Commentary

Lanese: ‘Refuse illegal orders’ lawmakers are wolves in sheep’s clothing

By on • ( 57 Comments )

By James “Vito” Lanese

In a one minute and thirty second propaganda video they introduce themselves: ‘I’m Senator Elissa Slotkin, former CIA officer, Senator Mark Kelly, a Navy captain Congressman Chris Deluzio, former Navy, Congresswoman Maggie Goodlander, former intelligence officer, Representative Chrissy Houlahan, former Air Force, Congressman Jason Crow, former paratrooper and Army Ranger.’ 

They address the military and intelligence community , who all took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. They say they want to speak directly to members of the military and the intelligence community who take risks every day to keep America safe. 

‘We know you are under enormous stress and pressure right now. Americans trust their military. But that trust is at risk. This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens. 

‘Like us, you all swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Right now, the threats to our Constitution are not just coming from abroad but from right here at home. 

‘Our laws are clear. REFUSE ILLEGAL ORDERS. YOU CAN REFUSE ILLEGAL ORDERS. YOU MUST REFUSE ILLEGAL ORDERS. 

‘No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution. We know this is hard and this is a difficult time to be a public servant. But whether you’re serving in the CIA, the Army, our Navy, the Air Force, your vigilance is critical. And know we have your back. Because now, more than ever the American people need you. We need you to stand up for our laws, our Constitution and who we are as Americans. Don’t Give Up the Ship!’ For more info see: Democrat military veterans in Congress tell troops to defy unlawful orders | Fox News

Sens. Slotkin (top) and Kelly

Now here is what I think…..

These six wolves in sheep’s clothing are a perfect example of the duplicitous nature of the Democrat Party that has been infiltrated by socialists, communists and anti-constitutionalists that are trying to destroy our constitutional representative republic. These six cannot even give an example as to what illegal orders were given or what illegal orders should not be obeyed. 

They say they all swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution; however, their beliefs and votes tell an entirely different tale when it comes to defending the Constitution. 

These six that tell our men and women of the military and intelligence community to refuse illegal orders have violated their oaths to the Constitution when it comes to protecting the rights of the average American citizen. Don’t give up the ship? These six are drilling holes in the ship to scuttle it.

So let me bring the receipts on these hypocrites that are so worried about defending the Constitution.

Senator Elissa Slotkin: Had two school shootings in her district. Voted to restrict the right to Keep and Bear Arms. Supports gun control. Require background checks for every firearm sale and transfer. Sponsored a bill for background checks on all private sales.

Representative Jason Crow: Ban long gun sales to people in other states. Supports gun control. Background checks for every firearm sale and transfer.

Representative Chris Deluzio: Get high-capacity magazines and “weapons of war” off our streets. Supports Red Flag laws.

Representative Maggie Goodlander: Wants weapons of war off our streets.

Representative Chrissy Houlahan: Supports gun control. Background checks for every firearm sale and transfer. Sponsored a bill for background checks on private sales. Endorsed by Gifford 2nd Amendment organization and Senator Kelly’s wife.

Last buy not least, Senator Mark Kelly: Sponsored a bill for background checks on private sales. Endorsed by Everytown for Gun Safety. Husband of Gabby Gifford founder of anti 2nd Amendment gifford.org. Purchased an AR15 and handgun for himself.

Besides trying to illegally vote away our 2nd Amendment rights where was the video when from these six when Joe Biden left 83 billion dollars of military equipment in Afghanistan which included 358,530 AR16/M4 and other types of rifles and 126,295 pistols and gave up the Bagram air base? Where was the video when Joe Biden did not take care that the laws be faithfully be executed and allowed over twenty million illegals to enter our country? Where was the video of sanctuary states and cities that are violating the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution and not obeying federal immigration law?

So, there it is. These politicians so concerned with protecting and defending the Constitution that they themselves do not follow the law of the land. They are infringing on the gun rights of every citizen in the United States when the Constitution’s Bill of Rights tells them explicitly that they cannot do it. 

Benedict Arnold was a patriot before he was a traitor. These traitors are no different with the exception that it was they that have violated the oath they have sworn to defend.

Against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

The author is a frequent Vermont Daily Chronicle commenter and Newfane resident. 

Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Categories: Commentary

57 replies »

  1. Only difference between these ‘Representatives’ and Benedict Arnold is these new traitors have a much better publicity staff in MSM protecting them with lies

  2. Question???? What is an illegal order????? How about some examples. Comment from Richard Day, who joined the military when he was in high school.

