Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
No. of Recommendations: 8
In a statement on Monday on social media announcing the investigation into Senator Mark Kelly, a veteran, the Pentagon cited a federal law that allows retired service members to be recalled to active duty on orders of the defense secretary for possible court martial or other measures. Kelly served in the US navy as a fighter pilot before going on to become an astronaut. He retired at the rank of captain.
What utter bullshit. But I know you Republicans, who have always opposed the weaponization of government will be outraged by this.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Don't you believe in the Rule of Law?
Nothing will happen to Kelly, as a retired military officer, that isn't pursuant to the Rule of Law.
No. of Recommendations: 6
Ruben Gallegos' response:
you will never ever, ever, ever be even half the man that Senator Kelly is. you, sir, are a coward — and the fact that you are following this order from the president shows how big of a coward you are. and I can’t wait until you no longer are the secretary of defense.
No. of Recommendations: 0
What utter bullshit. But I know you Republicans, who have always opposed the weaponization of government will be outraged by this.
The folks on TYT make a good point tonight. They showed clips of both one of the Dem Congressmen, and Slotkin (ex CIA, Senator from Michigan), being asked "what illegal orders has the President given?" No answer. Slotkin would not even straight up call blowing up boats in the Caribbean "illegal". So, being unable to defend their statements, it's looking like a Dem stunt, with nothing behind it.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 3
guess,
Gallegos just proved what a performative ProGlib imbecile he is.
Following lawful orders isn't "cowardice," it's the sworn legal responsibility of subordinates of the CinC. (Note: Gallegos didn't claim that investigating Kelly is an "illegal order".)
Upholding the "Rule of Law" and upholding the Constitution means, among other things, following lawful orders, even if you disagree with the wisdom of those orders.
Democrats are such feckless idiots.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Worse than just a stunt.
The six demoncrats who made the video are encouraging the lower ranks to be insubordinate to their superior commanders and officers for absolutely no reason whatsoever except treason and hatred of Trump.
Not one of these nincompoops have claimed a single order they are aware of which they believe is not just questionable, not just a misuse of Presidential power, not merely embarrassing (in their view) to the United States, not just unfair, not just harmful, but UNLAWFUL to the point where it is obvious that it should not be obeyed.
It was meant to undermine not just Trump's lawful authority as CinC, but to undermine the lawful authority of every other person in the chain of command.
Trying to be cute by saying "but they only said to disobey UNLAWFUL orders not lawful ones" is like, if your spouse is going to a Christmas party without you, telling them "Now don't f*ck anyone you're not supposed to, honey."
If you said that to your spouse and they were offended by it, would you then claim "Well I wasn't accusing you of anything! What I said is perfectly reasonable!"
Democrats are idiots.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Loved that Gallegos mentioned they had a script. Of course they did. Everything they do is scripted.
No. of Recommendations: 0
Dope1,
Too bad the Democratic script(s) is/are written by rooms full of feces-flinging monkeys sitting behind typewriters.
No. of Recommendations: 5
Don't you believe in the Rule of Law?
We do. That’s why we’re angry.
And your “black is white” and “up is down” nonsense serves only to underscore how much this country is beginning to resemble North Korea.
Perhaps Mark Kelly will be executed by anti-aircraft 40mm cannon.
And you’ll be right there, calling it the “Rule of Law”.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Wzambon: "That's why we're angry."
O.K. this is very key. ProGlibs are motivated by primitive emotions, not logic. You're brainwashed to think emotionally, not logically, and therefore, easily manipulated.
No one can make a good decision, about anything, when angry. The stimulation of anger and the psyops brainwashing you to think that being angry all the time is an effective way to make decisions or problem-solve is deliberate.
You really need to read "Meditations" by Marcus Aurelius; Stuff about Epictetus; Seneca; and other Stoic philosophers.
Ryan Holliday (Halliday?) has a very good website called "Daily Stoic" with a lot of interesting material.
