Off with their heads! Dem. vid to Military

Nothing like a little political melodrama. I personally think the Democrats that made this PSA for our active military should be out on their asses tomorrow. What the hell are they thinking? There are already Democratic Veterans that are raising hell over it. I don't they thought this out much, I hope it backfires bigtime!

I'm sure I am preaching to the choir, any vets out there know what the penalties are for a service member flat disobeying a directive? I'm guessing it's a little harsh. We will see how well they "got your back" on the way to Leavenworth.

Trump needs to put an end to this crap somehow, short of Death of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flogger

Nothing like a little political melodrama. I personally think the Democrats that made this PSA for our active military should be out on their asses tomorrow. What the hell are they thinking? There are already Democratic Veterans that are raising hell over it. I don't they thought this out much, I hope it backfires bigtime!

I'm sure I am preaching to the choir, any vets out there know what the penalties are for a service member flat disobeying a directive? I'm guessing it's a little harsh. We will see how well they "got your back" on the way to Leavenworth.

Trump needs to put an end to this crap somehow, short of Death of course.

---

This is the video:
https://x.com/SenatorSlotkin/status/...356902948?s=20

Can you please explain what Trump should put an end to "short of death" (he's been threatening death, by the way).

Is it free speech?
Is it telling service members they don't have to follow illegal or unconstitutional orders?

I'm really confused... Perhaps the video is in ill taste, but seriously?? Strictly speaking it isn't wrong... Tell me why you think these people should be drawn and quartered?

Is it because a Democrat said it?

Is the MAGA perspective that hypothetical orders of Trump can intentionally violate the constitution and must be followed?
https://www.army.mil/values/oath.html

E.g. do you think a hypothetical conflict in the oath means that the constitution is subordinate to the executive, e.g. we are not a Republic?

I'm surprised by the MAGA outrage on something they would have agreed with just four years ago if spoken by Bush.

What are those illegal orders President Trump supposedly gave?
We just making stuff up and getting our panties in bunch?

So funny how both sides say the same thing, "They/he/she swore an oath to the Constitution." ...and each side believes they are on the right side of the Consitution.

Fox:
TBH, I'm sorrta stunned I'm sortta on your side with this......... in a way.
In the sense that Pres Trump should've just let this go. He doesn't have to S$$T talk EVERY stupid nonsense the Dems throw out.

And it is stupid nonsense: some melodramatic comments on their part as if there are actually Soldiers following illegal orders and as if their post would ease their minds.
Because they aren't and it doesn't.
In fact, in this era of retribution once in power, I take it as a threat on their part.
As if when the Dems regain power, however long that takes, they will drag some poor sod out and make him an example for following "illegal orders" given by the evil, corrupt "King Trump."
Because they've been beating that drum with the DHS, ICE etc etc and now they've turned on the Military.
(Oh and the Supreme Court as well.)
Thats why it's just retarded and insulting they "went there."

Now it's your turn:
You explain why they felt the need to post this.
No seriously.
It's just more fearmongering and gaslighting on their part.
But please what valid reason was there to post it?

In all the years of "interventions" by Dems and Repub Presidents, why now?
Why would they commit to this now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oscar77

Fox:
TBH, I'm sorrta stunned I'm sortta on your side with this......... in a way.
In the sense that Pres Trump should've just let this go. He doesn't have to S$$T talk EVERY stupid nonsense the Dems throw out.

And it is stupid nonsense: some melodramatic comments on their part as if there are actually Soldiers following illegal orders and as if their post would ease their minds.
Because they aren't and it doesn't.
In fact, in this era of retribution once in power, I take it as a threat on their part.
As if when the Dems regain power, however long that takes, they will drag some poor sod out and make him an example for following "illegal orders" given by the evil, corrupt "King Trump."
Because they've been beating that drum with the DHS, ICE etc etc and now they've turned on the Military.
(Oh and the Supreme Court as well.)
Thats why it's just retarded and insulting they "went there."

Now it's your turn:
You explain why they felt the need to post this.
No seriously.
It's just more fearmongering and gaslighting on their part.
But please what valid reason was there to post it?

In all the years of "interventions" by Dems and Repub Presidents, why now?
Why would they commit to this now?

---

We have a similar perspective. It is insulting etc., and much of what you have said is true.

But FFS Maga, it's not technically wrong and calling for the execution of disagreeing opinions add real justification to THEIR arguments that the current admin is becoming a tyrant.