  3. Democrats a big on enforcing the law only when it suits their agenda. The rest of the time, not so much.

  4. Yeah! Clearly democrats hate the constitution. They tried to overturn the 14th amendment. And it was Biden who, when asked if he was supposed to uphold the constitution said “I don’t know.”

  6. Democrats only like the Constitution when they can contort what it says to fit their agenda, you know like Becca and ‘Democracy’

  7. These 6 show us an example of opinions arrived at by “feelings” rather than using common sense “thinking” reasoning and facts.

    Like many others on the Left, they have made sweeping accusations and generalizations with nothing other than how they “feel.”

    They have no self awareness as they hypocritically say Trump acts like a King?

    • Trump the only King and dictator in the history of the word that didn’t disarm his citizens like these six would. So, who are the dictators?

      Donald L. Cline: “You cannot arm slaves and expect them to remain slaves.
      Nor can you disarm a free people and expect them to remain free”.

    • Sorry, nancy. But the feelings you are referring to have been supported by the courts clarifying what the trump administration is trying to ignore: the law.

      A federal judge ruled that the President’s deployment of the National Guard in Los Angeles was illegal, violating the Posse Comitatus Act which prohibits the use of the military for domestic law enforcement.

      Perhaps you want to reconsider you comment?

    • Re: “… the feelings you are referring to have been supported by the courts clarifying what the trump administration is trying to ignore: the law.”

      No. The Trump administration is not ignoring the law. While several courts have ruled on this issue, all of the rulings remain under appeal. And the appeal process is lawful.

      For example, U.S. District Judge Jia M. Cobb (a Biden appointee) of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, stayed her own order until December 11, 2025, to allow the Trump administration time to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. And even when the appeal process ends with the SCOTUS decisions, history shows that their rulings are not always cast in stone.

      As of today, the troops remain in place pending the appeals that may, ultimately, be decided by the SCOTUS. In other words, while we are all entitled to our opinions … ‘It ain’t over ‘till it’s over.’

    • What I find interesting (actually disturbing) is Senator Elissa Slotkin, Senator Mark Kelly, Congressman Chris Deluzio, Congresswoman Maggie Goodlander, Representative Chrissy Houlahan, and Congressman Jason Crow are telling the military (many 18 – 25 years old) that it is ok to become a lawyer based on your feelings, without a degree in law. They may not know anything about the law, or know little about what the U.S. Constitution says, but (as these 6 would suggest) you can interpret law based on your personal feelings ❗ That my friends is so dangerous on so many levels. If you have ever served in the military, you know you just don’t obey the orders you like and agree with. There is a military chain of command. Without that, there would be no order. Everyone knows you can ask 10 people what they think about a topic, and you might get 10 different options. These 6 are setting up military for insubordination, and possible (depending on the situation) dishonorably discharge from the military ❗ At the very least removal from the military. They are telling people in the military (regardless of rank) “you too can command”.
      Yet when the 6 were interviewed, none of them could name even one illegal ORDER given by our Commander and Chief.
      [ additional comment – a command and a comment are two separate things ]

    • Nick, There are multiple levels of Federal Courts for good reason, the low level Judges, many of whom have ties to the Democrat Party and who grew up off shore becoming naturalized citizens, gave their opinion which has been put on hold, as never have happened until heard by a higher panel, ultimately going to the highest level, it is our Constitutional system. So when a lower court decision is staid it is like that lower decision never happened for now and not used to judge legality

    • The courts? The Schumer let the truth slip out that, ” the good news here is we put 235 judges, progressive judges, judges not under the control of Trump, last year on the bench, and they are ruling against Trump time after time after time”.

      He says this 8:15 into the video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xXYhlUuEu0

      Scratch a progressive and you’ll find a commie underneath.

  8. The woodpeckers are busy pecking inside the empty steel drum this morning. Now give me an example of an illegal order???????? Comment from Richard Day. I want people on this website to answer that question.

    • The only example I can think of was in the My Lai massacre in Vietnam Nam, when Lt. William Calley ordered the shooting of those people in the village. There is probably more there than the internet provides. Please correct me if I am mistaken. Richard, thank you for your service.

    • If the President were to give an order to the military to shoot civilians, that is an example, that clearly hasn’t occurred.

    • In re: My Lai.
      I don’t know from how far up the chain of command this order came.

