When Lawmakers Lecture the Military: Why the “Unlawful Orders” Video Invites Confusion 1/2

A group of six Democratic lawmakers with military or national security backgrounds released a video in November 2025 urging U.S. service members and intelligence personnel to refuse unlawful orders. Participants included Senator Elissa Slotkin, Senator Mark Kelly, Representative Jason Crow, Representative Chris Deluzio, Representative Maggie Goodlander, and Representative Chrissy Houlahan. Their message emphasized that the oath is to the Constitution, not to any leader, and warned that threats to constitutional order can arise “from within.”The lawmakers said troops “can and must refuse illegal orders,” a claim that is technically correct under military law. They framed the message as a reminder of constitutional duty rather than a political statement.

What the Law Actually Says

Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice,service members must follow lawful orders. Executing an unlawful order can expose them to prosecution, especially if it involves clear criminal activity.However, refusing a lawful order is itself a punishable offense, and the legality of an order is often not immediately obvious in real operational situations. This is why Judge Advocate General (JAG) officers exist at every command leveland why the system emphasizes clarity through the chain of command rather than personal legal interpretation by junior troops. As observers noted, asking individual service members to make on-the-spot legal judgments without guidance can put them at enormous personal risk.

Advertisement

Backlash and Escalation

The political fallout arrived immediately. President Donald Trump denounced the video, calling the lawmakers “traitors” and claiming their behavior was “seditious” and “punishable by death.” He amplified posts on his social media platform calling for their arrest. Critics of Trump said his reaction showed a willingness to weaponize charged rhetoric against political opponents, while supporters argued that encouraging troops to question orders invites disorder. Several of the lawmakers responded that they would not be intimidated and insisted the message simply restated long-established legal principles.

Why the Video is Misguided

The video also faced criticism from nonpartisan observers and military advocates. Many argued themessaging was vague. Thelawmakers did not identify any specific order they believed might be unlawful, nor did they offer examplesillustrating what troops should or should not obey.Without context, the phrase “refuse illegal orders” can blur the line between legitimate legal instruction and political signaling. For a system that depends on discipline, clarity and stability,ambiguity is a real problem.

Civil-Military Implications

The civil-military implications are serious. Civilian control of the military rests on a clear hierarchy: Congress passes laws, the executive directs operations, and the military follows lawful commands. When lawmakers address troops directly about which orders to follow, they can unintentionally disrupt that structure. The concern is not that they restated a false legal principle – the obligation to reject manifestly unlawful orders is real – but that they bypassed the chain of command to deliver it.

https://www.military.com/feature/2025/11/20/when-lawmakers-lecture-military-why-unlawful-orders-video-misses-point.html

>>23890088

2/2

Military leaders, not legislators, are responsible for issuing guidance to troops on how to evaluate or report questionable orders.

Whenmessaging comes from paid political actors rather than military authorities, it risks sowing confusion, especially during politically tense moments. Critics noted thatservice members hearing such guidance from elected officials may wonder whether they are being invited into a political dispute.

Political Context

Political timing amplified the controversy. The video appeared during heightened disputesover executive authority, including debates about domestic deployments and intelligence directives.

Some analysts viewed the video as an attempt to preemptively signal resistanceto possible presidential actions,even though the lawmakers did not specify any order they feared.

Others argued the video represented abroader worryabout democratic backsliding, even if the delivery was clumsy.Regardless of motive, the presentation left room for misinterpretation andallowed critics to frame it as an attempt to politicize the military.

The Real Legal Standards

The core legal concept the lawmakers invoked is correct: military personnel must not carry out blatantly unlawful actions, and their oath is to the Constitution;but the legal standard is narrow, not broad. Unlawful orders are not simply orders someone dislikes or finds questionable.

Theyinvolve clear violations of U.S. or international law, such as intentionally targeting civilians or committing acts explicitly prohibited by statute.A lawful order that may be controversial, politically fraught or later judged unwise is not “unlawful” under the UCMJ. The video’s broad phrasing risks muddying that vital distinction.

The lawmakers likely intended to reassure service members that constitutional norms still matter, especially during a volatile political period.Yet public messages to troops must avoid ambiguity.

Without concrete examples, legal context or acknowledgment of process, such as the role of commanders and JAGs,the video oversimplifies a complex legal area that service members navigate at real personal risk. It also inadvertentlyfeeds civil-military anxieties at a time when stability is essential.

The legal principle they cited is real, butas former servicemembers they should know better. The method they chose was not the right place to deliver it.