I view it as ironic... They say "If Trump goes there, you don't have to" and his response is "we should execute these dissenting politicians!!!" All but going there. (Paraphrasing both, so sue me). Their position is insulting and obviously intended to court dissent in the Mil. It's BS but free speech. Trumps position is despotic and the antithesis of a Republic. Who is the better person? They both should sit on a cactus.

I see nothing wrong with the theme of what the democrats said in the video posted above. Members of the military have the duty and obligation to refuse unlawful orders.

The part where they act like we're suddenly in a constitutional crisis is kind of humorous.

I saw the video in question. I think it was very carefully scripted with lawyers because the Democrats in question are undoubtedly trying to incite "resistance" within the military but in actual words, they simply recite Law of Armed Conflict training. Trump's post was classic Trump overreaction. I think he should have just ignored their video or said it seemed to have seditious intent and left it at that. Intent is not the same as action.

Trump's post just made their video go even more viral and is being used to garner sympathy for the Dems because of his mention of the death penalty.

Sounds like everyone's roughly on the same page.

If executive orders hypothetically come down and a service member said "no" because they are clearly unconstitutional, they are (probably) going to be f'ed regardless of whether the order is unconstitutional or illegal, regardless of what anyone says in a video.
Whether they are in Leavenworth depends almost entirely on whether their respective COC protects them (doesn't report it), or not.

VERY akin to resisting a clearly unconstitutional arrest. (If you live, you may be released from prison in five years on appeal.)

It's all BS lip service in any event, and I don't really think it changes the goal posts. Thinking about it, I think the purpose of this video was to enrage the predictable narcissist, and he danced better than they predicted.

I'm also surprised at what some people will rubber-stamp from this admin. MAGA seems to want to justify *everything*. Trump would be a lot better behaved if his own people would occasionally ...

https://assets.capitalfm.com/2022/37...842-view-0.png

Even people's heros make mistakes. Its OK to call a spade, a spade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oscar77

Now it's your turn:
You explain why they felt the need to post this.
No seriously.
It's just more fearmongering and gaslighting on their part.
But please what valid reason was there to post it?

In all the years of "interventions" by Dems and Repub Presidents, why now?
Why would they commit to this now?

---

I'll field those questions.


I agree that, at this point, Trump should have stayed silent about this publicly.

I also agree that the Dems chose their words carefully.

What the Dems did here was to plant a seed. They're insinuating that the major overhauls occurring within the Department of War are unlawful/Un-Constitutional. The Dems know that there are many in today's military who don't agree with "the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me". They know there are many in today's military who align more with the Democratic/Socialist parties values and ideologies than we've ever had and that many of these people can be easily swayed. The seed they've planted will grow within those individuals to the point where they will begin to equate orders they disagree with to being unlawful or Un-Constitutional, even if they are not. At that point, they will believe they have a natural and legal right to disobey those orders.

Again, I think the Dems words were chosen to remain just on the cusp of making seditious comments, but never actually crossing that line. However, they knew that those words would eventually lead to seditious acts within the military to destabilize it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Google

Sedition is language or action that incites rebellion against a government, often by promoting hatred, contempt, or opposition to its authority. It is a crime that can involve advocating for the government's overthrow by force, obstructing the execution of laws, or inciting others to commit a crime.

---

ETA: Of course, the comments above are just 1 persons perspective on the situation. YMMV.

Anyone else find it peculiar the video came out the same time of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman visit at the White House? Are the dems worried Trump will do the same as he did in 2017?

?The Saudi purge refers to a series of mass arrests initiated by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman from late 2017 to early 2019, targeting prominent princes, government officials, and business leaders accused of corruption. This crackdown aimed to consolidate power for bin Salman and address rampant corruption within the Saudi government.?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by theGinsue

I'll field those questions.


I agree that, at this point, Trump should have stayed silent about this publicly.

I also agree that the Dems chose their words carefully.

What the Dems did here was to plant a seed. They're insinuating that the major overhauls occurring within the Department of War are unlawful/Un-Constitutional. The Dems know that there are many in today's military who don't agree with "the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me". They know there are many in today's military who align more with the Democratic/Socialist parties values and ideologies than we've ever had and that many of these people can be easily swayed. The seed they've planted will grow within those individuals to the point where they will begin to equate orders they disagree with to being unlawful or Un-Constitutional, even if they are not. At that point, they will believe they have a natural and legal right to disobey those orders.

Again, I think the Dems words were chosen to remain just on the cusp of making seditious comments, but never actually crossing that line. However, they knew that those words would eventually lead to seditious acts within the military to destabilize it.




