Six Democrats urge military personnel to ignore Trump’s orders

November 25, 2025

The latest event in the Democrat war against President Donald Trump is a video by a group of Democrat lawmakers with military and intelligence backgrounds in which they urge military service members to "refuse illegal orders." 

Those appearing in the video are Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich.; Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz.; Rep. Chris Deluzio, D-Pa.; Rep. Maggie Goodlander, D-N.H.; Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa.; and Rep. Jason Crow, D-Colo. The six lawmakers noted their prior military and government service to give credence to their message. The branches and agencies represented were the Army, Navy, Air Force and Central Intelligence Agency.

A favorite phrase from the 1.5-minute video is, "You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders," which was repeated frequently. The basis for this event is what the group terms "threats to our Constitution [that] are coming from right here at home."

Two of the group, Slotkin and Crowe, have introduced legislation aimed at stopping or limiting Trump’s actions to deploy National Guard members domestically, or to launch military action against narco-terrorists without congressional approval.

As reported by Fox News, “Slotkin’s ‘No Troops in Our Streets Act,’ detailed in a Nov. 13 release, would give Congress the power to block National Guard deployments inside American cities. President Trump has expanded National Guard operations to Los Angeles, Portland and Chicago amid violent crime.

“Rep. Jason Crow, D-Colo., simultaneously introduced a War Powers Continuing Resolution … to block the president from ordering strikes on drug traffickers in the Caribbean — actions Crow described in a release as ‘unauthorized and illegal.’”

Describing the action of the Democrat 6, Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., said: "At the end of the day, they’re mad the American people chose Trump and now they’re calling on the Military and Intelligence Community to intervene. Sounds a little ‘subversive to democracy’-ish."

What makes this event even more controversial than just an organized political opposition movement is that the Democrat 6 speak as if Trump’s orders to the military are patently obvious illegal orders. Even if they were or are illegal, this broad encouragement that every E2, E3, E4, et al, military person should act on their personal evaluation is foolish. As if those with lower ranks and minimal service time are equipped to make such judgements.

Anyone who has served in the military for even a few years knows that you follow orders, without question. This is a standard established in the first few hours of basic training.

All members of the military services are governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). In it is the concept that obeying orders is not optional, except in cases where the illegality is plain as day. In such cases, service members risk punishment if they act before a superior authority has ruled the order unlawful.

Fox’s Morgan Phillips’ report on this event includes this information: “The UCMJ’s Article 90 states that any service member who ‘willfully disobeys a lawful command’ of a superior officer can face up to five years’ confinement, loss of all pay and allowances and dishonorable discharge. If the offense occurs in wartime, the punishment can be death or any lesser penalty a court-martial decides.”

“Military law sets an extremely narrow standard for refusing an order: it must be manifestly unlawful — so clearly illegal that ‘a person of ordinary sense and understanding’ would recognize it as a crime on its face. Examples include commands to kill civilians, torture detainees or overthrow the government.”

Military lawyers remind us that those provisions are the basis of the strict level of discipline that exists in the military services. That is the very system the Democrat 6 video challenges.

Following the release of the video, Trump called for the six Democrat lawmakers to face arrest and trial. “It’s called seditious behavior at the highest level,” Trump charged in a post on Truth Social. “Each one of these traitors to our Country should be arrested and put on trial. Their words cannot be allowed to stand - we won’t have a Country anymore!!! An example must be set.”

In his response to the video’s message, Trump mentioned the punishment outlined in the UCMJ, including the part saying that under certain circumstances, the death penalty could apply.

He had also reposted a comment by another Truth Social user: “Hang them, George Washington would!!” These comments led to the charge that Trump had called for killing the Democrat 6. Trump supporters said that he wasn’t calling for them to be killed, merely noting that the death penalty was a possible penalty for sedition.

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La, defended Trump’s declaration that the Democrats engaged in “sedition.” He said they were being “wildly inappropriate” in suggesting military personnel consider Trump’s orders unlawful. He added that in mentioning seditious behavior was punishable by death, that Trump was merely “defining the crime of sedition.”

