Trump wants 6 members of Congress executed?

 

Trump wants 6 members of Congress executed? Really??? For What? SEDITION ... THAT'S WHAT!!!

"Well, they told the Military to defy orders. GO 'HEAD!!! RIGHT???"

The Anatomy of a Smear: How the Left Manufactures Lies to Criminalize Political Opposition

In the fever swamps of the modern American left, a new and dangerous conspiracy theory has taken root, one so unhinged it would be comical if it weren’t so sinister. The claim, circulating in the darkest corners of social media and whispered by partisan talking heads, is that former President Donald Trump called for the execution of six members of Congress. The alleged crime? Sedition. This is not merely a misstatement or a heated political exaggeration. It is a deliberate, malicious fabrication, a weaponized lie designed to achieve a singular goal: to criminalize political dissent and frame a leading presidential candidate as an enemy of the state. This is not politics as usual; it is the political equivalent of throwing a grenade into the foundations of our republic.

Let’s be unequivocally clear: There is no evidence—no recording, no tweet, no credible firsthand account—that Donald Trump ever called for the execution of six members of Congress. The claim is a grotesque fantasy, a Frankenstein’s monster stitched together from out-of-context quotes, wilful misinterpretations, and the pure, unadulterated venom of Trump Derangement Syndrome. It is a product of the same mindset that gave us the Russia collusion hoax, a multi-year, multimillion-dollar investigation that ultimately proved a former president innocent of a crime that existed only in the imaginations of his opponents. This new lie is simply the next chapter in that ongoing saga, a desperate attempt to salvage a narrative by escalating the stakes to their most extreme level.

The specific use of the word “sedition” is particularly telling and revealing of the left’s tactics. Sedition is not a casual term. It is a serious charge, defined as conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of the state. By attaching this word to their fabricated claim, the left is attempting a profound act of political jujitsu. They are taking the very real, documented instances of their own allies downplaying the violent riots of 2020, the “mostly peaceful” protests that burned cities and destroyed livelihoods, and projecting that sin onto their opponents. They are seeking to redefine legitimate political contestation—objecting to electoral results, challenging the integrity of voting processes, and holding passionate rallies—as an act of treason. In their worldview, to question the outcome of an election is not a right enshrined in our political tradition; it is sedition. To support a candidate they despise is not democracy; it is an insurrection.

This is the ultimate gaslighting. The same political party whose members spent four years questioning the legitimacy of the 2016 election, promoting the “not my president” mantra, and launching an unprecedented impeachment effort based on a perfect phone call, now insists that any challenge to the 2020 election is an unforgivable attack on democracy. They have weaponized the justice system, using the full force of the federal government to pursue and punish their political rivals, painting them as threats to the nation. The goal is to remove Trump not just from the ballot, but from the public square entirely, by framing him not as a political opponent, but as a criminal insurrectionist whose supporters are a domestic terrorist threat.

This strategy is straight from the Saul Alinsky playbook: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Trump is the target. The lie about executing members of Congress is the tool to freeze him in the public mind as a violent extremist. It personalizes the entire conservative movement into one demonic figure. And it polarizes the nation, making any attempt at civil discourse or reconciliation impossible. How can you compromise with someone who you believe wants you executed? You cannot. The lie is engineered to make dialogue impossible and to justify any and all actions to stop the perceived threat.

The conservative perspective on this is rooted in a defense of the very principles that underpin a free society: due process, the presumption of innocence, and the sanctity of truth. We believe that accusations must be backed by evidence, not amplified by social media algorithms. We believe that political speech, even when it is passionate, angry, or disruptive, is protected speech, not sedition. The Founding Fathers designed the First Amendment precisely to protect unpopular speech; popular speech never needs protection. The left’s effort to redefine robust political disagreement as incitement is a direct assault on the First Amendment.

Furthermore, conservatives understand that this smear is not really about Donald Trump. He is merely the current vessel for the left’s hatred. This is about discrediting and silencing the 74 million Americans who voted for him, and the millions more who support his policies. By painting the leader as a would-be assassin, they aim to tar every one of his supporters as complicit in his allegedly violent aims. It is a strategy of delegitimization aimed at a vast swath of the American populace—those who believe in border security, economic freedom, a strong military, and the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. They are telling us that our views are not just wrong, but are so dangerous that they constitute a threat to the republic that must be extinguished by any means necessary.

The path forward for conservatives is clear. First, we must categorically and forcefully reject this lie and every other like it. We cannot allow this poison to seep into the public consciousness unanswered. We must demand that those who propagate this falsehood provide evidence, and when they cannot—which they never can—we must expose their malicious intent.

Second, we must refuse to be intimidated. The goal of this smear is to make us shrink from our beliefs, to make us whisper our support for conservative policies for fear of being labeled “seditionists.” We must do the opposite. We must be louder and more proud of our American values. We must champion the rule of law, which they are so blatantly violating.

Finally, we must remain focused on the truth. The truth is that Donald Trump is a former president running for office on a platform of economic renewal, secure borders, and national strength. The truth is that his supporters are patriotic Americans who love their country. The truth is that the real threat to our democracy comes not from passionate political campaigns, but from those who would use the power of the state to imprison their opponents and use blatant lies to frighten the populace into submission.