ETA: Of course, the comments above are just 1 persons perspective on the situation. YMMV.

---

10 ring Thomas.
Sowing further seeds of division.

Democrats are a cancer.

The one point I'll note where the Dems in the video may have crossed a line is when they definitively state Trump's orders are targeting or harming US citizens but to be honest, this isn't much different from some of the rhetoric I've seen against Obama or Clinton in the past. I consider every one of the people in the video to be scumbags, especially Slotkin, but I still think they very carefully crafted the words to skirt actual sedition (while still trying to encourage it).

I'd also like to throw out a reminder that these same Democrats were NOWHERE to be seen when thousands of our service members chose to disobey an unlawful order and lost their careers, benefits, etc. for refusing to take the experimental jabs. They didn't exactly have the service members backs then, now did they? Oh, I get it - they'll only support them if it's for something THEY disagree with (or will they? I doubt it - just more useful idiots to be sacrificed on the alter of socialism.).

^ Preach!

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/...llegal-orders/

I'm a little uncomfortable with this but I remember service members being counseled (or worse) about Article 88 during the Clinton administration for far less than Kelly said so at the moment, I'm thinking this is sauce for the gander.

Well, It didn't take long........... here's the next step in going after the Military.

https://kdvr.com/news/nationalworld-...-boat-strikes/

They refused to pay the Military during the shutdown.
Then we got a vague warning from them.
Now they want the DOJ ruling.

And then this:

https://www.foxnews.com/media/ruben-...nce-trump-gone

So the Dems are going to F%%K with the Military.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oscar77

Well, It didn't take long........... here's the next step in going after the Military.

https://kdvr.com/news/nationalworld-...-boat-strikes/

They refused to pay the Military during the shutdown.
Then we got a vague warning from them.
Now they want the DOJ ruling.

And then this:

https://www.foxnews.com/media/ruben-...nce-trump-gone

So the Dems are going to F%%K with the Military.

---

I don't see an issue in declassifying a legal opinion justifying extrajudicial killings by the executive branch. That's the kind of thing that shouldn't be classified.

I'm opposed to our secret courts almost entirely, with only incredibly rare exception. A republic lives in the light.

That's the extent of my comment, though, not siding with anybody.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FoxtArt

I don't see an issue in declassifying a legal opinion justifying extrajudicial killings by the executive branch. That's the kind of thing that shouldn't be classified.

I'm opposed to our secret courts almost entirely, with only incredibly rare exception. A republic lives in the light.

That's the extent of my comment, though, not siding with anybody.

---

I know you dont see any issue with any of this.
Just like you dont have any issue with the Socialists uttering lies and violent rhetoric, committing acts of lawlessness and murder, attempting to destroy pretty much all the Govt Institutions.
You have TDS after all.
We accept you just the same.

Typical knee jerk strawman.

Imagine Obama is doing drone strikes off the radar, and there are secret court opinions justifying it. Do you believe those legal opinions should also be classified, and why? We're not talking intelligence here; we're talking about the political and bureaucratic rationale.

I'd love to hear the rationale for why and where Obama, Biden, or the next US Liberal whackjob president can unilaterally kill people outside of any conflict should be classified and never explained outside of a select few.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FoxtArt

Typical knee jerk strawman.

Imagine Obama is doing drone strikes off the radar, and there are secret court opinions justifying it. Do you believe those legal opinions should also be classified, and why? We're not talking intelligence here; we're talking about the political and bureaucratic rationale.

I'd love to hear the rationale for why and where Obama, Biden, or the next US Liberal whackjob president can unilaterally kill people outside of any conflict should be classified and never explained outside of a select few.

---

You are referring to me? I'm the "strawman?"
Regardless, we dont have to imagine other Presidents doing that.
President Clinton: 1993 and 1998.
President Obama: 2009 and 2011.
And did the Republicans at the time, warn the Military against following "Illegal orders?"
No.

TBH I really dont mind bantering back/forth with you. It's- to me- done with respect. But dont lose your perspective here: These weren't secret actions- they announced them, there isn't a "secret court" opinion about it- It was a DOJ opinion that they are after, and Yes, part of this does involve Intelligence collection- so yes there maybe there is sensitive data on how we targeted those particular boats.
Finally its not classified nor "explained outside a select few"................... we and the press are beating this dead horse openly, arent we?