And always remember that when someone says something, there is how the listener interprets it, and what the speaker actually intended.

It is quite disturbing, perhaps criminal, that former military personnel — who should thoroughly understand military discipline, and the chaos that disobeying orders could cause — would strongly encourage military personnel to disobey orders.

A topic that gets a good bit of attention is media neutrality

November 18, 2025

Republicans and conservatives have for quite a while complained about many, or perhaps most, of the major news media in the country having a strong leftist bias. Donald Trump’s entrance into the political world has made this bias much more obvious.

The brilliant economist and commentator Thomas Sowell has addressed this reality several times, and one of his comments is this one from a publication in 1999: “The press has always claimed to be a watchdog, but too often it has been a lapdog — or an attack dog, depending on the politics of the moment. What is truly remarkable is not the bias itself, but the utter lack of self-awareness about it.” 

One of the critical principles of reliable news journalism is neutrality, meaning that reporting must include equal amounts of the various points of view. Seemingly, that is often not the case, these days. This may be at least partly the fault of college journalism education, which, like so much of higher education recently, has sacrificed traditional teaching of the curricula for pushing political philosophies.

As Sowell mentioned, there was indeed a lack of self-awareness of bias in journalism for many years, but more recently, rather than subconscious failure of bias awareness, there has been a deliberate implementation of bias to suit the political desires of the writers.

Accusations of this bias have been roundly denied by the perpetrators. But recently, a major news provider has come clean, acknowledging its bias.

“The BBC, one of the world’s biggest broadcasters, has been plunged into crisis after two top executives quit after a leaked memo [suggested] that it had misleadingly edited a speech by President Trump that preceded the Jan. 6 Capitol riot,” as reported by The New York Times.

The executives who resigned after this information went public are Tim Davie, BBC’s director general, and Deborah Turness, chief executive of BBC News. 

In early comments on that day, Trump said, "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." He also said, “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.”

However, the BBC report deleted part of his comments, and added some comments from roughly 50 minutes later, that were on the subject of U.S. elections and corruption allegations, not marching down to the Capital. The BBC falsely reported Trump saying, “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol … and I’ll be there with you … and we fight. We fight like hell.” 

Clearly, the BBC’s fake reporting supported the attitude of Trump’s critics, enabling them to suggest that Trump was inciting violence. And that false perspective became a very popular one with Trump’s media and political enemies.

Director General Davie said in his resignation statement that the BBC was "not perfect, and we must always be open, transparent and accountable." And later, CEO Turness stated, “I'd like to make one thing very clear — BBC News is not institutionally biased."

The BBC issued a statement in which it said it "regrets the error" and issued a personal apology to Trump, but has declined to provide financial compensation for its action. Trump has threatened a lawsuit if some financial penalty is not paid. He is claiming that the BBC defamed him in its biased story.

This sort of political chicanery is dishonesty on parade. It defies the very nature of what news journalism is assumed to be, supposed to be. And, it demonstrates the serious and profound lack of integrity and professionalism that is required of news journalists that exists in much of the news media.

The type of false reporting done by the BBC is also being done by several American media outlets that do not like Donald Trump. Those here at home just haven’t yet been caught and outed by insiders who have the integrity and courage to expose their dishonest brethren.

The U.S. faces serious problems in the loss of professional integrity in some fields that are critical to our constitutional republic’s being able to survive. Among these important areas are science, education, journalism and politics.

These important areas have a significant effect on the people, what they believe and what they do, and their constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. And in fact, these weaknesses threaten our very existence as the country with a government system that is superior to all others. That system is one which we have enjoyed for the more than two centuries of our existence. 

All great nations eventually fall. And they fall due to serious problem within. We must hope and pray that enough of the American people realize this, and stand up for returning our country to its original state provided to us by our Founding Fathers, and reverse the dishonesty and lack of professional integrity in these important areas of life.

If we fail to make these changes, take a hard look at places like Iran, Russia Cuba and Venezuela, and prepare to join them in disaster.