The claim that Trump wants members of Congress executed is a lie. It is a symptom of a political movement that has lost faith in its own ideas and has resorted to the politics of the dagger, cloaked in the language of righteousness. We must see it for what it is and reject it utterly, for the preservation of our republic depends on it.

#sedition #military #Trump #Congress

Operation Arctic Frost

 

Arctic Frost:

Joe Biden’s Administration Did This. This Is BIGGER Than WaterGate and NOBODY CARES.

DON'T CRY GRASSHOPPER...I GOT YO BACK!!!

"The "Arctic Frost probe" is a codename for an FBI investigation into the alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election results that began under the Biden administration and was later taken over by Special Counsel Jack Smith. The investigation focused on a scheme involving alternate electors for Donald Trump. It has drawn criticism from Republicans who claim it was a politically motivated investigation into Republican individuals and groups, including allegations that the FBI obtained phone data for several Republican senators. 

Purpose: The probe's objective was to examine efforts to overturn the 2020 election results and install alternate electors on January 6, 2021.

Key actions:

Acquiring the government cell phones of Donald Trump and Mike Pence.

Conducting dozens of interviews.

Targeting the personal cell phones of eight Republican senators for "tolling data" (information on call history).

Investigating or placing 92 Republican-linked individuals and groups under investigation.

Criticism:

The investigation has been labeled a "political witch hunt" by critics due to its focus on Republican figures.

Senate Republicans, led by Senator Chuck Grassley, have released documents and conducted oversight to expose the probe's actions, including its targeting of lawmakers.

Defense: Supporters of the probe argue that focusing on Republican lawmakers was logical given their alleged involvement in the alternate elector scheme."

MORE ON THE STORY

Operation Arctic Frost: The Weaponization of Justice and the Assault on Political Opposition

In the annals of American political history, certain scandals come to define an era, revealing not just individual malfeasance but a systemic corruption of the nation's most sacred institutions. The unfolding story of the Biden Justice Department's alleged surveillance program, which has been dubbed "Operation Arctic Frost" by critics and commentators, threatens to become one of those defining moments. From a conservative perspective, this is not a mere political dispute; it is a five-alarm fire for the Republic, representing the deliberate and dangerous weaponization of federal law enforcement against the sitting administration's political opponents.

The contours of "Operation Arctic Frost," as they have emerged through congressional investigations and reports, suggest a coordinated effort within the Justice Department and intelligence agencies to investigate and monitor Republican politicians, donors, and activists. While the administration and its allies in the media frame these actions as necessary for national security, the pattern of targets tells a different story—a story of political persecution disguised as legal process. The very name, "Arctic Frost," evokes a chilling, clandestine campaign designed to freeze political dissent under the guise of impartial justice.

This operation cannot be viewed in a vacuum. It is the culmination of a years-long pattern that began with the fraudulent Steele Dossier, a piece of opposition research funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign and laundered through the FBI to obtain FISA warrants against a sitting president's campaign aide. It continued through the Russia collusion hoax, a multi-year, multimillion-dollar special counsel investigation that found no evidence of conspiracy, yet succeeded in tarnishing a presidency and misleading the American public. "Operation Arctic Frost" appears to be the next phase in this playbook: if you cannot defeat your opponents at the ballot box or in the arena of ideas, you use the immense power of the state to investigate, intimidate, and incapacitate them.

The most alarming aspect of this operation is its target set. According to revelations, the subjects of scrutiny were not foreign agents or legitimate threats to national security, but American citizens engaged in protected political speech and activities. Republican members of Congress who were vocal critics of the administration, parents labeled "domestic terrorists" for protesting at school board meetings, and conservative activists found their communications and movements subjected to unprecedented surveillance. This represents a radical departure from the foundational American principle that government exists to protect the rights of citizens, not to monitor their political affiliations.

The Biden Justice Department's defense hinges on a familiar and, to conservatives, deeply cynical argument: that these actions were narrowly tailored, legally justified, and necessary to combat an existential threat. They point to broad and often-secret legal authorities, painting their actions as a responsible use of power. However, this justification collapses under the slightest scrutiny. The "threat" they were combating consistently aligns with the political opposition. When the full force of the national security apparatus is turned against one half of the political spectrum, it is not security—it is a partisan purge.

This weaponization strikes at the heart of two bedrock conservative principles: limited government and individual liberty. The founders, wary of the overreach of the British crown, designed a system of checks and balances to prevent the concentration of power. They understood that the power to investigate is the power to destroy. By transforming the FBI and the DOJ from impartial arbiters of law into the armed wing of a political party, the current administration has shattered that delicate balance. A citizen who fears that their political donations or their attendance at a rally could make them a target of a federal investigation is no longer truly free. This creates a chilling effect that stifles political participation and corrupts the democratic process itself.

Furthermore, the complicity of legacy media in obscuring this scandal cannot be overstated. While the revelations of "Operation Arctic Frost" represent one of the most serious abuses of power in modern history, they have been met with a deafening silence or dismissive framing from many major news outlets. Contrast this with the wall-to-wall, often-uncritical coverage of the Russia collusion narrative. This media bias acts as a force multiplier for the administration's actions, ensuring that a significant portion of the electorate remains ignorant of the institutional decay happening in real-time. It is a failure of the Fourth Estate's fundamental duty to hold power accountable.