    • Dan, there are three branches of government: executive, legislative, and judicial. They collectively work together to run the country. The law doesn’t ‘depend’ on the courts as you suggest: they interpret the law. The law was written by the legislative branch. And just because trump can’t read the law doesn’t mean he doesn’t have to follow it.

      So to be clear, there have been incidents where trump issued illegal orders. And there is nothing wrong or illegal about reminding troops of such things.

    • Your opinion? Good for you! If this was so illegal, why did the judge give them until Dec. 11 to appeal?

    • Re: “…three branches of government: executive, legislative, and judicial. They collectively work together to run the country”.

      No. There are three branches of the federal government, of state governments, and of municipal governments. And their powers are specifically enumerated and limited by the U.S. and State constitutions. It’s called Republican Federalism.

      Again, the Trump administration and the courts remain in the lawful appeal process. And until definitive rulings by the Appeals Courts or the SCOTUS have been decided, Trump has not issued illegal orders to date. And while the so-called ‘seditious six’ are entitled to their opinion, their opinion is not the law. And they, as sitting U.S. Senators, crossed the line by ‘reminding’, implying (if not directly recommending) that military personnel defy their orders without going through the lawful ‘chain of command’.

      If anyone can be accused of breaking the U.S. federal sedition law, of partaking in “Activities affecting armed forces generally”, it is the ‘seditious six’, who, while citing the authority of their office, and “..with intent to interfere with the discipline or loyalty of the Armed Forces… advises, counsels, urges, or causes insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty”, have broken the law.

      Recommending or urging members of the U.S. military to defy lawful orders is one of the clearest modern examples of conduct that can still be prosecuted as sedition under federal law (primarily 18 U.S.C. § 2387), even in peacetime, because it directly attacks the discipline and loyalty required for the armed forces to function. It is distinguishable from mere criticism of policy or even calling a war immoral; the criminal line is usually crossed when the speech explicitly counsels refusal to obey lawful commands.

      The SCOTUS is going to be a busy place.

    • Dan, this is not my opinion. Someone (a judge) with better things to do than comment on the VDC forum read the law and told the administration they broke the law. Appeals are within the law. I’m totally fine with that. However, it doesn’t diminish the fact a judge ruled the deployment was illegal.

      Jay, you are the only person I can think of who said Milton Friedman said using tariffs was a great idea. Also, Reagan said using tariffs was a great idea. And now add to that list… there are not three branches of government. Thank god you are not a school teacher.

    • Isn’t it curious, Rosato, that Friedman actually did advocate for tariffs, albeit in limited circumstances – to protect a new industry, for goods truly essential to national security, and as temporary retaliatory tariffs, for example?

      And, yes President Reagan advocated for and imposed tariffs and trade restrictions in several specific situations too.

      With regard to ‘the three branches of government’ – you are correct – I didn’t make a broad, unspecific description of government as you did. I said; “There are three branches of the federal government, of state governments, and of municipal governments. And their powers are specifically enumerated and limited by the U.S. and State constitutions. It’s called Republican Federalism.”

      Apparently, you had poor teachers.

    • Nick, I should have said that it’s your opinion that the Judge in this matter is right. In my paralegal opinion, I don’t think she is.

    • Good point. There is no question but that Friedman and Reagan both preferred fair trade without tariffs. But again, they still both advocated for tariffs from time to time, “albeit in limited circumstances”.

      Reagan imposed tariffs on at least nine separate occasions from 1981 to 1988.

      1984 – eventually covering 70% of U.S. steel imports.
      1984 – Sharply restricted imports of textiles & apparels from developing countries.
      1985 – Quotas on steel pipe. By 1985, roughly 25%–30% of all U.S. imports were subject to some form of “managed trade” (quotas, VERs, or high tariffs) — a higher share than at any time since the Smoot-Hawley era.
      1986 – U.S./Japan Semiconductor Agreement. Included explicit market-share targets for U.S. computer chips.
      1987 – 100% tariffs on imported Japanese computers, TVs, and power tools in retaliation for alleged dumping of semiconductors.
      1988 – 100% tariffs threatened (and partially imposed) over Brazil’s lack of patent protection for U.S. pharmaceuticals.

      With regard to Friedman’s preferences, as expressed in your ‘drop-the-mike’ youtube citation, they are, just that, Friedman’s preferences…. and my preference too for that matter, … in a more honorable and perfect world order. But again, under “limited circumstances” Friedman expressed the following.