Nothing good ever happens when a person reactively responds to their anger.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Upholding the "Rule of Law" and upholding the Constitution means, among other things, following lawful orders, even if you disagree with the wisdom of those orders.
Democrats are such feckless idiots.
No, YOU are the idiot. Illegal orders are not 'lawful orders where we disagree with the wisdom'. An example of illegal orders:
As ICE you go into a community of illegal immigrants, stop them all, take everyone who has tattoos, throw them up against the wall in a corner, and are ordered to execute them. Do you follow those orders? NO. Why? It is unlawful to execute someone without due process - so the order is illegal. Pretty basic, eh? But some of us would follow those orders. It's human.
Now, do we have brief low-level due process, where a clerk listens to your rationale for executing illegal immigrants with tattoos and then OKs it? No. If you're taking a life, they get better due process for people within our borders, Federal, State, or Military justice.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Prolapse City,
Your leftist delusion is strong, grasshopper.
The example of "illegal order" to ICE you came up with just now, is not reality, is not close to reality--it is delusional worthy of a true paranoid schizophrenic: "What if ICE is ordered to throw everyone with tattoos against the wall and execute them?"
I don't know, what if your head is so far up your back end that all you can see is your own feces?
Oh right...then you post what you've actually been posting.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Don't you believe in the Rule of Law?
Nothing will happen to Kelly, as a retired military officer, that isn't pursuant to the Rule of Law.
Yes, we believe in the rule of law, but one of you has already stated the silent part, that you don't believe in the rule of law. Amd we don't believe you if you say you do, because you lie so much. Capiche?
No. of Recommendations: 1
but one of you has already stated the silent part, that you don't believe in the rule of law
Uh, huh. And who is that?
No. of Recommendations: 12
You really need to read "Meditations" by Marcus Aurelius; Stuff about Epictetus; Seneca; and other Stoic philosophers.
Ive read them all, marco. Marcus Aurelius is even in the basket next to my couch.
Anger is a human emotion. We all get angry. Pity the man who doesn’t recognize his own anger and is thus controlled by it.
If you aren’t angry at what this administration is doing, you are either oblivious or complicit.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Mark Kelly absolutely should be sanctioned. I wouldn't court-martial him, but he would definitely get a letter of reprimand placed in his file plus some administrative fine, if the UCMJ permits that.
There is no "illegal order". Unless of course you define "illegal" as "doing stuff the democrats don't like". That seems to be the operative definition here, and for the libs on the board to shout about it just shows you who the real proto-fascists are in the United States.
No. of Recommendations: 3
And another thing.
Our board's proto-fascists never said anything about Arctic Frost, where the government was in fact weaponized against sitting Republican lawmakers. And they've never said a damn thing (except to cheer) when Obama's minions and wingmen went after conservative 501c(3)'s back in the day (and gunned for specific businesses).
No, the left can drag a chair over in the corner and have a seat. Facing the wall. Thumb in mouth, sucking away.
No. of Recommendations: 2
The example of "illegal order" to ICE
Asked and answered.
No. of Recommendations: 16
Dope1: There is no "illegal order".
Of course there are “illegal orders”. The order to attack My Lai was an illegal order. The orders to torture and abuse detainees at Abu Ghraib Prison were illegal orders.
Trump wanted to have protesters shot: “Just shoot them,” and when challenged said, “Well — shoot them in the leg, or maybe the foot, but be hard on them.” Had he not been told that, no, knucklehead, he couldn't do that and had the military done so, they would have been following illegal orders.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Dope1,
The real irony is that the six Demo-traitor-crats' failure to identify anything as an actual illegal order strongly implies that none of them think that Trump's military actions against Venezuelan "drug fishing" boats is illegal.
That is the most OBVIOUS recent Trumpian use of military force that could have arguably been cited as a possible illegal use of Presidential power.
If you listen to Demo-whino-trator-crats, like the ones posting here, these six are experts on this stuff.
So the conclusion is: The Venezuelan fishing boat stuff was carefully reviewed by the traitorcrats, and it's legal.