The long-term implications of "Operation Arctic Frost" are dire. If left unchecked, it sets a precedent that will be impossible to undo. What stops a future administration of any party from using these same tactics against its own enemies? The normalization of political surveillance is a hallmark of authoritarian regimes, not constitutional republics. It erodes the trust that is essential for a government to function. When citizens believe that the Department of Justice is merely the Department of Politics, the very social contract begins to fray.

The path forward requires more than just outrage; it demands robust and relentless oversight. Congressional investigations must follow the evidence wherever it leads, subpoenaing documents and testimony to expose the full scope of this operation. Those who authorized it must be held accountable, not just through public shaming but through legal consequences. The American people deserve a full and transparent accounting of who was targeted, why they were targeted, and which officials signed off on this unprecedented intrusion.

Ultimately, "Operation Arctic Frost" is a stark warning. It is a testament to how far the progressive left is willing to go to maintain its grip on power. For conservatives, it is a call to vigilance and a reminder that the preservation of liberty requires an eternal struggle against the encroachment of state power. The battle to expose and dismantle this apparatus of political espionage is not merely a political skirmish; it is a fight for the soul of American justice. The integrity of our nation's most powerful institutions and the fundamental right of citizens to engage in political opposition without fear of reprisal hang in the balance.

#Biden #FBI #JackSmith #Crime #Democrats 

Jesse Jackson and Donald Trump

 

The Perversion of the Race Debate: Why Character, Not Caricature, Should Define Our Politics

Jesse Jackson is STILL ALIVE!!! [Trump gave him free office space at Trump Tower and. Million Dollars when Jackson ran for President  in the 80's. Trump needs to go back to RACUSM SCHOOL. He apparently FLUNKED.

THE STORY

The Perversion of the Race Debate: Why Character, Not Caricature, Should Define Our Politics

A recent social media post, typifying a certain strain of political discourse, began with a jarring declaration: “Jesse Jackson is STILL ALIVE!!!” It then segued into a decades-old anecdote about Donald Trump providing the Reverend Jesse Jackson with free office space and financial support during his 1980s presidential campaigns. The conclusion, leaping across nearly forty years of history, was that Trump must therefore go back to “racism school” because he “apparently FLUNKED.”

This line of attack is not just a historical non-sequitur; it is a perfect microcosm of the intellectual bankruptcy that plagues our national conversation on race. From a conservative perspective, this episode is not a “gotcha” moment revealing Trump’s hypocrisy or racism. Rather, it highlights a fundamental disagreement about the nature of racism itself and exposes the left’s reliance on a simplistic, cartoonish narrative that is as politically useful as it is factually flimsy.

To understand the conservative view, one must first consider the historical context, which the original post conveniently truncates. In the 1980s, Donald Trump was a flamboyant New York real estate developer, not a Republican politician. His world was one of deals and publicity. His association with Jesse Jackson—a towering, if controversial, figure in the Democratic Party and the Civil Rights movement—was consistent with the behavior of a businessman networking with powerful and prominent individuals across the political spectrum. This was not an era of hardened partisan trenches; cross-party interactions were more common. For conservatives, this doesn’t exonerate or condemn Trump; it simply illustrates that he operated in a complex world where relationships were not solely defined by modern political litmus tests.

The core of the conservative rebuttal, however, lies in the definition of racism. The modern progressive left has engineered a definition that is both infinitely malleable and utterly unforgiving. In their framework, racism is not primarily about individual acts of prejudice or hatred. It is an omnipresent, systemic force, and an individual’s position within this system is determined by their group identity. By this logic, a white person like Donald Trump is incapable of a non-racist act that could offset a supposedly racist one. His past support for Jesse Jackson is therefore rendered irrelevant—an inconvenient data point to be ignored or dismissed as a business calculation, while any policy or statement liberals dislike is seized upon as definitive proof of his inherent “racism.”

This is where the conservative perspective offers a stark alternative. Conservatism traditionally judges individuals by their character and their actions, not by the color of their skin or their immutable group identity. This philosophy, championed by figures like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., demands that we evaluate people as individuals. By *that* standard, Trump’s past support for Jackson is a relevant piece of evidence in assessing his character. It may have been a business decision, it may have been a genuine gesture of support, or it may have been a mixture of both. But to dismiss it entirely while simultaneously branding the man as an irredeemable bigot is the height of intellectual dishonesty.

This selective amnesia is not an accident; it is a strategy. The political utility of labeling opponents as racist is immense. It is a conversation-ender, a delegitimizing cudgel that avoids the need to engage with actual policy debates. Why debate the merits of immigration enforcement, tax policy, or foreign affairs when you can simply brand your opponent a bigot and claim the moral high ground? The Jesse Jackson anecdote is inconvenient to this narrative, so it must be memory-holed. For the left, Trump’s “racism” is a predetermined conclusion, and all facts must be contorted to fit it.

Furthermore, this line of attack reveals a profound paternalism, a soft bigotry of low expectations that conservatives find deeply offensive. The implication is that the only valid measure of a politician’s stance on race is their fealty to a specific, left-wing agenda. It suggests that minority communities are a monolith, and that leaders like Jesse Jackson in the 1980s—or Tim Scott, Byron Donalds, or Herschel Walker today—are either tokens or traitors if they deviate from the progressive script. The vibrant diversity of thought within Black and Hispanic communities is erased in favor of a single, approved narrative.

