A line was crossed recently, a boundary once considered inviolable in American politics. The idea that elected officials would openly encourage defiance of lawful orders from a duly elected commander-in-chief would have been unthinkable not long ago.
The situation escalated when a Pennsylvania congresswoman, appearing on national television, doubled down on a controversial video released earlier in the week. This video, featuring six Democrats, directly called upon members of the military and intelligence communities to question – and potentially disobey – orders they deemed “illegal.”
Notably, no specific illegal orders were cited. The Democrats offered no concrete examples, relying instead on familiar accusations leveled against a former president. This occurred despite the clear mandate given to that president by the American electorate.
The former president responded swiftly, labeling the video “seditious” and calling for the arrest of those involved. The congresswoman, in turn, defended the message by referencing advice her father, a military veteran, had once given her.
Her father’s counsel, as she relayed it, emphasized a service member’s duty to question orders through the proper chain of command, even seeking legal counsel if necessary. However, this explanation felt deliberately detached from the context of the video’s release and its potential implications.
The congresswoman framed the backlash to the video as further proof of the concerns that prompted its creation – a claim of being threatened for simply advocating adherence to the law. This narrative, however, did little to address the core issue of encouraging potential insubordination.
The timing and nature of the video are deeply unsettling. It appeared without any discernible connection to current events or any specific allegations of wrongdoing. The suggestion of “illegal orders” felt manufactured, conjuring images of wartime atrocities without any grounding in reality.
What was the intent? If not to actively sow discord and encourage disobedience, what purpose could this video possibly serve? The lack of a plausible explanation only deepens the sense of alarm.
The principle of civilian control over the military has long been a cornerstone of American democracy. Consider the case of a general publicly criticizing a president – a situation that occurred in recent history. Even then, the response was decisive, upholding the vital importance of military subordination to civilian authority.
In that instance, the offense was merely spoken words, not a direct call to defy orders. The current situation, with its explicit encouragement of potential insubordination, represents a far more dangerous breach of trust and a profound threat to the stability of our institutions.
Given the gravity of the situation and the clear intent to undermine authority, a strong response is warranted. The actions of these Democrats demand scrutiny and accountability, and a firm defense of the principles that have long protected our nation.
