Good Saturday morning! Grab a coffee, and a danish. We have a lot of ground to cover today.
Today is November 22, 2025.
Today in History:
2005: Angela Merkel takes office as German Chancellor
2004: Orange Revolution begins in Ukraine
1995: Toy Story released
1963: John F. Kennedy assassinated.
=-=-=-
By now, you will have heard of this as filtered through the legacy media, such as CNN:
A half-dozen congressional Democrats cut a video this week urging members of the military not to obey unlawful orders that Trump might issue. Trump then responded by issuing a series of social media posts suggesting these members had committed sedition and possibly even deserved to die.
Trump went from saying they should be arrested, to re-posting someone who said George Washington would “HANG THEM,” to saying “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt clarified Thursday that Trump does not, in fact, want members of Congress put to death.
But she otherwise stood by the idea that these members were acting dangerously and undermining the commander in chief. She said the members were urging members of the military to “defy the chain of command.”
“They are literally saying to 1.3 million active-duty service members to defy the chain of command – not to follow lawful orders,” Leavitt said.
Well, surprise, surprise, surprise, that is EXACTLY what they were doing. Question is, “Who’s they?”
Newsweek, is uncharacteristically on top of this part of it, at least.
…. Michigan Senator Elissa Slotkin, Arizona Senator Mark Kelly, Pennsylvania Representatives Chris Deluzio and Chrissy Houlahan, and New Hampshire Representative Maggie Goodlander, all of whom have military or intelligence backgrounds.
In the video, the Democrats urged service members to defy “illegal orders.”
Fox News:
We’re going to get into what is behind all this, but first let’s make sure we understand the laws as they pertain:
The Military Law Task Force website tells us that the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) states in part that:
“Any person subject to this chapter who willfully disobeys a lawful command of that person’s superior commissioned officer shall be punished-(1) if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct; and (2) if the offense is committed at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.”
The Rules for Courts-Martial states that an order is lawful “unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders or for some other reason is beyond the authority of the official issuing it.”
The wording in the video is so carefully vague, it’s easy enough to agree with what they’ve said, but it is also totally useless. There was no mention at all of what orders given the President has given that have been illegal, because they knew such wording would land the lot of them in court before the echo died. They’re trying to make the case that what Trump is doing with the military is unlawful, but their spineless video utterly fails to do that. It simply implies. So why are they saying it, and just as importantly, why are they saying it NOW?
Folks, this vid cost money to make, and its distribution did as well. Where did the money come from? I find it interesting that it comes on the heels of the Dems securing a $15M USD loan for their operations going into the midterm elections. Yeah, they’ve gotten loans before, but to my memory, never so early in the cycle. Notice, too, that the source of the loan is a subject that none of the legacy media will touch.
The timing of this thing is important. This vid, whatever else it is, is also a weapon of mass distraction, which was only released when the Democrats recognized they weren’t going to get the mileage out of trying to link Trump to Epstein anymore. When so many Democrats started for the door following Trump signing off on the release of those files, they shifted to this new chant, faster than a trucker can change gears.
Clearly this new plan was required to sway the public. It plays directly into this nonsense that Trump is a king, a tyrant, or whatever. Let’s also recall that, as I’ve said so often, the only government program the Democrats don’t like is the military. And guess what? The military knows this very well, so it’s logical to assume that the effect this will cause in the minds of the brave folks in uniform will be minimal. The Democrats know this. The actual target here is not the military, but rather, the voting public.
Then, too, please remember that these same Democrats had no problem with Obama hitting and killing US citizens with drones. They said nothing. Now, suddenly they’re all up in arms about an as yet unidentified “illegal order” of Trump?
Spare me.
First, we’re talking about the military being called on to deal with illegal aliens in American cities which constitute nothing less than an invasion. The Democrats are crying that this is illegal, and yet every time it’s been brought to a court, they lose their case. All they can do is use temporary stays to slow down the actions of the president.
So now, they mount this effort to encourage the military to buck those orders to the military and intel folks. They don’t have to get specific for this, all they have to do is darkly whisper “Orange Man Bad,” and the operation, so far as the public is concerned, is a success. Supposedly.
Second, the subject that nobody dares to discuss is Venezuela and Maduro. Now, while Chinese drugs, through the hands of Maduro, play into this, the real issue is the Chinese and the Islamic radicals Maduro has been embracing. (Could that $15M USD loan have come from Chinese sources, I wonder? It would certainly fit the known facts and their previous actions.)
The unanswered question is, what specifically are the “unlawful” orders Trump has issued?
Can the Democrats actually be specific? Can they stop using weasel words in their desperation campaign to stop the president? Obviously, the Democrats have come to understand that they’re waltzing through a minefield of their own making. So the answer is no, they can’t be honest with the American people.
Big shock, huh?
This story is by no means over. I suggest there will be legal actions taken against the people who made this video, as there should be.
Thanks for visiting this morning. Be sure to be here tomorrow, and bring your friends. See you then.