The call for Trump to attend “racism school” is the ultimate expression of this condescending worldview. It posits that there is a single, “correct” understanding of race—one curated by progressive academics and activists—and that any deviation from it is a failure that requires re-education. This is anathema to the conservative belief in free thought, open debate, and the wisdom of the individual conscience.

Ultimately, the fixation on this decades-old Jesse Jackson story, while ignoring the substantive policy debates of today, is a distraction. Conservatives are far more interested in discussing how school choice can empower minority parents, how deregulation and tax cuts can foster job creation in underserved communities, and how a strong border and rule of law protect all American citizens, regardless of background. These are debates about the best path forward for all Americans.

The original post, with its caps-lock fury and logical leaps, does not advance this conversation. It cheapens it. It reduces the complex, painful, and profoundly important American journey with race to a political gotcha game. From a conservative viewpoint, the path to a more perfect union is not paved with malicious caricatures and historical decontextualization. It is built through judging individuals by their character, embracing diverse viewpoints, and engaging in good-faith debates about the policies that will truly lead to prosperity and justice for all. The story of Trump and Jackson isn’t a smoking gun; it’s a relic in a political war that tells us more about the accusers than the accused.

The Overlooked History: Trump's Decades-Long, Complex Ties to the Black Community

The Overlooked History: Trump's Decades-Long, Complex Ties to the Black Community

In the fierce arena of modern politics, few narratives are as potent or as persistently repeated as the charge that Donald Trump is a racist. This accusation, now a foundational article of faith for his opponents, has been used to frame his presidency and his subsequent campaigns. Yet, this simplistic portrayal deliberately airbrushes a far more complex and inconvenient history—one populated by some of the most iconic Black figures in American life. Long before he descended the golden escalator, Donald Trump moved in a world that included celebrities, activists, and athletes like Oprah Winfrey, Al Sharpton, Don King, and Muhammad Ali, relationships that defy the one-dimensional caricature his critics work so hard to maintain.

To understand this overlooked history, one must look back to the 1980s and ‘90s, when Trump was a New York City real estate developer and a flamboyant celebrity in his own right. His world was one of deal-making and publicity, and his associations crossed racial lines with ease. Consider Oprah Winfrey. In 1988, as her talk show was skyrocketing to national dominance, Trump was a guest. The conversation was friendly, even admiring. Later that year, she interviewed him at Trump Tower for a special titled “The Trump Factor: The Rich, the Famous, the Powerful.” The rapport was palpable. So much so that in the late 1990s, Trump publicly floated the idea of a Trump-Winfrey presidential ticket, telling Larry King, “She’s a great woman… she’s terrific.” While their political paths have diverged radically, this early mutual respect complicates the narrative of an irredeemable bigot.

His relationships were not confined to the apolitical world of entertainment. He had a particularly notable, if contentious, bond with the Reverend Al Sharpton. In the 1980s, Trump saw Sharpton as a power player who could influence events in New York City. He provided Sharpton with an office in Trump Tower and, according to Sharpton himself, would call him for advice on how to handle issues involving the Black community. This was a pragmatic, transactional relationship, but it demonstrated Trump’s recognition of Sharpton’s influence at a time when many in the white establishment would not grant him an audience. Sharpton has since become one of Trump’s most vocal antagonists, but their past alliance reveals a man willing to engage with powerful Black leaders his peers often shunned.

Trump and Oprah

The world of professional boxing provided another stage for these cross-racial connections. Trump cultivated a close and very public friendship with the legendary promoter Don King. In the 1980s and ‘90s, Trump’s Atlantic City casinos became a premier venue for King’s biggest fights. Their relationship was one of mutual benefit and public camaraderie; they were frequently photographed together, all big hair and bigger smiles. Trump even spoke at a 1991 birthday gala for King, praising him effusively. Similarly, he had a friendly relationship with the greatest boxer of all time, Muhammad Ali. Trump hosted the Ali-Larry Holmes fight at his casino in 1991 and was a pallbearer at Ali’s funeral in 2016, an honor reserved for those held in genuine esteem by the Ali family.

Beyond the famous names, Trump’s personal life also tells a story that clashes with the popular narrative. For several years in the late 1980s and early 1990s, he was in a public relationship with model Kara Young. Their romance was covered extensively in the tabloids, and they were a regular feature on the New York social scene. This was not a hidden affair but a high-profile partnership, one that would be politically inconvenient for his critics to acknowledge today.

Why, then, is this history so consistently ignored? The answer lies in the brutal efficiency of political warfare. Acknowledging that Trump’s past was filled with complex, and often friendly, interactions with prominent Black individuals blunts the most powerful weapon deployed against him. It is far more effective to paint him as a monolithic villain than to grapple with the contradictions of a man who hosted Don King’s fights, advised with Al Sharpton, and dated a Black woman, all while being accused of profound racial animus.

Trump’s Former Black GIRLFRIEND

This is not to say that Trump’s political rhetoric and policies have not been controversial or interpreted by many as racially divisive. Those debates are legitimate and essential. However, to engage in them honestly requires a full picture of the man, not a curated caricature. The story of Donald Trump and the Black community is not one of uncomplicated admiration, but it is also not one of simple, lifelong bigotry. It is a story of celebrity, pragmatism, transactional friendships, and personal relationships that collectively form a chapter of his life his detractors would prefer to leave unread. To ignore it is to choose a convenient fiction over a complicated truth.

