Not long ago, patriotic citizens would have been appalled at the tactics employed by today’s Democrats. The standards that once defined American political discourse now seem to have eroded. Recently, on CNN, Rep. Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania took a divisive step when she and five other Democrats released a video encouraging military and intelligence personnel to defy orders they deem illegal. This is a profound red flag for those who value the rule of law.
In this video, no specific illegal orders from President Trump or Secretary of War Pete Hegseth were cited. Instead, the Democrats revived the familiar narrative positioning Trump as a constitutional threat, even though he had been elected by a sizable margin. Trump did not hold back in his condemnation, labeling the video “seditious” and calling for the arrest of those involved.
Houlahan responded to Trump by echoing a piece of advice from her military father, asserting that service members have the right—and obligation—to question commands. “If you receive an order that you are not sure of,” she said, “you have a duty to question your commander, the person next in your chain of command.” There is a kernel of truth in her statement, but the broader implications of her message raise serious concerns.
The timing and context of the Democrats’ video invite scrutiny. What prompted this call for disobedience? There have been no public discussions linking Trump to war crimes or illegal orders that might necessitate such drastic measures. The absence of context around the video makes its intentions appear more suspicious. It seems that their actions are less about serving the country and more about undermining a democratically elected leader.
This stark contrast to how political figures addressed military discipline in the past highlights a troubling trend. Consider the case of Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who was dismissed by President Obama in 2010 after making unflattering comments to a media outlet. At the time, there was a consensus among conservatives that loyalty to civilian authority was paramount. Not one attendee at a conservative conference I attended criticized Obama’s decision because it embodied the principle of military subordination.
Fast forward to the present, and the Democrats’ appeal for insubordination takes on a darker character. What could they possibly hope to gain by inciting distrust within the military ranks? It’s a question that looms large. If their goal was anything other than sowing discontent and chaos, they have yet to provide a coherent explanation.
This episode exemplifies the increasingly dangerous rhetoric that permeates modern politics. The implications of endorsing disobedience to elected leaders are far-reaching, and the potential risks to the fabric of democracy are significant. As Americans reflect on this moment, it’s vital to recognize the gravity of their actions. The call for insubordination undermines the very principles that have allowed the nation to thrive, leaving one to wonder what depths the political landscape might sink to next.
"*" indicates required fields