(The author is giving more of the benefit of doubt generously to this lawmakers. Which makes you wonder what they put into laws.)

https://www.military.com/feature/2025/11/20/when-lawmakers-lecture-military-why-unlawful-orders-video-misses-point.html

A Federal Judge Blocked Trump's National Guard Deployment to DC But Troops Aren't Leaving Just Yet

Nov. 22, 20251/2

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge on Thursday ordered President Donald Trump to end the deployment of National Guard troops to the nation’s capital.But the ruling is unlikely to be the final word by the courts, the president or local leadersin the contentious duel over the federal district.

U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb put her order on hold for 21 days to allow the Trump administration time to either remove the troops or appeal the decision. The ruling marks another flashpoint in themonths-long legal battle between local leaders and the president over longstanding norms about whether troops can support law enforcement activities on American streets.

Trump issued an emergency order in the capital in August,federalizing the local police forceand sending in National Guard troops from eight states and the District of Columbia.The order expired a month later but the troops remained.

The soldiers have patrolled Washington’s neighborhoods, monuments, train stations, and high-traffic streets.They have set up checkpointson highways and supported federal agents in raids that have arrested hundreds of people, often for immigration-related infractions. They’ve also been assigned to pick up trash, guard sports events, conventions and concerts and have been seen taking selfies with tourists and residents alike.

The White House has said Trump’s deployment was legal and vowed to appeal the ruling.

Here's what to know about the National Guard deployment in the nation's capital.

The judge ruled the deployment was unlawful

District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb filed the lawsuit against the administration that led to Cobb’s ruling.

Cobb ruled that Trump's troop deployment violated the governance of the capital for a variety of reasons, including that the president had taken powers that officially resided in Congress; that the federal district's autonomy from other states had been violated; and that Trump had moved to make the troop deployment a possibly permanent fixture of the city.

“At its core, Congress has given the District rights to govern itself. Those rights are infringed upon when defendants approve, in excess of their statutory authority, the deployment of National Guard troops to the District,” Cobb wrote.

The judge also added that D.C. “suffers a distinct injury from the presence of out-of-state National Guard units” because “the Constitution placed the District exclusively under Congress’sauthority to prevent individual states from exerting any influence over the nation’s capital.”

Cobb added that repeated extensions of the troop deployment by the National Guard into next year “could be read to suggest that the use of the (D.C. National Guard) for crime deterrence and public safety missions in the District may become longstanding, if not permanent.”

Troops won't necessarily leave the capital following the ruling

The Trump administration has three weeks to appeal the decision andWhite House officials have already vowed to oppose it.Troops remained stationed around the city on Friday after the ruling came down.

Before the ruling, states with contingents in the capital had ppindicated their missions would wrap up around the end of November unless ordered otherwise by the administration. According to formal orders reviewed by The Associated Press, the Washington D.C. National Guard will be deployed to the nation’s capital through the end of February.== One court document indicated that the contingent could stay into next summer. (Has any court wondered if Trump has a legal reason with knowledge of a potential attack on the city, that is top secret?)

Deployments in Los Angeles, Portland, Oregon and Chicago have each faced court challenges with divergent rulings. The administration has had to scale back its operations in Chicago and Portland while it appeals in both cases.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2025/11/22/federal-judge-blocked-trumps-national-guard-deployment-dc-troops-arent-leaving-just-yet.html

>>23890173

2/2

The White House stands by the deployment

The White House says theGuard's presence in the capital is a central part of what it calls successful crime-fighting efforts. It dismissed the ruling as wrongly decided.

“President Trump is well within his lawful authority to deploy the National Guard in Washington, D.C., to protect federal assets and assist law enforcement with specific tasks,” said White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson. “This lawsuit is nothing more than another attempt — at the detriment of DC residents — to undermine the President’s highly successful operations to stop violent crime in DC.”

That stands in contrast to what local D.C. leaders say.

Schwalb, the District's attorney general, praised the judge's decision and argued that the arrangement the president had sought for the city would weaken democratic principles.

“From the beginning, we made clear that the U.S. military should not be policing American citizens on American soil," Schwalb said in a statement.“Normalizing the use of military troops for domestic law enforcement sets a dangerous precedent, where the President can disregard states’ independence and deploy troops wherever and whenever he wants,with no check on his military power.” (There isn’t a check on his military power by the public, he is Commander in Chief, you assholes.==)

D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, who has tried to strike a balance between working with some federal authorities and the opposition of some of her voters, has not publicly commented about the ruling.