#JesseJackson #DonaldTrump #Politics #Whitehouse #Ali #MohammedAli #Oprah #OprahWhinfrey #Trump #AlSharpton

There Are No ILLEGAL Military Orders

 

ILLEGAL MILITARY ORDERS:

During WWII if a Platoon or Squad or Whatever was on patrol or headed to and 'objective' and encountered a SNIPER this what they did. The Sniper/Shooter may have and probably somewhere you couldn't spot him or her. If the suspected Sniper was on a building you were passing by they called in Air Support or Artillery fire. There could have been 5 Nuns hiding on the first floor or the basement. They leveled the building and moved on. Now, the guy that calls in the strike has a Lawyer sitting next to him or her. The President and CIA sign off on DRONE strikes. There are no ILLEGAL ORDERS ... You may disagree with the POLICY, but there are no 'Illegal orders' given.

Ron DeSantis was a NAVY JAG Lawyer that was assigned to a Seal Team Unit. They have people in the Military to prevent Unlawful Orders and them being carried out. CALM DOWN!!!

The Dangerous Myth of the "Illegal Order": How a Military Concept is Being Weaponized to Undermine Civilian Authority

The Dangerous Myth of the "Illegal Order": How a Military Concept is Being Weaponized to Undermine Civilian Authority

A recent social media post, circulating among veterans and conservative circles, cut through the modern fog of political warfare with a stark, historical analogy. It recounted a simple, brutal truth from the battlefields of World War II: if a unit was pinned down by a sniper in a building, they didn’t send in a negotiation team or file a warrant. They called in an air strike and leveled the building, neutralizing the threat and moving on to their objective. The post’s central, powerful conclusion was this: “There are no ILLEGAL ORDERS… You may disagree with the POLICY, but there are no 'Illegal orders' given.”

This sentiment, while deliberately provocative, touches on a critical and often misunderstood principle of military command and civilian control. From a conservative perspective, the contemporary political obsession with labeling presidential directives as “illegal orders” that military personnel should disobey is not a sign of heightened civic virtue. It is a dangerous, politically motivated corruption of a vital legal concept, one that undermines the chain of command, politicizes the military, and ultimately weakens the nation’s security.

The World War II Analogy: A Lesson in Wartime Reality

The WWII example, while extreme, serves to illustrate the fundamental nature of lawful military action. In a theater of war, the ultimate objective is to defeat the enemy and protect your own forces. The decision to destroy a building containing a hostile combatant—with the tragic but accepted risk of civilian casualties—is not an “illegal order.” It is a tactical decision made within the framework of the laws of armed conflict. The legality is judged by the military necessity of the target and the principle of proportionality, not by the certain outcome.

This stands in stark contrast to the modern caricature of warfare promoted in movies and media, where every action can be paused for a legal review and a perfect, risk-free outcome is not just desired, but expected. As the original post noted, today, a commander calling in that strike might very well have a JAG lawyer at his elbow. This is a testament to the U.S. military’s commitment to lawful conduct, but it does not change the underlying principle: the order itself, to neutralize a legitimate threat, is lawful. The lawyer is there to ensure the *execution* of the order complies with the Rules of Engagement and international law, not to second-guess the strategic or policy decision to engage the enemy.

This historical reality throws into sharp relief the hollowness of modern political rhetoric. When politicians or pundits loosely throw around accusations of “illegal orders,” they are often not referring to clear-cut war crimes. They are disagreeing with a policy or a strategic direction set by a civilian commander-in-chief they politically oppose.

The Role of JAG and the Myth of Rampant Illegality

The original post wisely highlights Governor Ron DeSantis’s background as a Navy JAG officer assigned to a SEAL team. This is a crucial point. The military has a robust, internal legal system specifically designed to prevent and address truly unlawful orders. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is clear, and every service member is trained on it. A service member is *obligated* to disobey an order that is manifestly illegal—such as an order to shoot an unarmed prisoner or to torture a detainee.

However, the key word is “manifestly.” This does not mean a soldier, sailor, airman, or marine can refuse an order simply because they find it morally questionable, politically disagreeable, or even strategically unwise. The system relies on a clear chain of command and trust. The presence of JAG lawyers embedded with units like SEAL teams is not evidence that the command is teetering on the brink of criminality; it is proof of a system working as intended. These lawyers provide real-time counsel to ensure complex operations remain within legal boundaries, thus protecting the troops and upholding the honor of the service.

The contemporary political narrative seeks to externalize and politicize this internal, legal process. It encourages low-ranking service members or intelligence community personnel to view their civilian leadership with suspicion and to preemptively disobey orders based on their personal political beliefs, masquerading as legal analysis. This is a recipe for chaos. A military where every order is subject to the individual conscience of thousands of service members is not a military at all; it is a mob in uniform.

The Politicization of Obedience: From Drone Strikes to Domestic Policy

The most pernicious application of this “illegal orders” rhetoric occurs in the domestic political sphere. We have seen prominent Democratic lawmakers release videos urging members of the military and intelligence community to disobey “illegal orders” from a sitting or future Republican president. The implication is that policies they disagree with—be it on border security, the deployment of the military to quell civil unrest, or the use of drone strikes against terrorist leaders—are not just bad policy, but are inherently unlawful.