No. of Recommendations: 2
No I don't "capiche" because I don't really understand paranoid schizophrenics like you.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Wzambon,
You missed my point. Anger is a natural emotion. But, if you are admittedly angry, you are not exercising good judgment.
Why are you so angry all the time?
Because you're brainwashed to be emotional and reactive to disinformation and psyops by your party.
No. of Recommendations: 19
Dope1
There is no "illegal order". Unless of course you define "illegal" as "doing stuff the democrats don't like". That seems to be the operative definition here, and for the libs on the board to shout about it just shows you who the real proto-fascists are in the United States.Well, well, well, over the Thanksgiving holiday reporting from the Washington Post revealed that there have been illegal orders from this administration:
A missile screamed off the Trinidad coast, striking the vessel and igniting a blaze from bow to stern. For minutes, commanders watched the boat burning on a live drone feed. As the smoke cleared, they got a jolt: Two survivors were clinging to the smoldering wreck.
The Special Operations commander overseeing the Sept. 2 attack -- the opening salvo in the Trump administration's war on suspected drug traffickers in the Western Hemisphere -- ordered a second strike to comply with Hegseth's instructions, two people familiar with the matter said. The two men were blown apart in the water."Plainly illegal.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2...
No. of Recommendations: 4
Plainly illegal.
For Dope, nothing is illegal if Trump does it.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Well the way you frame it makes what happened sure sound illegal.
Why aren't the Traitorous Six doing anything about it?
Make another hearing and point out that Trump is issuing illegal orders specifically as to these strikes against Venezuela and that the military must not carry out illegal orders.
Where is the follow up video?
Where are the other Democrats?
Why aren't they making speeches? Where are the protests?
Why aren't you guys boycotting Home Depots and Targets about Venezuela?
No. of Recommendations: 7
Plainly illegal.
More than just “plainly illegal. It’s an actual war crime.
No. of Recommendations: 2
OK let's agree Trump committed war crimes, Dems will take over the House on Jan. 1 2027, and immediately impeach Trump.
Let's also assume the Senate votes to convict. O.K. J.D. Vance becomes President for the next two years.
So, your wish fulfillment fantasy is fulfilled, Trump is impeached, convicted, then tried for war crimes by the Hague and sentenced to a rehabilitative sex dungeon in Brussels with all you can eat gelato.
So let's stop talking about Trump.
What are the Democrats going to do between now and then?
Piss, moan and whine for 13 months?
No. of Recommendations: 10
More than just “plainly illegal. It’s an actual war crime.
Quibble. "A bombing intended to kill people in the Caribbean, outside the context of a legally recognized "armed conflict," would
not be considered a "war crime" but would likely amount to extrajudicial murder under domestic and international human rights law."
Thus, I want the US to bring the charges, not the ICC. I'd have a show trial and sacrifice Hegsdeath, ignore the rest of the military, but underscore with them that next time we won't, they have to be willing to step down and not carry out that order. That may be why they saved the survivors of the submarine (it could get very complicated). But that's me, YMMV.
If we attack the mainland, I'd have to rethink all of that. :)
No. of Recommendations: 4
Lawmakers voice support for congressional reviews of Trump’s military strikes on boats, November 30, 2025
"Lawmakers from both parties said Sunday they support congressional reviews of U.S. military strikes against vessels suspected of smuggling drugs in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean, citing a published report that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued a verbal order for all crew members to be killed as part of a Sept. 2 attack. ...
Rep. Mike Turner, R-Ohio, when asked about a follow-up strike aimed at people no longer able to fight, said Congress does not have information that happened. He noted that leaders of the Armed Services Committee in both the House and Senate have opened investigations. “Obviously, if that occurred, that would be very serious and I agree that that would be an illegal act,” Turner said."
https://apnews.com/article/military-strikes-boats-...
No. of Recommendations: 1
If so then Trump will be impeached and convicted.
Fine then we get J.D. Vance, I can live with that.
