The Seditious Six

Only those ignorant of the UCMJ can support this Constitutional affront

As one who has taken the oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” and been through instruction on the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), as a Cadet on entering the United States Air Force Academy in 1972, I am appalled by the actions of (my) Sen Kelly (D-AZ) and the others in the NatSec State outing themselves as the Seditious Six.

More intriguing, but of course less-informative and highly ignorant, are the continuing posts on various social media platforms excoriating President Trump while lauding Senator Kelly.

They are – ALL – wrong.

One the one hand – as the Seditious Six get right, members of the military must disobey unlawful orders.

What constitutes a “lawful order.” Let’s take it a step at a time.

What, exactly, is a military order?

Understanding Military Orders

Military orders are authoritative instructions issued by a superior to a subordinate within the armed forces. Their primary purpose is to direct personnel, assign specific duties, and ensure synchronized action toward achieving military objectives. These directives are foundational to military discipline and operational effectiveness, providing a clear framework for conduct and action. Unlike suggestions or requests, military orders carry inherent authority, meaning they are binding commands that demand obedience. They are essential for maintaining order and achieving mission success.

These are neither suggestions nor open to discussion. They “carry inherent authority, meaning they are binding commands that demand obedience.”

As an example, following 9-11, questions arose along the lines of: “Would a fighter pilot shoot down a civilian airliner if ordered to do so?”

And the answer was – and is – “Yes; the military is an orders-based organization.” Would this be a “legal order?” Would the pilot have time to decide, or would he shoot-down an airliner aimed at the Capitol Building? Do we want the pilot taking time to consider this, perhaps leaving the Capitol a smoking pile of rubble…? Or to obey?

Who gets to issue military orders? Easy answer: The President of the United States and those under his command and in the chain of command above the person to whom the order is being issued.

Issuing Authority and Chain of Command

The authority to issue military orders is strictly defined by the chain of command, a hierarchical structure that dictates the flow of authority from the highest levels down to the lowest ranks. This system ensures that orders originate from a superior and are passed down through successive levels of command, maintaining order and efficiency. For example, the President of the United States serves as the Commander-in-Chief, with authority flowing down through high-ranking officers to enlisted service members.

Orders derive their authority from the position of the issuer within this established military hierarchy. A service member typically receives orders only from those directly above them in their specific chain of command. This structure ensures that every individual knows who to report to and who they receive instructions from, preventing confusion and ensuring accountability. It is a fundamental principle that for an order to be binding, it must be lawful and issued by someone with the proper authority.

And here is where the Seditious Six cease being advocates for their sworn duty to support and defend the Constitution, and become advocates for treason: The concept of “lawful orders” and the underlying concept of any government, “Who gets to decide?”

Must an order be obeyed?

The Obligation to Obey Orders

Military personnel have a fundamental duty to obey lawful orders, a principle central to military discipline and effectiveness. This obligation is codified in military law, primarily through the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Article 92 of the UCMJ specifically addresses the failure to obey orders or regulations, establishing the legal framework for enforcing compliance.

In the heat of combat, tense preflight planning in the ready room or on the flight deck, radio chatter between attacking pilots, or the dispassionate discussion around a conference table, the idea that each person receiving an order has the context, the ability, the intellectual capacity, the strategic foresight, or the knowledge to decide what order is and what order is not lawful, stretches credulity.

So what is a low-level officer or enlisted man or woman (the people at whom the seditious screed was aimed) to do?

Guess what?

The UCMJ covers that:

The Obligation to Obey Orders

An order must be lawful to be binding; however, all military orders are presumed lawful. The UCMJ requires that a lawful order must have a military purpose, meaning it must be necessary for completing a military mission, maintaining morale, discipline, or unit usefulness. The duty to obey is paramount, and service members are expected to follow orders promptly and without hesitation.

“… all military orders are presumed lawful… The duty to obey is paramount, and service members are expected to follow orders promptly and without hesitation.”

And this is where the Seditious Six broadcast their sedition.

The purpose of their childish video - made because they lost an election and are ready to ask the entire United States military to mutiny against the Constitution and their Chain of Command because they didn’t get their way, a desire and demand to overthrow the government of America in what is a temper tantrum – is to reverse that presumption, to overturn the very same UCMJ on which the Seditious Six falsely base their screed.

It is to put into the minds of those whose duty is to follow orders presumed to be legal under the UCMJ – to stop, think, feel, decide on their own, without context, without knowledge, without experience… “Gee.. is that order lawful?”

It is to make those to whom an order is given stop, obstruct, perhaps not react in time – causing death or destruction, or not causing death and destruction (for these are the military’s job) - because they hesitated rather than obeyed “…promptly and without hesitation.”

Those supporting this sedition and who have not taken instruction on or considered the actual Uniform Code of Military Justice, are ignorant of and so expostulating on something they know nothing about. That is dangerous – and could result in lethal actions or the lack of lethal actions necessary to protect the nation these men and women took an oath to defend.

And THAT is inexcusable. Each of the Seditious Six must be indicted, tried and – if in the presence of an unbiased jury, preferably in a military tribunal - convicted and punished. All the necessary evidence of their crime is in their own words in their own video. It is several minutes of treason.

But wait – there’s more…

Does Sen Kelly take his oath seriously, as he whines through his tantrum on national media? Does he actually support – fully and completely – the Constitution and his oath to it? Or is this just a show, a performance he undertakes because everything else Democrats have tried in stopping the will of the voters in our democratic republic has failed?

It’s a performance plain and simple. No, he does not believe in his oath or the Constitution as our governing document.

How do we know this?

This is easy to report. I covered the general issue here.

The Constitution defines the limits on the powers and authorities of the federal government in Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution, the “enumerated powers,” the ONLY Constitutional authority granted to the federal government by the several states when those - superior - states created the - inferior - federal government to do specific, enumerated, things.

Sen Kelly has voted to support

• The Dept of Education… Not among the enumerated powers.

• SNAP… Not among the enumerated powers.

• Obamacare… Not among the enumerated powers.

• Open Borders… A straight-up violation of our current immigration law, written by a Democrat and passed by normal constitutional process

Each and every vote he has cast that is not toward an authorized action of the federal government has been his individual attack on the Constitution he suddenly pretends – and wants you to pretend – he supports and defends.

Kelly no more supports the Constitution than he accepts the results of the last election.

He is a charlatan and a seditionist. If we are to remain under the rule of law, he – and the rest of the Seditious Six - MUST be tried and held accountable.