This is a profound corruption of the concept. A drone strike, like the WWII air strike, is a tool of national policy. The President and the CIA, as part of the executive branch, have the constitutional and legal authority to authorize such strikes against enemy combatants. One can, and should, debate the policy. Is it creating more terrorists than it kills? Is it morally just? These are vital debates for a democracy. But to label the lawful command from the Commander-in-Chief to the military to execute a legally vetted strike as an “illegal order” is to deliberately blur the lines between policy disagreement and criminality.

This tactic serves two political purposes. First, it de-legitimizes the elected civilian authority in the eyes of the very people sworn to protect the nation under that authority. Second, it creates a pretext for bureaucratic insubordination, where unelected officials in the intelligence community or the officer corps might feel empowered to slow-walk, leak, or outright refuse to implement policies endorsed by the American electorate.

The conservative perspective holds that this is an assault on the very foundation of the republic. The American people elect a president to be the Commander-in-Chief. Civilian control of the military is sacrosanct. If the public dislikes the president’s policies, the remedy is at the ballot box, not through a silent coup by disgruntled bureaucrats or service members encouraged by partisan politicians.

A Call for Calm and Constitutional Fidelity

The original post’s final exhortation—“CALM DOWN!!!”—is more than just internet bravado. It is a plea for reason and a return to first principles. The framework for lawful military orders and the mechanisms to prevent true war crimes are already in place. They have been tested in the fiercest battles of the 20th and 21st centuries. They do not need to be replaced by the whims of social media mobs or the political maneuvering of partisan actors.

Conservatives believe in a strong national defense, and strength is impossible without unity of command and respect for the chain of command. We must reject the casual and politically motivated use of the “illegal order” accusation. It is a rhetorical weapon that damages the military’s professionalism, undermines the constitutional authority of the presidency, and sows distrust between the armed forces and the civilian population they are sworn to protect.

The building in WWII had to be leveled to stop the sniper and save American lives. Today, the pernicious myth of the rampant “illegal order” must be dismantled to protect the integrity of our military and the principle of civilian control. The order to do so is not just legal; it is necessary.

#Military #Democrats

FBI seeks interviews with six Democrats Trump accused of 'seditious behavior'

The lawmakers, who released a video urging members of the military and the intelligence community not to follow illegal orders, accused Trump of trying to intimidate them.

Selective Outrage: The Weaponization of "Seditious Behavior" and the Erosion of Equal Justice

Selective Outrage: The Weaponization of "Seditious Behavior" and the Erosion of Equal Justice

The recent news that the FBI is seeking to interview six Democratic lawmakers—Representatives Ted Lieu, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and others—over a video they produced in the summer of 2020 has ignited a familiar firestorm in Washington. The narrative, as presented by the lawmakers and their allies in the media, is one of brazen intimidation. They are the valiant defenders of democracy, facing down the long arm of a weaponized state at the behest of a vengeful former president. But to the conservative observer, this episode is not an isolated case of political persecution; it is a masterclass in progressive hypocrisy and a stark illustration of the two-tiered system of justice that has become the defining feature of the modern American political landscape.

To understand the conservative perspective on this issue, one must first revisit the context of the video in question. Released in the incendiary summer of 2020, a period marked by widespread riots that caused billions in property damage and resulted in numerous deaths, the video featured the lawmakers in a stark, dramatic production. They directly addressed members of the U.S. military and the intelligence community, urging them not to follow "illegal orders" from then-President Donald Trump. They spoke of a leader who would "tear our democracy down," implicitly framing the Commander-in-Chief as an imminent threat to the constitutional order.

From a conservative viewpoint, this was not a sober, patriotic plea for constitutional fidelity. It was a politically charged act that bordered on insubordination and, at the very least, could be construed as a deliberate attempt to politicize the nation’s armed forces. The U.S. military’s strength lies in its apolitical nature, its allegiance to the Constitution, not to the transient occupant of the Oval Office. For sitting members of Congress to openly suggest that the President might issue "illegal orders" for the specific purpose of subverting democracy was an incendiary act. It planted a seed of distrust and discord within the chain of command, a serious action with profound implications for national security and civilian control of the military.

This is where the conservative critique finds its foundation. The term "seditious behavior," which Trump reportedly used in his complaint to the FBI, is a loaded one. Sedition is a serious crime, defined as conduct or speech inciting rebellion against the authority of the state. While the Democrats' video may have been inflammatory and irresponsible, applying the legal label of "seditious conspiracy" to it feels like a political stretch. However, the conservative argument is not necessarily that these lawmakers should be charged with sedition. Rather, it is about the glaring, breathtaking double standard that their investigation reveals.

For the past five years, conservatives have watched as the principle of "equal justice under law" has been systematically dismantled. They watched as the same FBI that rushed to investigate a duly elected president based on a spurious, Clinton-campaign-funded dossier, displayed a palpable lack of urgency in investigating the business dealings of the President’s son. They watched as the Department of Justice pursued parents at school board meetings as potential domestic terrorists, while often turning a blind eye to the coordinated violence and property destruction of certain left-wing groups during the 2020 riots.

Most pointedly, they watched as hundreds of Americans who entered the Capitol on January 6th were pursued with the full, unrelenting force of the federal government. Many of these individuals, while guilty of trespass and disorderly conduct, have been labeled "insurrectionists" and "seditious conspirators," facing decades in prison. The conservative perspective does not seek to excuse the lawlessness of that day; anyone who broke the law should be held accountable. But the accountability must be blind.