PS: Just so you know, this Selective Outrage from you (respectfully you are on "that side") and the left is old, really old.
Please stop, it was old when the Clintons did it, got irritating when Pres Obama did it and just non-stop under Pres Biden.
And now, well it's TDS.
(Same thing with the "victim" attitude or "We are the party of the working person" etc etc)

And dont ramble on when Political groups "unilaterally kill people outside of any conflict."
Mr Kirk was murdered unilaterally and the Left shrugged and outright said, "He deserved it."

Does anyone here believe that these boats coming out of Venezuela towards the United States are anything but drug-running boats?
Does anyone here believe that drug-runners/cartels should NOT be classified as terrorists to the United States?
Does anyone here believe that the 21+ strikes against these boats is anything other than taking out terrorists heading to do harm within the United States?

I believe that these are drug-running terrorists heading our way to do harm to our people and should be dealt with prior to reaching the shores of the United States. To that end, I firmly agree with the use of military assets to accomplish that goal, not just here but any other place we know drugs are coming into the United States. President Ronald Reagan publicly declared a "war on drugs" in October of 1982 and yet all efforts have shown dismal results because we've consistently waited to take action until the drugs breach our borders. It's estimated that each year the United States has over 100,000 deaths from illicit drug use. We should have been going after the sources of these drugs over and over again since the beginning.

As to whether or not the OLC or any court documents are classified, I suppose that depends on what those documents say. If they identify further, more extensive plans to go after these narco-terrorists in other places, yeah, they should remain classified. We don't need to reveal to the world what our plans are to protect our borders and the people within them. Doing so would put our troops at risk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by theGinsue

Does anyone here believe that these boats coming out of Venezuela towards the United States are anything but drug-running boats?
Does anyone here believe that drug-runners/cartels should NOT be classified as terrorists to the United States?
Does anyone here believe that the 21+ strikes against these boats is anything other than taking out terrorists heading to do harm within the United States?

I believe that these are drug-running terrorists heading our way to do harm to our people and should be dealt with prior to reaching the shores of the United States. To that end, I firmly agree with the use of military assets to accomplish that goal, not just here but any other place we know drugs are coming into the United States. President Ronald Reagan publicly declared a "war on drugs" in October of 1982 and yet all efforts have shown dismal results because we've consistently waited to take action until the drugs breach our borders. It's estimated that each year the United States has over 100,000 deaths from illicit drug use. We should have been going after the sources of these drugs over and over again since the beginning.

As to whether or not the OLC or any court documents are classified, I suppose that depends on what those documents say. If they identify further, more extensive plans to go after these narco-terrorists in other places, yeah, they should remain classified. We don't need to reveal to the world what our plans are to protect our borders and the people within them. Doing so would put our troops at risk.

---

Well said.
Thank You.

The classified memo probably cites intelligence proving the boats in question are linked to drug running and probably links that to organized plans that are why Trump and company view them as a national security threat rather than simply criminal enterprise. It would need evidence like that in order to deliver a legal opinion that justifies the use of lethal force. IMINT would trace the origin of the boats and perhaps the cargo on them but they'd probably need to have SIGINT and/or HUMINT to link the boats and cargo to an organized national security threat. That intelligence is perishable and revealing it -- if it's HUMINT -- could actually put someone's life in danger.

What Kelly and the others said would potentially violate Article 88 if they were active duty commissioned officers but Kelly retired about 14 years ago. IANAL but while you can recall a separated or retired commissioned officer to active duty for prosecution of something they did while on active duty, I don't think you can recall them to prosecute them for something they did after leaving service. What Slotkin, Kelly, et al said on that video was encouraging seditious conduct and they rightly should be condemned for doing so in editorials and public opinion but proving criminal conduct will be very difficult in a court of law, even more so if attempting to prosecute Kelly under the UCMJ.

The drug boats are heading to Florida undoubtedly. If you interfere in any way with Trump, Musk, Space Force etc. and their operations, they can and will excercise deadly force. This is the Manhattan Project on steroids.

https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/1...ing-with-whom/

Let's also not forget that Mark Kelly, and every one of those other "vets" are rabid anti-2nd Amendment and want to take away your rights to own "weapons of war."

They also voted not to pay the Military.

Their actions are sowing the seeds of sedition, no doubt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oscar77

You are referring to me? I'm the "strawman?"
Regardless, we dont have to imagine other Presidents doing that.
President Clinton: 1993 and 1998.
President Obama: 2009 and 2011.
And did the Republicans at the time, warn the Military against following "Illegal orders?"
No.