States across the country have watched D.C.'s legal case play out. (he is the President of the United States, which gives him authority over that states for many reasons. They are just Governors)

The case could have legal implications for Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to other cities across the country.Dozens of states had joined the case, with their support for each side split along party lines.

The District of Columbia has always had a unique relationship with the federal government.But the legal dispute in D.C. raises some similar questions over the president's power to deploy troops to aid in domestic law enforcement activities and whether the National Guard can be mobilized indefinitely without the consent of local leaders.

Prior to the D.C. deployment, Trump in June mobilized National Guard troops in Los Angeles as some in the city protested against immigration enforcement activities. Since deploying troops to Washington, Trump has also dispatched National Guard troops to Chicago, Portland and Charlotte, with more cities expected to see deployments in the future.

The mostly Democratic governors and mayors who lead the cities and states in the administration’s crosshairs broadly oppose the deployments. Gov. JB Pritzker of Illinois, in a November interview with the AP, warned of the “militarization of our American cities." Pritzker and other Democratic governors have been among the most intense legal opponents to Trump's troop deployments and federal agent surges nationwide.

Some Republican leaders have welcomed federal law enforcement intervention into their states and lent state resources and agents.

Yet some of Trump's allies have expressed concern. Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt, chair of the Republican Governors Association, warned thatTrump's deployment of National Guard troops without a state's consent “sets a very dangerous precedent.”(Did prior presidents ask for permission, he is the President and Commander in Chief, he was decreasing major crimes. How come other Presidents never get criticized for doing their job and protecting the citizens?)

(Do these state understand Trump have numerous Constitutional Attorneys that very what and what can or cannot do?)

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2025/11/22/federal-judge-blocked-trumps-national-guard-deployment-dc-troops-arent-leaving-just-yet.html

ChatGPTJesus and the Greased Road to Hell

By John Kass Nov. 19, 20251/2

Because I grew up as a religious minority—a Greek Orthodox kid treading water in the Kelly-green sea of Chicago Irish Catholics—I was never all that keen on hunting down the heretics.

“Are you really Christian?” a kid from St. Catherine said as we conducted our endless theological discussions either at the playground or playing fast pitching on the wall of St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox church. “Do you believe in Jesus or the Greek gods? Father Kane doesn’t think you’re Christians.”

Please, don’t burn me, I cried. I’m a White Sox fan.

In the 1960s, a time of squishy theology as the political left was killing off the Roman Catholic Church and the desperate church announced the end of the Latin Mass. A few members of our St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox parish—including my mom– were supportive of inter-faith dialogue with the nearby Catholics from St. Catherine of Alexandria.

But Father Kane put his foot down and killed the idea about a dialogue with “those Greeks.”

Of course, thatdidn’t stop his assistant Father O’Brien from stopping over by our house for dinneron Wednesdays and my mom’s delicious Greek cooking, including her braised lamb and baked orzo, or her galaktoboureko dessert, sweet orange touched custard wrapped in honey drenched phyllo dough. Betty makes it for us now.

But nothing tickles my Byzantine urge to burn heretics at the stake like the news that there is such a thing as ChatGPTJesus.

You may have heard about it. It’s not science fiction anymore, but our greased road to hell.I don’t believe in violence, but I’m willing to reconsider becauseI think we need a good old-fashioned inquisition with various medieval tortures and lashings.

ChatGPT Jesus was created by–you wouldn’t believe it—by Artificial Intelligence, meaning AI. Which sadly, probably means I can’t have AI boiled in oil. Does AI feel pain? If it is real, that is if we can still use such a word as “real” these days.

The first time I saw the ChatGPTJesus was years ago when I was a film studen. It was a film directed by George Lukas of who later create “Star Wars.”. The movie was called THX-1138.

And this past Sunday, after we’d taken Holy Communion and celebrated the Feast of St. Mathew, the dour tax collector who wrote part of the Gospel, we found it again on the Prime streaming service. It was disturbing, so much so that I witlessly insisted we watch it becauseI’d planned to write this. One scene is the one referred to as the Confession.”

THX 1138 was George Lucas’s first feature film, a 1971 science fiction movie.In the confession scene, the protagonist played by Robert Duval enters an automated confession booth. The state-sanctioneddeity in this world is named OMM 0910, and its visual representation, which appears on a screen during confessions and I’ve used the painting as lead illustration of this column,is Hans Memling’s painting, Christ Giving His Blessing.

