XPost: alt.military.retired, alt.anarchism, sac.politics   
   XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, talk.politics.guns   
   From: noreply@mixmin.net   
      
   Slammed for his leading role in Democrats’ disgraceful “Disobey!” video,   
   US Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) has gotten on his moral high horse, citing   
   his decades of honorable service in the US military — when his central   
   outrage was to prostitute that service in a bid to impugn the sitting   
   president, at the clear risk of encouraging military mutinies.   
      
   The Pentagon has opened a probe of Kelly’s actions: As a Navy retiree   
   receiving significant benefits, he’s clearly still subject to the   
   Uniform Code of Military Justice — and the video may constitute a   
   violation of his oaths.   
      
   In response, the senator’s blaring out his service record (also playing   
   for sympathy as the husband of ex-Rep. Gabby Giffords, who suffered   
   lasting, near-fatal wounds in a madman’s 2011 assassination attempt), as   
   if that meant he could do no subsequent wrong.   
      
   Huh? Benedict Arnold was a bona fide hero before becoming our nation’s   
   most infamous traitor.   
      
   And, as we’ve noted, the video starring Kelly and five of his   
   congressional colleagues plainly implied that President Trump, or his   
   subordinates, was likely to issue illegal orders (if he hadn’t already)   
   — why else would these veterans be emphasizing to active-duty personnel   
   that they’re obliged to refuse such commands?   
      
   Worse, the spot plainly risks encouraging soldiers, sailors, Marines   
   and/or airmen to disobey legal orders — perhaps covertly, as with   
   Chelsea Manning and Reality Winner; perhaps worse in, say, the ongoing   
   deployment near Venezuela.   
      
   Crucially, the six can’t identify any such illegal orders, because there   
   aren’t any.   
      
   Hilariously, Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) turned to Hollywood for   
   support, stammering: “If you look at popular culture, if you watch ‘A   
   Few Good Men,’ we have plenty of examples … where people were told to   
   follow illegal orders.”   
      
   It’s a great flick, but purely imaginary — yet it’s the best she could   
   come up with after she seemed to be pointing to a very current danger in   
   the “disobey” video.   
      
   Back to Kelly: After Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth rightly fumed that   
   the spot’s “foolish screed sows doubt and confusion,” Kelly blustered   
   that he won’t “be silenced by bullies who care more about their own   
   power than protecting the Constitution.”   
      
   Again, sowing confusion was the video’s clear purpose, even if it mainly   
   aimed to scare civilians who don’t know how carefully the modern   
   military educates its own about what constitutes illegal orders, and so   
   are vulnerable to dark insinuations from veterans like Kelly.   
      
   Which means the senator is the one who’s being feckless about protecting   
   the Constitution here.   
      
   We’re not positive a Pentagon investigation is the right course of   
   action in countering Kelly & Co.’s unbecoming conduct; he’s certainly   
   trying to exploit that probe to play the martyr.   
      
   But by citing his service record to pretend that cutting that spot was   
   the action of a hero, not a scoundrel, Kelly is doubling down on the   
   original offense.   
      
   It was a low, passive-aggressive smear, dishonoring the spirit of his   
   oath of service, whether or not it violates the letter.   
      
   https://nypost.com/2025/11/25/opinion/sen-mark-kelly-is-doubling-down-on-   
   his-self-dishonor-over-the-disobey-video/   
      
   John Dupont   
   25 November, 2025   
      
   As a military officer - even on the retired list - he remains subject to   
   the UCMJ.   
      
   His comments - at a minimum - incite insubordination and clearly   
   constitute conduct prejudicial to good military order and discipline.   
      
   I'd also add conduct unbecoming of an officer.   
      
   Victor L   
   2 days ago   
      
   Exactly right. There is no rational purpose to the video other than to   
   incite at best insubordination and at worst insurrection. Every member   
   of the armed forces knows that they do not need to obey an illegal   
   order. Every informed civilian knows that as well. The message was not   
   informational, but rather a patent attempt to both foment dissent in the   
   military and imply a false narrative that Trump as Commander-in-Chief is   
   issuing illegal orders. There is no other purpose here other than a   
   literal call to insurrection and an attempt to influence the midterm   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)