The search for power, and using it to control the country

November 11, 2025

Since the colonies became fed up with the heavy-handed rule of the British crown more than 250 years ago, a government design opposite to that arrangement has been the goal. A government of the people, by the people and for the people became the dominant theory. And that idea was the basis for our constitution and the government that it created.

But the benefit of that concept has gradually faded through the years, leading to decades of actions that weakened that system, and has taken control out of the hands of the people, and put a growing degree of power in the hands of those serving in government.

Today we see a larger and more controlling government body than our Founders could ever have imagined would evolve from their system.

The tri-partite government consisting of a legislative branch, an administrative branch and a judicial branch, each independent of the other two, and no single branch being more powerful than the others, has been weakened.

Our federal government has grown in the number of administrative departments and employees. Along with that growth has come more and more interference with the freedoms recognized in the U.S. Constitution as belonging to the people, and protected by the government, not provided by it.

In many cases, the growth of government and the accompanying loss of personal freedom that resulted may have been intended to accomplish good things. And perhaps some good did result. However, the weakening of the system is ultimately a greater harm than the relatively small degree of good that may have been gained.

For example, what one may now do with their property is now controlled by volumes of laws and regulations from all levels of government. If, for example, you have a pond or some small water feature, you likely will have to get government approval to change it, or do away with it. Other similar restrictions apply over almost everything.

This negative change in how our government operates is dealt with by Mark Levin in his new book On Power. Levin, a constitutional lawyer, author and syndicated talk show host, comments in his chapter titled, “On Negative Power,” the following: “Given the ubiquity of the federal government and its reach into virtually all areas of society, this is an enormous betrayal of representative government by the supposed representative branches.”

He notes that for a century or so the three branches have been involved in “the construction of a massive administrative state, the contours of which are elusive and seemingly boundless, and constructed without a constitutional foundation.”

And he cites the failure of the judicial branch to call a halt to this development and legitimization of the fourth branch of government: the bureaucracy, which is not in the U.S. Constitution.

In the last 100-plus years, 10 new federal departments have been created:
1903 - the Department of Commerce and Labor, which was separated in 1913 into two departments: the Department of Commerce and the Department of Labor
1953 - the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
1965 - the Department of Housing and Urban Development
1966 - the Department of Transportation
1977 - the Department of Energy
1979 - the Department of Education
1980 - the Department of Health and Human Services
1989 - the Department of Veteran’s Affairs
2002 - the Department of Homeland Security

About this growth and movement away from our governmental design, Levin notes that the failure of the judiciary to intervene, as it can legally do, has given this movement an appearance of legitimacy. “The delegation of representative government to a non-representative, ever-expanding bureaucratic behemoth is, by intent and design, the overthrow of actual representative and consensual government,” he wrote.

“As a result, the unelected judiciary and bureaucracy hold enormous power over the people by literally removing their participation and consent.”

Recognition of the rise in bureaucratic power and authority, and the accompanying loss of individual freedom, is not a new thing. And efforts to do an about-face and restore our republic to its original status are not unheard of, but so far have not been strong enough and not very successful.

President Donald Trump and his administration are making efforts to straighten things out a bit. But that is a long and steep road.

A White House Fact Sheet, released last February, focuses on the idea of dramatically reducing “the size of the Federal Government, while increasing its accountability to the American people,” and ending “ineffective government programs that empower government without achieving measurable results.”

As with everything Trump says and does, criticism and resistance abound. The criticism and resistance of the opposing political forces is expected. And they do not hesitate to exaggerate and mis-represent what is happening. But resistance has also surfaced in the judiciary, reinforcing what Levin said about that. Actions by federal district court judges, many of which have been determined to have been inappropriate, are interfering with Trump’s efforts.

And then there is the criminal activity in much of the resistance. Interfering with federal law enforcement in their efforts to arrest and deport illegal criminal aliens, for example, is not an approved peaceful protest, it is against the law.

On property taxes, and dangerous and violent political language

October 4, 2025

There is a concept in America that the greatest asset that you can own is a home. 