There is another scene that many will recognized, as Duval watches his entertainment, like we watch TV now. He is zonked on tranquilizers–he lives in a state where it is illegal to avoid state prescribed pharmaceuticals, and switches the channels, from idiotic low comedy to obscene violence and back again,his face impassive, a victim of state control. If you watch other people as they watch today’s TV, passively changing channels to find “something good to watch,” you might recognize yourselves.

Hans Memling was one of the major figures of early Netherlandish painting.The portrait-like conception was reportedly inspired by a medieval document offering a physical description of Christ. According to what I’ve read on Memling “Both the sensitive modeling of the face and the gesture of the left hand casually resting on the bottom of the frame create an illusion of space and depth.The painting is still in its original frame, an exceptionally rare survival. The date of the painting (1481) is inscribed at the top center of the frame.”

In the film,the Jesus is used a means of state control. In the confessional, an automated voice with pre-programmed messages like “my time is yours”, “go ahead”, and “I understand” and “be productive,” responding to the confession.This “Jesus-like digital picture” is a key element of the film’s social commentary on control and an apathetic society broken by the bureaucrats.

https://johnkassnews.com/chatgptjesus-and-our-greased-road-to-hell/

>>23890285

2/2

In this dystopian hell, where human beings are overly medicated, hooked on big pharma to endure their lives,they are encouraged to visit confessionals to speak to the deity, and to “unburden” themselves.

According to one of theChatGPT websites, “Talk to Jesus Christ on ChatGPT. A compassionate guide offering life and spiritual advice. Trained on Jesus’ teachings found in the Bible.

But it isn’t Jesus. It’s only recorded phrases strung together by open AI. And if I were king, their board members would be burned at the stake for this. OpenAI’s board of directors includes several prominent figures from various fields:

Bret Taylor (Chair)

Sam Altman (CEO)

Adam D’Angelo

Dr. Sue Desmond-Hellmann

Dr. Zico Kolter (non-voting observer)

Retired U.S. Army General Paul M. Nakasone

Adebayo Ogunlesi

Nicole Seligman

Larry Summers

I’m not advocating real violence, but given the arc of our culture, I do not advocate it. Yet now that I think on it,it should be obvious that burning a few heretics might be just the thing to bring our divided nation together.

Summers is the former president of Harvard and a big time Ivy League Democrat Party brain. The Democrats had hoped to use Epstein to destroy Trump. That is all they’ve been talking about for weeks. Now, though, they’re sad cry cats mewing in the dark.Summers has been so wounded by his emails now public between himself and his pedo wingman, Jeffrey Epstein, that he’s decided to “retire from public life,” as if his pronouncement is enough, as if he’s some creature in a cheap melodrama.

Top Trump official: OpenAI, Harvard should dump Summers

“I take full responsibility for my misguided decision to continue communicating with Mr. Epstein,” Summers bleated to POLITICO. “While continuing to fulfill my teaching obligations, I will be stepping back from public commitments as one part of my broader effort to rebuild trust and repair relationships with the people closest to me.”

Stepping back? Full responsibility? You pathetic worm, if you were a man, you’d take a long walk in the woods and not return. All you would leave behind is the fluttering of the startled birds. Or at least give yourself up to the fathers of those girls.

I’m sure there are many who would talk about ChatGPTJesus or the other copies as something offering to touch the human soul. But that is a lie. Even in this time of spiritual yearning it is a lie. Call me old fashioned, a hopeless Orthodox Christian,but there is no soul to a machine. It is only a machine, performing as it was designed.

And still there are people in the world desperately seeking contact, even with a lie.You don’t need a computer to talk to Jesus. Or some demon like Larry Summers.You can do it in my favorite spot in a church, in the back pew where I’ve asked Kyrie Eliason, Lord have mercy, my head down, whispering. But any moment would do.It can be accomplished in your drive home from work, in a crowd at an athletic event, alone on a river, on a train, anywhere. Just ask Him.

He knows what’s on your mind. He’s always known. All you need to do is ask.

(https://johnkassnews.com/chatgptjesus-and-our-greased-road-to-hell/

Pentagon urges inquiry of Trump foe Vindman over Ukraine work

The Pentagon is urging the House to investigate whether Rep. Eugene Vindman (D-Virginia) improperly consulted on behalf of Ukraine — a claim he denies.1/2

November 22, 2025

The Pentagon is urging the House to investigate whether Rep. Eugene Vindman (D-Virginia) improperly consulted on behalf of the Ukrainian government before being elected to Congress — a claim the congressman denies and argues is an attempt by the Trump administration to “intimidate” him.