Where was this fervent pursuit of justice when federal courthouses were besieged in Portland for nights on end? Where was the FBI’s urgent investigation into the politicians and public figures who, during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, openly surrounded the Supreme Court building, pounding on its doors in an attempt to intimidate the justices? Where is the investigation into the individuals who have repeatedly protested outside the homes of conservative justices, a clear attempt to influence the judiciary that arguably violates federal law?

The silence then is deafening compared to the clamor now. The investigation into these six Democrats, therefore, is not seen as a righteous application of the law, but as a potential Pandora's Box. Conservatives argue: if this is the new standard for political speech—if urging military personnel to disobey orders now warrants an FBI investigation—then let that standard be applied equally. Let us see the FBI open investigations into every public figure who has ever used inflammatory rhetoric that could be interpreted as inciting unrest or encouraging defiance of government authority.

This, of course, would be an untenable and illiberal state of affairs. It would criminalize political hyperbole and plunge the nation into a cycle of endless, retaliatory investigations. This is precisely the conservative point. The goal is not to see political opponents jailed for their speech, but to expose the dangerous game being played by the left. They have championed the weaponization of federal institutions against their political enemies, and now, through a twist of fate, they have gotten a taste of their own medicine. Their cries of "intimidation" ring hollow to those who have been on the receiving end of this tactic for years.

The fundamental conservative principle at stake here is the rule of law, not the rule of men. A system where the law is applied selectively based on political affiliation is not a justice system at all; it is a tool of oppression. The Founders, wary of the tyranny they had just escaped, designed a republic with checks and balances precisely to prevent this kind of factional weaponization. The FBI and the Department of Justice are meant to be non-partisan arbiters of justice, their power restrained and their missions clear. When those institutions are perceived, rightly or wrongly, as the enforcement arm of one political party, the very social contract that binds the nation together begins to fray.

The appropriate response from those who believe in limited government and individual liberty is not to cheer for the investigation of these six Democrats. Two wrongs have never made a right. The appropriate response is to demand a return to a single, impartial standard of justice. It is to call for a radical de-escalation of the political warfare that has infected every branch of government.

The video produced by Representatives Lieu and Ocasio-Cortez was, in the conservative view, a reckless and damaging piece of political theater. It undermined the presidency and sought to inject partisan division into the heart of the nation's military. It was, at best, in poor judgment. But in a free society, poor judgment is not a crime. If it were, half of Washington would be behind bars.

The true scandal is not that these lawmakers are being investigated—it is that so many others, on only one side of the political aisle, have acted with impunity for so long. Until the Department of Justice and the FBI can demonstrate a consistent, color-blind, and ideology-blind application of the law, every new investigation will be viewed through a partisan lens. The interviews with these six Democrats are not a victory for accountability; they are merely another symptom of a republic in deep crisis, where the scales of justice have been tilted for so long that they now threaten to spill over entirely. The conservative plea is not for vengeance, but for a return to the foundational principle that has kept America united for over two centuries: that we are a nation of laws, not of men.

#Seditious #SeditiousBehavior #Insurection #MarkKelly #Military #Trump

Connecting the Dots: How Democratic Policies Have Undermined American Prosperity

 

Connecting the Dots: How Democratic Policies Have Undermined American Prosperity

DEMOCRAT FAILURES - THEIR POLICIES FAIL

REAL ESTATE: 

When I Was going through Real Estate School in '92 Bill Clinton pitched the idea for massive Sub Prime loans in a campaign speech on September 12th, 1992. He wanted to finance homes for the poor with people's IRA and 401K money the way Jesse Jackson wanted to give people's 401K and IRA money to the homeless. His idea was that 'that money shouldn't be sitting in banks. He thought 'other people's money' should be given to 'the people'. Democrats always think YOUR MONEY should be 'THEIR CONSTITUENTS money to buy their votes with YOUR MONEY. They don't spend or donate THEIR money. 

Luckily his plan with the 401K and IRA money didn't work out. After elected the only people willing to talk to him were the Private sector Teamsters. Then they backed out. He didn't give up. He sucked in banks in the US and around the world to buy into the CREDIT DEFAULT SWAP. Ironically only 9% of the mortgages were Sub Prime Loans. Perception is Everything. Those 9% crashed the industry.

HEALTHCARE:

In '93 you had options. One was a MAJOR MEDICAL Type Plan. It was referred to as a 'Catastrophic' Plan. You covered/paid for the simple stuff. Obamacare made those type of plans ILLEGAL. Now YOU have to help pay for other people's care and you don't have any CHOICE.

I WISH DEMOCRATS COULD CONNECT DOTS ... THE COUNTRY WOULD BE BETTER OFF. EVEN WHEN THEIR POLICIES FAIL THEY DOUBLE AND TRUPLE DOWN BECAUSE THEIR BASE HAS 'TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME'.

Obamacare is a failure!!! We told you that 16 years ago. We have 50% less Doctors, Nurses, CNA's, Hospitals, and Insurance Companies since the passing of Obamacare. Also, Life Expectancy has dropped 7 years. We don't have HEALTHCARE.  We have DEATHCARE MANAGEMENT.