      “A separate and perhaps more sophisticated argument for tariffs … has been made on the grounds that a large country can alter the terms of trade in its favor … There is no doubt about the validity of this argument in the abstract … The available empirical evidence suggests that the scope for exploiting this possibility is very limited … and the danger of retaliation is very great.” — Capitalism and Freedom (1962), Chapter 2, p. 43 (and identical wording in the 2002 edition)

      “The infant-industry argument is theoretically valid … but it is a very special case and it is very hard to find examples in which it has been satisfied … In practice, the infants never grow up.” — Free to Choose (1980), Chapter 2, p. 42

      “There may be a case for temporary protection of an industry on grounds of national defense … but the argument is greatly overworked. Almost every industry can find some way to argue that it is essential to national defense.” — Capitalism and Freedom (1962), p. 43

      Of course, after WWII, Friedman rarely considered human rights, drug trafficking, and human trafficking, to be significant foreign policy (i.e., ‘national defense’ issues. Before WWII Friedman was a devout isolationist. But he changed his mind immediately after Pearl Harbor. Friedman and Reagan, ever the optimists, believed that free trade without tariffs would encourage better behavior. And, who knows, in a more perfect world that may be true. But the world has changed. And I suspect, so too would Friedman’s and Reagan’s preferences given today’s circumstances. After all, no one is perfect.

      Nonetheless, while your point and video reference is well taken, my expressed citations remain valid. And I do hope VDC readers have taken the time to consider both of our perspectives on this matter…. most of which, unfortunately, having never been taught in our schools.

  11. It has been many years since my time in the Navy, and even then I can only recall discussion of legal and illegal orders only during Boot Camp. I thought I’d better review the Uniform Code of Military Justise on this question. The relevant section is Article 92 which provides three examples: of illegal orders: Orders to commit crimes, Orders to falsify documents and Orders to target civilians: In fact, the directives, both here and internationally are to protect and rescue civilians. Our actions in this matter would appear to be illegal, as declared by the United Nations. When service personnel question an order, they are supposed to seek advice from their Judge Advocate. I wonder if this has been done.

    • Key word seems to be “target” civilians, you mean ordering military to shoot civilians as Dems in Congress claim was going to happen? Possibly sending a cruise missile into a civilian aspirin factory to obliterate the building and occupants?

    • Ron,

      That is the saddest reach for a false equivalence that I’ve ever read. Are you just as outraged when the MAGA’s kill anything that moves in the Caribbean and call them drug boats? Go back to bed lol

    • Chris, am finding your comment to be a sad reach, or is only because the POTUS that performed that attack on civilians was the pedophile, minor molesting hero of the Democrat Party!

    • Re: “Our actions in this matter would appear to be illegal, as declared by the United Nations. “

      The United States is governed by its people and its constitution…. not the United Nations. And God help us if that constitutional construct ever changes.

      Re: “When service personnel question an order, they are supposed to seek advice from their Judge Advocate. I wonder if this has been done.”

      The issue here is not whether any service personnel have questioned their orders. The issue is in determining whether or not these six sitting U.S. Senators have interfered with the discipline or loyalty of the Armed Forces. It appears to me that they have. That’s my humble opinion. We’ll have to wait and see how this plays out in the courts… i.e., our civilian chain of command.

    • Re: “…when the MAGAs kill anything that moves in the Caribbean.”???

      Talk about a false equivalence.

    • 1) no one is talking to you Jay

      2) Ron, I hate Bill Clinton, but noticed that you could only resort to an insult because your example was sad. Nice use of the “I know you are, but what am I?” debate style

      3) As opposed to the pedophile, minor molesting hero of the right? The one currently using the FBI to scrub the Epstein files? It takes one to know one? That comment is going to age like milk lol

    • Re: “…1) no one is talking to you Jay.”

      Perhaps not. But I am talking to you and the other VDC readers. And whether or not you, or other VDC readers, choose to listen to me doesn’t correct the false equivalence of your remarks.

    • Chris, you mean the files scrubbed by the Biden Dept of Injustice, explaining why the big push by Democrats to release now instead of when they had complete control. OK, other than Congressional and Court testimony by Epstein victims of Bill Clinton being present on the plane and at time of abuse, we do know for a fact that he did sexually abuse his young Government employee, the proof is in the Smithsonian Institution in the form of the infamous Blue Dress

    • Chris Cos, my son died of fentanyl poisoning in 2020. My wife and I cheer every time we see that Trump and the Dept. of War blew up another boat carrying drugs. At least it’s a real war on drugs.