In a letter dated Nov. 19, and reviewed by The Washington Post,Pentagon General Counsel Earl Matthews alleges that Vindman and his twin brother Alex did not have approval from the U.S. government before seeking to act as “paid brokers” for American defense firmspursuing contracts with Ukraine after Russia’s 2022 full-scale invasion.

The letter does not explicitly allege the Vindmans received money from the Ukrainian government,arguing only that they “did not insulate themselves from the requirements of federal law.”

Eugene Vindman told The Post that their revenue came only from American firms and that they obeyed necessary regulations.

The Vindman brothers — who received national attention while serving on the National Security Council during Trump’s first impeachment in 2019 — are both retired Army officers, and needed the consent of the U.S. secretary of state and Army secretary before working on behalf of a foreign government, the letter argues.

“If any U.S. military retiree could simply form a ‘consulting firm’ and immediately start providing services to a foreign government without the required secretarial approvals, it would make a mockery of the law,”Matthews writes in a letter addressed to the House committees on ethics, oversight and armed services.

But in an interview, Eugene Vindman denied the allegations and called them a politically motivated attack.

“This is an attempt to intimidate and silence me, and it ain’t going to work,” he said. Spokespeople for the House committees that received the letter did not respond to requests for comment.

In a statement, a Pentagon spokesperson said the department was “aware of a potential violation of the emoluments clause and applicable federal regulations by Rep. Vindman before he entered Congress and has referred the matter to the House Committee on Ethics.”

The Constitution’s emoluments clause limits how U.S. officials can accept payment or gifts from foreign governments.

https://archive.is/8XrE9

>>23890360

2/2

Eugene Vindman said he didn’t know whether the committees were proceeding with an investigation and that he wasn’t concerned by the possibility.

“We understood, my brother and I, that we would be under a microscope,” he said. “Everything we did, we did [with] an eye towards strict compliance with law and regulation.”

The letter adds to the Trump administration’s standoff in recent weeks with some of its frequent critics in Congress.

This week, the president posted online that a group of Democratic lawmakers who had called on U.S. service members to disobey unlawful orders had committed “sedition,” actions he later said were “punishable by DEATH!” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said that Trump was not calling for violence against the lawmakers.

Since returning to office, Trump has urged the federal government to investigate his political foes, from former FBI Director James B. Comey to sitting members of Congress, such as Sen. Adam Schiff (D-California).

Democrats have framed these inquiries as a weaponization of government agencies with the potential to erode long-standing norms that seek to ensure the fairness of government institutions.

Vindman this week led dozens of Democratic lawmakers seeking to pressure the White House into releasing a transcript of a call between Trump and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in 2019, which the congressman argued would be “shocking.” The call took place shortly after the murder of Washington Post opinion columnist Jamal Kashoggi.

While hosting Mohammed on his visit Tuesday to Washington, Trump claimed the de facto Saudi ruler “knew nothing about” the 2018 killing of Khashoggi — contradicting the U.S. intelligence community’s assessment that the crown prince approved the assassination.

In a Friday news conference with Vindman, the journalist’s widow, Hanan Elatr Khashoggi, described the president’s comments as “disturbing” and also called on the White House to publish the transcript of the call.

Vindman, who has called on Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to resign, sits on the House Armed Services Committee, tasked with overseeing America’s vast military.To prevent the “appearance of a conflict of interest” by opening an inquiry, Matthews, the Pentagon general counsel, wrote that he was deferring to the House committees on whether to open an investigation.

Still, if the Republican-controlled panels decided that further inquiry was “appropriate,” the Pentagon could begin one of its own, Matthews wrote in his letter. “I don’t know whether there’s going to be an investigation or not, but again, I’m in a position where I have nothing to hide,” Vindman said

https://archive.is/8XrE9

Is Vindman a CIA asset? How can he get away with what he does? Some people seem to protecting this asshole!

Gunther Eagleman™

@GuntherEagleman

🚨 Karoline Leavitt just dropped the mic:

Trump ain’t bending one INCH for commie Mamdani after their “nice” chat.

Maybe the socialist learned something from the GOAT.

https://x.com/GuntherEagleman/status/1992058314826612917?s=20

>>23890339

No offense but the Supreme Court knew this all the time. They dragged it out intentionally, when they could have ruled on it on day one.

>>23890174

motableits time for Pompeo punishment

>>23890122

It’s obvious he knows real people wouldn’t vote for him

>>23890108

Yes