MORE ON THE STORY

Connecting the Dots: How Democratic Policies Have Undermined American Prosperity

For decades, the American electorate has been presented with a clear choice between two governing philosophies: one that trusts in the ingenuity and responsibility of the individual, and another that places its faith in the expansive power of the federal government. Time and again, the latter approach has led to diminished freedom, economic instability, and a lower quality of life for the very people it purports to help. The failures are not isolated incidents; they are the predictable outcomes of a ideology that prioritizes government control over individual liberty and redistributive schemes over market-based solutions.

The evidence is all around us, for those willing to connect the dots. From the housing market to the healthcare system, the legacy of Democratic policy is one of broken promises and unintended, yet entirely foreseeable, consequences.

The Real Estate Crisis: A Legacy of Government Meddling

The roots of the 2008 financial crisis did not sprout from the unregulated wilds of Wall Street, as the left often claims, but were deliberately planted in the halls of Washington. As the post correctly recalls, the push for "affordable housing" was a central tenet of the Clinton administration. The policy goal was noble-sounding on its face: increase homeownership among groups that traditionally had lower rates. However, the method was fundamentally flawed and set a dangerous precedent.

The government, through agencies like the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the mandates it placed on government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, began aggressively pressuring banks to lower their lending standards. The concept of the "subprime loan" was not an innovation of greedy capitalists; it was a political tool. By insisting that mortgages be granted to individuals who could not qualify under traditional, prudent underwriting standards, Democrats created a house of cards.

This was more than a policy misstep; it was a philosophical betrayal. It embodied the core belief that "other people's money"—in this case, the capital in the retirement accounts and investments of responsible Americans—should be leveraged for social engineering. The goal was to create a constituency dependent on government-backed financial products, using the private sector as a blunt instrument. When the house of cards inevitably collapsed, it wasn't the architects of the policy who suffered most; it was the millions of Americans who lost their homes, their savings, and their jobs. The lesson is clear: when government tries to manipulate the market to achieve a social outcome, it creates systemic risk that endangers the entire economy. Yet, the same playbook of using the financial system for redistributive goals persists today.

The Obamacare Debacle: The Illusion of "Affordable" Care

If the housing crisis was a lesson in economic meddling, the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare, is a masterclass in the failure of government-controlled healthcare. Conservatives warned in 2010 that the law would lead to higher costs, fewer choices, and a decline in the quality of care. Sixteen years later, those predictions have proven tragically accurate.

The post rightly highlights the elimination of choice. Before Obamacare, the insurance market was diverse. A young, healthy individual could opt for a low-cost, high-deductible Major Medical plan—often called a "catastrophic" plan. This was a rational, affordable product that protected against financial ruin from a major illness or accident while allowing the individual to budget for routine care. Obamacare outlawed these plans as insufficient. The government, in its infinite wisdom, decided it knew what kind of insurance every American should have. The result was a one-size-fits-all mandate that forced people to purchase coverage for services they did not want or need, driving premiums and deductibles through the roof.

This was not an accident; it was by design. The core of Obamacare is a massive redistribution scheme. The individual mandate, the community rating system, and the essential health benefits requirement were all engineered to force the young and healthy to subsidize the older and sicker. It is the healthcare version of the housing crisis: using the financial resources of one group to provide a benefit to another, all under the banner of "fairness." This has led to a death spiral in many insurance markets, with providers fleeing and choices evaporating.

The claim that we have 50% fewer doctors, nurses, and hospitals may be hyperbolic, but it points to a real and growing crisis. The administrative burden and reduced reimbursements associated with Obamacare have driven immense burnout among healthcare professionals and have made private practice unsustainable for many doctors. The system is not focused on "healthcare"; it is a labyrinthine bureaucracy of "deathcare management," where patients and providers alike are burdened by paperwork, regulations, and a focus on cost containment over patient outcomes. The decline in American life expectancy, while complex, is undeniably a symptom of a system that is failing to deliver timely, effective, and patient-centered care.

The Unshakable Ideology and the Trump Derangement Excuse

The most frustrating aspect for conservatives is the refusal of the left to acknowledge these failures. As the post states, "even when their policies fail they double and triple down." The reason for this is a combination of rigid ideology and what can only be described as a pathological opposition to any alternative.

For the Democratic base and its leadership, the solution to any problem created by government is always more government. If subprime loans caused a crash, the answer must be more regulation of the entire financial sector, punishing the responsible along with the irresponsible. If Obamacare makes insurance unaffordable, the answer must be a full government takeover through a "Medicare for All" system. They are incapable of learning the lesson that freedom and choice are not the problem; they are the solution.

This intellectual rigidity is now shielded by a political phenomenon: "Trump Derangement Syndrome." This is not merely a dislike of a particular politician; it is a state of such intense partisan hatred that it short-circuits any capacity for self-reflection or policy critique. Any attempt to point out the failures of Obamacare or the dangers of progressive economic plans is immediately dismissed as "Trumpian" and therefore illegitimate. This allows the left to operate in a fact-free vacuum, where the evident collapse of their policies is reinterpreted as proof that they simply haven't gone far enough. It is a cult-like adherence to a failing ideology, and the country is suffering for it.

The path forward for America is not to double down on the policies that have eroded our economic stability and healthcare freedom. It is to return to the principles of limited government, individual responsibility, and free-market competition. It is to empower patients and doctors, not bureaucrats and insurers. It is to allow the housing market to function based on sound economics, not social engineering. The dots are there, clearly visible. It is time for Americans to connect them and choose a future of prosperity and liberty over one of managed decline.

#Democrats #Politics #PolicyFailures