Recently, the point has been made a few times that we do not really own our home. The reasons cited are, first, that if you owe money on a loan and fall on hard times and don’t make your payments, the lender may take your home. From that point of view, you don’t own your home, you are in essence renting it from the lender, and the lender could push you out of it if you can’t pay the loan.

Another is that even if you have paid off the loan you got to buy it, if you cannot pay the property taxes on it each year, the state can take your home. And once again, you don’t really own your home, the state does, and you are merely renting it.

And, in many cases, property taxes on a home are one of the biggest expenses people have each year.

Realwealth online tells us that “The average American homeowner spends around $2,869 on property taxes for their homes every year.” And depending upon the property, it quite often is much more than that. Realwealth goes on to say that “23 states also have a personal property tax on vehicles, adding another $440 for residents. Unfortunately, every state in the U.S. has some type of property tax.”

Some observers have asserted that while property taxes are a huge part of tax collections, they are not necessary. Those taxes payments can be partially made up by additional purchases citizens will make through increased sales taxes on the things they will buy with the property tax money they get to keep, and use for their benefit.

Other savings by the governments that collect taxes on real property can be made by more sensible spending decisions, using that tax money only to support things are truly in the best interest of its citizens.

While this idea has a good bit of support, it has not been the focus of much action, until now.

In March, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis said what others have said: "Property taxes effectively require homeowners to pay rent to the government. Florida residents need relief."

DeSantis has stated a desire to eliminate all residential and commercial property taxes, although what may actually happen is that only some commercial property will be tax free.

He is currently proposing doing away with property taxes on primary residences, or homestead properties where Floridians actually live. At this point, vacation homes, rental properties, and commercial real estate will remain taxable.

While several states besides Florida have no income tax, the Sunshine State could become the first state with no income tax and no property tax on primary residences, if DeSantis gets his way. 

However, this will require an amendment to the state’s constitution, and that means that 60 percent of both houses of the Legislature must first approve it. Then, 60 percent of voters will have to vote for it. And, the 60 percent bar is a higher level of support than any presidential candidate has ever achieved among Florida voters. 

The likelihood that this proposal, or one of a few other options, will pass seems quite likely, but uncertain at this time.

These days we are seeing talk in the political realm that is unnecessarily harsh and often dangerous. While both major parties engage in over-heated rhetoric, the Democrats are clearly winning that battle.

One fine example is the language of Democrat Virginia Attorney General candidate Jay Jones in a text to a House delegate in 2022.

“Three people, two bullets,” Jones wrote about former Virginia House Speaker Todd Gilbert, Adolf Hitler and Pol Pot. “Gilbert gets two bullets to the head.”

“Spoiler: put Gilbert in the crew with the two worst people you know and he receives both bullets every time,” Jones wrote. 

Despite this disgusting rant, Jones is still supported by Democrat leaders and voters.

And last month another Democrat issued similar thoughts about political opponents.

Democrat Texas state Rep. Jolanda Jones said on CNN that her party should get rid of every Republican and slash their necks.

“I’m from the hood, okay? So, when a bully comes, like, if there are no rules, you literally have to figure it out. So, Donald Trump has changed things, and people trying to do what’s always been done is not going to work,” she said. “And I think that’s why Democrats are losing black people, that’s why they’re losing poor people, because poor people, all they want is for us to fight.”

“So, if you hit me in my face, I’m not going to punch you back in your face, I’m going to go across your neck, because we can go back and forth fighting each other’s faces. You’ve got to hit hard enough where they won’t come back,” she continued. 

There is no place in American politics for such violent trash talk. The attitude that produces it is the same attitude behind the past violent riots and the current criminal resistance to federal law enforcement’s efforts to rid the country of violent illegal aliens. It must end.

Creating an event structure and destroying the White House

October 28, 2025

Now that the “No Kings” protest is over, it’s time for new criticisms of President Trump to be launched. And the topic this time is the White House ballroom project.

A few of the comments:

* California Governor Gavin Newsom grumbled that Trump is “literally destroying the White House.” 

* "It’s not his house," Hillary Clinton posted on X. "It’s your house. And he’s destroying it." 