TBH I really dont mind bantering back/forth with you. It's- to me- done with respect. But dont lose your perspective here: These weren't secret actions- they announced them, there isn't a "secret court" opinion about it- It was a DOJ opinion that they are after, and Yes, part of this does involve Intelligence collection- so yes there maybe there is sensitive data on how we targeted those particular boats.
Finally its not classified nor "explained outside a select few"................... we and the press are beating this dead horse openly, arent we?

PS: Just so you know, this Selective Outrage from you (respectfully you are on "that side") and the left is old, really old.
Please stop, it was old when the Clintons did it, got irritating when Pres Obama did it and just non-stop under Pres Biden.
And now, well it's TDS.
(Same thing with the "victim" attitude or "We are the party of the working person" etc etc)

And dont ramble on when Political groups "unilaterally kill people outside of any conflict."
Mr Kirk was murdered unilaterally and the Left shrugged and outright said, "He deserved it."

---

Strawman: an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

Things like "TDS" or "Charlie Kirk was murdered" are great examples of Strawmen. Also "that side".

You know what's funny? I'm a conservative/federalist. But my positions don't mold like playdough around whatever sociopath is in power.

I believe in the reduction of the federal government, balanced budget, and respect for the constitution, all of it, including the 10th, 11th, etc.

Remember the constitution? "MAGA" is no better than a commie when they act like the means justifies the end in its violations. E.g. "They are drug boats, who cares".

MAGA doing that today becomes progressive whack jobs tomorrow, that now have a foundation in violation. "They are domestic terrorists, who cares".

Trump is very far from a conservative/federalist. He believes in the massive expansion and centralizing federal power and the executive, the expansion of the budget, and direct payments to citizens to appease dissent.

He's nearly the antithesis of the party's core principles, but he's great at cosplay and headline generation, and also plays a martyr ridiculously well, which is wildly successful, everyone loves an underdog accosted by mutual enemies.

Is TDS feeling obligated to blindly justify every action a politician makes, never calling them out on anything?

I'll ETA: The classification points are good arguments... still, can't sensitive information be redacted as is the norm for public release of sensitive/CUI/TC/TSC information? We're talking less about the intelligence here, and more about the legal justification for an executive ordering death. Shouldn't that legal justification be public?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FoxtArt

I'll ETA: The classification points are good arguments... still, can't sensitive information be redacted as is the norm for public release of sensitive/CUI/TC/TSC information? We're talking less about the intelligence here, and more about the legal justification for an executive ordering death. Shouldn't that legal justification be public?

---

I would like the legal justification to be public but since the justification is likely based on sensitive intelligence and would need to cite that intelligence extensively in order follow the legal reasoning, what we'd get after redaction to make it publicly releasable would probably be unsatisfying to most people. I expect it would be something along the lines of, "The boats in question were located at XXXXXXX by means of XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX. XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX which constitutes a threat to national security. XXXXXXX is XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX. The US is therefore justified in the use of deadly force." Probably several paragraphs (or pages) of XXXXXXXXXXX.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter

I would like the legal justification to be public but since the justification is likely based on sensitive intelligence and would need to cite that intelligence extensively in order follow the legal reasoning, what we'd get after redaction to make it publicly releasable would probably be unsatisfying to most people. I expect it would be something along the lines of, "The boats in question were located at XXXXXXX by means of XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX. XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX which constitutes a threat to national security. XXXXXXX is XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX. The US is therefore justified in the use of deadly force." Probably several paragraphs (or pages) of XXXXXXXXXXX.

---

You certainly could be right, we've seen it before on other releases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FoxtArt

You certainly could be right, we've seen it before on other releases.

---

... and usually for good reasons (in my opinion). One thing the press always conveniently ignores in these situations is that the legislators in question could request to view the legal memo -- that's a part of oversight -- but they'd have to do so in the Congressional SCIF, they can't take notes, and once they view it, they can't talk about it. They would much rather stand on their soap boxes than actually view the memo and have to admit it makes sense. We've seen that game played before.

Two National Guard members were shot today near the White House.

An Afgani is being reported as the shooter.
Sorry, no red hats were seen anywhere.

Remind me again please of which specific aspects of Islam is compatible with Western culture and values…….

I will patiently wait.


There are 6 Democrats that this incident lies upon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BPTactical

Remind me again please of which specific aspects of Islam is compatible with Western culture and values…….

I will patiently wait.


There are 6 Democrats that this incident lies upon.

---

Exactly. However, every media outlet, d politician and the tukfards who voted for them all share the blame

I guess that "WE" need to tone the rhetoric down wasn't meant for them, was it.

This shooting in d.c has me as angry as i was on 9/11