From Behind Enemy Lines – Violent Rhetoric

Chris and I have had a fundamental disagreement over Trump’s statements regarding the rogue Senators’ video. Let me get the original information here, for anyone who isn’t aware.

The text reads: Americans trust their military, but that trust is at risk. This administration is pitting our uniform military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens. Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders. You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders. Don’t give up. Don’t give up. Don’t give up. Don’t give up the ship. 

Trump’s response: truthsocial.com/@WashingtonExa. It’s called SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL. 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. President DJT

Trump’s later comment: SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH! (later in the above thread)

Alright, with all the information at hand now here on one page, with the actual words and not just copies or reports of them… let me continue.

I will start where I always start, by denouncing the behavior of the dems in question. What they did was wrong, full stop. For the ones who have previously been in the military (I know Sen. Kelley was in the Navy and is retired, but there may be others), the Uniform Code is still in play. That means that, if you’ve EVER served in the military and have taken the Oath, then you are still held to the USC.

According to Grok: 8 U.S.C. § 2387 makes it a federal crime to engage in activities that “affect the armed forces,” such as intentionally obstructing military recruitment, enlistment, or operations. It also prohibits advising, urging, or attempting to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty among service members. Penalties include fines, imprisonment of up to ten years, and a five-year ban from U.S. government employment upon conviction.
What 18 U.S.C. § 2387 prohibits:
Obstruction: Intentionally obstructing or attempting to obstruct the armed forces’ recruiting, enlistment, or general military operations.
Incitement: Advising, urging, or attempting to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty among members of the U.S. military.
Distribution of certain materials: Distributing written or printed matter that advises, counsels, or urges any of the above actions.

It seems quite clear to me that the above statements made by the six falls under 8 USC 2387. Those Dems clearly stated that Trump (“this administration”) is pitting military folk against citizens. It’s simply  not true. The phrase, “Don’t give up the ship,” has special meaning in the military harkening back to Cap’t James Lawrence of the USS Chesapeake in 1813, but has been expanded to cover many branches of the military. So the dems were wrong. There are ways to communicate with the military, through the chain of command, that could have stressed the idea of following lawful orders, but they chose to do it via a public video, grandstanding, and not only is that … well, grandstanding… it’s also harmful.

Many of you probably know that the military has classes that teach soldiers what sorts of things are considered legal and illegal orders. Yes, it is expected of our troops, all of them, to not follow illegal orders. However, what constitutes “illegal” is a very specific thing, and they have to learn what that is. So this holiday, instead of enjoying turkey and stuffing wherever they’re stationed, they’re going through the full lecture series again, so that everyone’s 110% sure of what “illegal orders” are. Because for an active soldier to decide an order is illegal, there are hoops to jump through, and they are putting their career and possibly their very life on the line. Doing what they did, those dems ensured our military community will be pissed and irritated for the next several months.

Now that I have that part out of the way… None of that excuses Trump from what he said. First, there are questions as to whether seditious behavior is punishable by death, even in the military. It is ABSOLUTELY not on the docket for civilians, and never has been. They can be fined, jailed, and be removed from office… but they are never under threat of death. Even in the military, there are questions. The last person to be executed for sedition in this country was Matthew Lyon in 1799. Over 200 years ago.

The dems were wrong. But bringing up the death penalty, bringing up sedition itself on a social media outlet, doesn’t fix a damn thing.

Several weeks ago, when Charlie Kirk was mowed down like autumn wheat, many of us decried the noises of the Left. Rightly so, in my opinion. Their calling Trump (and others) a Nazi, a dictator, a fascist… these all contributed to that horrible moment when Charlie was assassinated. Words have meanings, and those meanings led to Charlie’s death. The path wasn’t a straight line, but it wasn’t terribly twisty either.

Now, Trump is up there yelling that the dems committed sedition (possible) and that sedition is punishable by death (unlikely in military cases, incorrect entirely for civilians).

Folks, how is that different from the Left using violent rhetoric? I don’t see a difference. Well, not true. The Left couched it in delicate words. Trump said the quiet part out loud. That doesn’t change the fact that he said “those folks committed sedition” and “sedition is punishable by death” in very quick succession. What were people supposed to think? I no longer assume everything out of Trump’s mouth is horrible, but he’s not a great speaker at the best of times. This was not a good moment. Someone should have taken the fucking phone away from him and stopped him from tweeting.

I *cannot* ignore that Trump is using violent rhetoric here, and it is clear as day. I can’t! I would be a lying hypocrite if I simply said, “Oh, he didn’t mean to kill them.” Yeah, and the Left didn’t mean for anyone to shoot Trump, either.

The bottom line is, there are fringe elements on both sides of the aisle who are absolutely fekking bonkers. This kind of thing gets them riled up, and the next thing that happens is someone’s threatening people. And you know what? THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED. Maggie Goodlander was threatened with bombing (WMUR). I don’t like the woman, but she’s right when she says people listen to Trump.

Could this be a red flag thing, where some dipshit on the Left went out and tried to make Trump and his followers look bad? Yes, absolutely. We don’t have proof one way or the other right now, but it’s possible. I might even say it’s probable. But it started, in this case, with Trump’s words. You don’t get Maggie bombed because she stood up and made a crappy video that most of the public read as “don’t follow illegal orders” and saw nothing else (because that is entirely what’s being said). No one would bother to bomb her for saying that. It was Trump’s rhetoric that riled up whoever did it.

If you want me to let Trump off the hook when I wouldn’t let someone on the Left off the hook, then maybe I *don’t* belong here. And yes, I’ve been arguing this with Chris for days. We’ve stopped talking on several occasions. I didn’t want to write this, because I am strongly of the opinion that he’s going to be offended and hurt by it, and it’s going to lead to a fan-fucking-tastic Thanksgiving dinner. But he pressed, and I’ve written it. I’ve provided my proofs. I have all the original material there for everyone to see.

I WILL NOT allow Trump to get away with bad behavior just because he’s my President, or just because he’s doing so well in 18 other ways. It is *because* I respect him as President that I am personally required to hold him to the same standard as I hold the Left (and personally I think it should be higher, because anyone who’s President should be held to a higher standard, but I’ve been told that’s unreasonable before, so…). He does not get a pass for this.

Trump was wrong.

His being wrong in no way excuses the actions of the Dems or the Left or the bomb threat person or anyone else. It stands on its own. And I stand by it. I’d say sorry, but I’m NOT sorry, folks. He ought not have said that. It’s another example of him ripping defeat from the jaws of victory and it chaps my ass.