From Civics Lesson to Color Revolution: What the 'Refuse Orders' Message Really Did

AMUSE on X ^ | 21 Nov, 2025 | @AMUSE

[MtnClimber]

There has been a “color revolution” against Trump since 2015.

[rktman]

IIRC they had an issue when some in the military wanted to disobey orders to get CON-vid vax.

[txeagle]

I commend every one of them for stepping up to be the face of the “and domestic” component of all those oaths I swore.

[tumblindice]

Mark Kelly is an actual Alien ... from Uranus.

[equaviator]

What they did in that video was an abuse of the power of suggestion. They’re terrible, and if they were musicians performing before a live audience they’d be dodging rotten tomatoes and cabbage heads.

[Carry_Okie]

Yes, it’s a color revolution. No, I don’t think these “lawmakers” realize that. I doubt seriously they think that deeply. Hence, whoever organized this for them is the likely culprit and should be sent to jail.

[Georgia Girl 2]

The FBI should be dragging all 6 of them in for grilling. At least throw a scare into them.

[FlingWingFlyer]

All six of them are up for rescue at a local pet rescue center. Get yours now.

[Ditto]

President Lincoln had to deal with some similar foes during the Civil War. One was a particular paid in the ass named CLEMENT LAIRD VALLANDIGHAM and Lincoln dealt with him masterfully.

[FlingWingFlyer]

The official “U.S” Senate AOC Nut Squawd that formed itself to defend foreign illegal alien invaders from Federal Law Enforcement Officers. American “veterans” my arse. They run an escort service for illegal alien foreign invaders and their shyster lawyer “advocates”.

[econjack]

I don’t see why this is not an act of treason. Is a soldier in the field the right one to decide what is a “lawful order”? Are they mature enough to refuse orders? Nope. Throw these people in jail and try them for treason.

[LuxAerterna]

There’s another dirty secret here. There are many military personnel who are not particularly loyal or patriotic. They enlisted strictly for pay and benefits. Many of them don’t AT ALL support President Trump’s deportation of illegals. I’ve seen and heard it myself many times.

IMHO this video was released specifically to target this addled cohort.

[Migraine]

In view of all this in the essay. It is incumbent upon the existing patriotic cadre in the military to remind their youngsters of what the law really says In letter as well as the spirit of the law.

[Migraine]

Mark Kelly certainly talks out of his backside.

[ridesthemiles]

THEY CAN TAP-DANCE ALL THEY WISH

THEY ARE ON THE WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY

[kiryandil]

Copperheads.

[virgil]

They begin by persuading security services that their loyalty to the constitution or the nation requires them to treat the executive’s commands as provisional, subject to correction by other elites.

It's meant to undermine the authority of the President. What are Republicans in Congress doing about it? Anything? I haven't heard much from them.

[iontheball]

Great analysis and perspective on the Seditious Six.

[alloysteel]

Here’s the deal - elected members of either the US House of Representatives or the US Senate may make the most seditious of statements WITHOUT CONSEQUENCE, if first they express the sentiment from the floor of either the House or the Senate. So trying them for sedition is out of the question. Secondly they speak of “illegal” orders, not “unlawful” orders, again scrambling up the terms. “Illegal” orders may, in the context of what they are saying, may actually apply ONLY to “orders against illegal immigrants” in their dog-whistle alarm to the illegal immigrants, and all the time those orders by the President were entirely valid LAWFUL orders, made in conformity of existing US Law.

Not one, NOT ONE, of these accusers of the President can cite what “unlawful” order has EVER been issued by the President in absence of a legal ruling to the contrary. Ruling after the fact does NOT apply to the validity of the action prior to the ruling. It only means that that particular measure cannot be taken again, unless the judicial ruling is overturned by a higher court.