Democrats urge military officials to disobey Trump orders in new video

Congressional Democrats are openly encouraging anarchy with a new video urging military and intelligence officials to disobey President Trump’s unlawful orders. All government officials are sworn to obey the law, including the United States Constitution and all statutes. There are some examples where the orders are clearly unlawful and the “I was just following orders” defense doesn’t work. One infamous case involved Lieutenant William Calley, who led the horrific My Lai Massacre during the Vietnam War. However, the Democrats’ call here is extremely dangerous and invites a coup.

So exactly which orders do Democrats believe are illegal? Are ICE raids part of these so-called unlawful orders? The Supreme Court recently struck down a decision by leftist Judge Maame Ewusi Mensah Frimpong in Los Angeles restricting such raids. In Chicago, Judge Sara Ellis issued a broad injunction against use of force by ICE officers, but the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the ruling, calling it overly broad. Two district judges in San Francisco and Portland recently banned the use of National Guard troops in those cities to protect ICE agents under attack. In both cases, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed those decisions. A similar decision in Chicago by radical Biden Judge April Perry is pending before the Supreme Court.

In the first 10 months of the Trump administration, district courts, mostly in left-leaning cities like D.C., Portland, Chicago, San Francisco and Boston, issued nearly four dozen injunctions against the government. This number is surprising; It eclipsed nearly all of the 64 injunctions issued during Trump’s first term. Trump cannot repaint or power-wash the Eisenhower Building, the office space for Executive Branch officials. The ban is valid until December 31. The district court is considering a lawsuit filed by two lawyers in a nearby building, claiming that they will be harmed in some way by the painting and power washing.

Attorney General Pam Bondi appeared before a Senate Judiciary Committee oversight hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington on Tuesday. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein)

The Supreme Court has already intervened nearly two dozen times against all these injunctions. The justices attempted to significantly reduce the amount of the injunction in Trump v. CASA earlier this year; but the precautionary measure remains. Trump’s stellar legal team, including Attorney General Pam Bondi, Attorney General John Sauer and many other outstanding lawyers, has won more than 90% of appeals to the Supreme Court. This success rate is extraordinary, and leftists used this statistic to defeat the constitutionalist Supreme Court majority. But their anger is misplaced, because the problem is not with the judges, but rather with the rogue judges who continue to issue absurd order after absurd order.

Injunctions have been repeatedly overturned by federal judges educated at top law schools, including Harvard and Yale. It is clear that many justices refuse to accept the clear election mandate that Trump secured last November. If these judges, who have received the best legal training our country has to offer, cannot accurately decide which of Trump’s actions are lawful and which are not, how can intelligence officials, especially those who are not lawyers, decide? How can young soldiers be on the front lines? The message from these Democrats would logically extend even to bureaucrats in departments that have nothing to do with the military.

Recently, left-wing Biden Massachusetts Judge Julia Kobick banned the Trump administration’s policy of requiring the use of a person’s biological sex instead of gender identity on a passport. Unsurprisingly, the Supreme Court ruled earlier this month in Trump v. He struck down Kobick’s ridiculous injunction in the Orr case. Suppose, before Kobick’s injunction, a bureaucrat decided to refuse to comply with the directive. Would Democrats find this action acceptable? Based on the decision of the Supreme Court, we would be faced with a situation where a bureaucrat violates a lawful decision. If bureaucrats adopted this stance of deciding for themselves which orders to follow and which to ignore, complete chaos would break out. Decisions must be followed to the fullest, but this modest acceptance does not give bureaucrats carte blanche to be kings and queens who decide for themselves what the law is.

Anwar Al-Awlaki at the Dar al Hijrah Mosque in Falls Church, Virginia, on October 4, 2001. (Photo: Tracy Woodward/The Washington Post via Getty Images)

President Obama issued a controversial order during his administration: to use drone strikes to kill Americans abroad who, in the administration’s view, are terrorists. This app has received the legal stamp of approval from the Office of Legal Counsel, the Department of Justice’s office that advises on legal matters. The author of the certification brief was David Barron, who served as chief judge of the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Some academics, such as Anwar al-Awlaki, vehemently argued that these targeted killings were unlawful. What would the Democrats who produced this anarchic video suggest front-line soldiers were doing when given orders to kill? Was Obama’s order legal or illegal? The army rightfully complied with the order, and disobedience would constitute mutiny.

CLICK TO DOWNLOAD FOX NEWS APPLICATION

Leftists crazy about Trump will stop at nothing to thwart Trump’s agenda. We have seen four indictments, two impeachments, countless lawsuits, attempts to discredit, and assassination attempts. But this latest stunt involves much more than Trump. If any military officer, intelligence official, or bureaucrat in any department ignores one of Trump’s orders, there should be swift and serious civil liability. As Justice Brett Kavanaugh emphasized during oral argument in the case, this is about the presidency, just like the issue of presidential immunity. Intelligence and military officials hostile to a Democrat in the White House may cite disobedience to Trump as a precedent for violating orders they unilaterally decide are illegal. According to Article II, the president is the commander in chief. There are many recourses to deal with recalcitrant presidents, such as impeachment. But the coup proposed by the Democrats is definitely not one of them.