* Jessica Tarlov, a Democrat who co-hosts “The Five” on Fox News, called the ballroom project “a monstrosity.” It is “nothing like any of the other renovations” taken on by past presidents and “almost double the size of the White House itself, she said.”

* “The erasure of the East Wing isn’t just about marble or plaster — it’s about President Trump again taking a wrecking ball to our heritage, while targeting our democracy, and the rule of law,” said Chelsea Clinton.

That last one got a response from Donald Trump, Jr., who told Chelsea: “LOL, your parents tried stealing furniture and silverware from the White House … and let’s not talk about the intern. Sit this one out.”

And, unsurprisingly, there’s another criticism that features some shenanigans.

As reported on PBS, “At this moment in time, of course, the ballroom is really the president’s main priority,” [Karoline] Leavitt said in a five-second clip that leading Democrats, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., shared on X.

“Jeffries’ Oct. 23 post decried Leavitt’s comment: ‘The Trump administration just declared that erecting a ballroom is the President’s main priority. Meanwhile. The cost of living is way too high and the Republican health care crisis threatens millions of Americans.’

“The clip of Leavitt’s statement is real, but Jeffries and the House Democratic Caucus clipped her comments in a misleading way that removes the context. Leavitt never said the ballroom is a more important priority for the president than inflation, health care or ending the federal government shutdown.”

Along with the deliberate exaggeration about the project, and the deliberate misinformation provided, these criticisms also ignore an important fact: Donald Trump is not the first or only president to make modifications to the White House. These modifications date back almost to the early days of the White House.

Here are some of the more recent modifications, provided on yahoo.com: 

* 1902: Major renovation and expansion beyond the White House residence under President Theodore Roosevelt. First lady Edith Roosevelt hired architects to separate the White House’s living quarters from its offices. They also enlarged and modernized the White House’s public rooms, redid its landscaping and redecorated its interior.

* 1909: Expansion of the West Wing and creation of the Oval Office under President William Howard Taft, who expanded the existing, temporary building southward, covering the tennis court, and created the first Oval Office.

* 1927: Renovation of upper floors and attic of the White House under President Calvin Coolidge. He replaced the White House’s original wood trusses with steel while rebuilding the roof and adding a third-floor.

* 1929 and 1930: Renovation and reconstruction of the West Wing under President Herbert Hoover. In 1929, Hoover spent seven months remodeling the West Wing, excavating a partial basement and supporting it with structural steel. But on Christmas Eve of that year, a four-alarm fire significantly damaged his newly completed project, and Hoover was forced to rebuild the West Wing.

* 1934 and 1942: Overhaul of the West Wing and construction of the current East Wing under President Franklin D. Roosevelt. In 1934, Roosevelt added a second floor and a larger basement while relocating the Oval Office to its current location; in 1942, he built the current two-story East Wing office building primarily to cover the construction of an underground bunker. 

* 1948 to 1952: Full structural reconstruction of the White House under President Harry Truman, whose "total reconstruction" project preserved its exterior walls while rebuilding its foundation, adding steel and concrete to its structure. In the process, Truman added six rooms and two new sub-basements, bringing the total square footage close to where it is today.

* 1975: President Gerald Ford built a roughly 1,200-square-foot outdoor pool to replace the indoor pool that his predecessor, Richard Nixon, had covered and converted to the press briefing room five years earlier.

* 2007: The James S. Brady Press Briefing Room covers roughly 2,200 square feet and is surrounded by small offices for the White House press corps. President George W. Bush modernized the whole area.

Some people, who look at things other than their dislike for Trump and the public criticisms, think the ballroom is a good idea, even The Washington Post.

It’s difficult to hold large audience events now, as it requires using tents, heaters, chairs and lights, all of which must be set up, then taken down, and may have to be rented. This way, there is a facility that is set up and ready to use, and is a very nice facility. The need for this facility is so obvious that the idea was first proposed by President Harrison—back in 1891.

Is it possible that Trump Derangement Syndrome epidemic will fade, and what he does will be objectively evaluated?