    • James, I cheer also. My nephew died from heroin overdose, his choice, almost 20 years ago. You never think it will touch your family.

  12. Interesting headline and video posted on November 19, 2025 by the 4th Psychological Operations Airborne.

    “”We Are Everywhere” – Fort Bragg Psychological Warfare Group Posts Chilling Video. A secretive Fort Bragg operation that specializes in influencing people’s thoughts has released a hypnotic recruitment video that is laced with hidden meanings and strange images.”

    Whether it be from Langley or Fort Bragg – twisting their laws and twisting reality comes from a chorus of twisted tongues – all necessary to usher in depopulation, wealth transfer, reset. A global effort using digital surveilence and control. While the populace falls for psyop after psyop – the mental and physical fatigue is the extraction of energy and resources to fuel the operations. Why do think we are hit in the face daily with all that is gross, perverted, deadly, and destructive?

    No mention of Kent State, May 4, 1970 – a historical turning point lost in the incessant babbling in Mystery Babylon. Any war, and current war, is meant for the ritualistic spilling of much blood and wealth transfer to a few – at the expense of all others. Nothing new under the sun – only this time may be the last stand for the most wicked and they’ll take out as many as possible before that event unfolds, in their final hour.

  13. Didn’t Biden order 25,000 National Guard troops to Washington, DC for protection prior to his inauguration? Why, that must have been an illegal order. No outrage, no liberal Judges, and no seditious six, just troops sleeping on the floor of parking garages.

    • President Biden did not order the National Guard to Washington, D.C., for his inauguration on January 20, 2021. At the time, he was still president-elect, and the deployment of about 25,000 troops was authorized by the Pentagon under the Trump administration, following the January 6 Capitol riot. The decision came after requests from D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, with Acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller approving it on January 7, 2021, for up to 30 days. The Army Secretary then armed some troops after a meeting with Pelosi. Biden later thanked the Guard’s leader on January 22, 2021, but he wasn’t involved in the initial order.

      One thing is for certain, however, no one claimed that the National Guard deployments were examples of Trump giving illegal orders, even though the orders did come from President Trump. Another double standard raises its ugly head. Go figure.

    • Okay, I guess that it doesn’t matter who ordered armed troops, what does matter, is that it must have set some sort of precedent. Yet Trump wasn’t allowed to have troops there on Jan. 6. Am I right or is this just a crazy, mixed up frigging world.

    • Trump could have insisted on bringing in the National Guard into DC on Jan. 6.

      But the extent of the corrupt directives by authorities in the Jan. 6 incident was difficult to comprehend at the time. Election fraud was but one aspect being considered. Who knew that Pelosi and company (FBI Director Chris Wray, DC Mayor Murial Bowser and others) were a party to the fiasco setup? Think about that. More than 270 FBI agents and informants were embedded in the crowd, and the violence was predicted well in advance of the event. Even the Capitol Police Chief, Steven Sund, has testified that his requests for National Guard assistance were ignored, leading him to the conclusion that he now suspects collusion by the authorities. Who is Ray Epps?

      But I digress. The point is, Trump ordered the Guard into DC days after Jan 6 and not a soul complained that the deployment was an ‘illegal order’.

    • Some commenters should look at the District of Columbia National Guard (DCNG) and note that they are under the command of the President of the United States, and not the Governor like other states. One of their missions is to provide assistance to federal and local law enforcement agencies.

    • Dan, very good point on the uniqueness of the DC governance situation, however there are illegal orders given everyday by Chief Executives of Blue Cities telling their law enforcement and employees to disregard Federal Law and interfere with it’s enforcement. Laws that they don’t agree with, although they were passed in the form of you know “democracy”

  14. Thank you for all the comment about the illegal orders. Now, do you think the victims in the Epstein files will ever see justice???? Lets have fifty comments on that subject. Comment from Richard Day. DRIP, DRIP, DRIP.

    • Dan, There have been suits and surely will be more. Currently the brother of the victim that committed suicide is in court on an Estate suit trying to gain control over everything that mentions her name.

    • I guess it shows that I don’t follow the Epstein story very much. He and Ghislaine (?) hurt way to many. Considering that it boils down to older men being with younger women, Richard’s drip, drip, drip comments really crack me up.