump is actually giving illegal orders or will give illegal orders in the future.
Who do you think is going to be confused, exactly?
Are you worried he will give illegal orders? If not, what is the issue?
The accusation only works if there is an illegal order to point to. If no illegal order exists, then repeating existing law can’t be sedition, confusion, or dissent—it’s just reciting the oath every service member already knows.
So the logic funnel is simple:
Either
Trump has issued an illegal order, or
Trump will issue an illegal order, or
Democrats warned about illegal orders in general, which is exactly what the Constitution and every military legal training requires.
You sound worried. This is why we are going to take it to jag.
I AM absolutely worried that people are either completely clueless about the Democrats talking about illegal orders, because most of what I see being quoted leaves that word out, which changes the entire context, or they are fully aware that the Democrats said illegal orders, and are either ignorant of our laws or just don't give a shit about them, and then have to do all these mental gymnastics to get things to line up so that someone merely repeating the fact that military does not have to follow illegal acts is seditious based on nothing more than personal interpretations and projection.
That is definitely something to be concerned about.
It's a slush pile of ignorance, disingenuous behavior, and flat out hypocrisy. Not things that should be associated with this board.
This is going to push normies even further away if they see people deliberately lying in order to try to con people into thinking the Democrats said something they did not (suggesting they're telling military to not follow any orders at all), or that people are too dumb to look for themselves what the Democrats said, or that people are actively against the laws about not following illegal orders because they believe Trump is going to issue illegal orders.
None of that is good for us.
I can 100% say with absolute certainty that all of this shit is going to go nowhere, legally, because, again, legally, the Democrats did not say anything that could legally be viewed as seditious. The courts can't rule based on what someone's interpretation of what someone said is. If that's all it took, someone's interpretation of a comment, then shit would really go sideways for everyone.
Interpretation isn’t evidence. The Democrats said “illegal orders.” Full stop. The only way to turn that into sedition is to silently delete the word “illegal,” replace it with your own assumptions, and then get angry at the assumptions you added.
That isn’t how law works, and it isn’t how sedition works.
If reminding service members of their duty regarding illegal orders is now “dangerous,” then the danger has nothing to do with Democrats — it’s the fear that the reminder might actually matter. And the only way it would matter is if an illegal order is issued. No illegal order = no sedition, no dissent, no confusion.
That’s the part nobody here seems willing to say out loud.
And dragging JAG into this won’t create a crime that doesn’t exist. JAG deals in statutes, not vibes. You can’t prosecute someone for what you think they meant, especially when the transcript is public and proves otherwise.
The bottom line is simple: If your argument only works after removing words the speakers actually used, then the problem isn’t the video — it’s the rewrite happening in your own head.
Ok, time to take the shill mask off.
You have absolutely nothing to whine about.
President Trump didn't threaten, just reminded them what the law was.
Is this not what your beloved dems just did?
That's your opinion. That's how psychological operations work. Obviously you haven't figured that out. We will see.
https://greatawakening.win/p/1ARczBKAyI/whats-really-going-on-with-the-s/
You are a psyop.