Summary
Summary of the Mac and Mike Show Episode (November 2025)
Mac and Mike, both prior-service military veterans (Mac: Army, Mike: 23 years Air Force), strongly criticize a recent video released by six Democratic members of Congress (including two from Pennsylvania and Sen. Mark Kelly), urging U.S. military personnel and intelligence agency employees to refuse “unlawful orders” and promising “we’ve got your back.”
Core Arguments Against the Video:
- Undermines Military Discipline & Chain of Command
- The military operates on instant obedience; questioning orders in real time (especially in gray areas) can get people killed.
- Service members already receive frequent training on the UCMJ and lawful/unlawful orders. Obvious illegal orders (e.g., My Lai-style massacres, torturing prisoners) are clear, but most operational decisions are legally ambiguous until courts rule years later.
- Especially Dangerous for Young, Impressionable Troops
- Seasoned veterans understand the default is to obey and let courts sort it out later.
- An 18–20-year-old hearing “Congress has your back” might hesitate or disobey in a high-stakes situation, face court-martial, and discover the politicians have vanished.
- Politically Motivated & Partisan
- The video implicitly suggests the incoming Trump administration will issue illegal orders (e.g., operations against drug-running boats in the Caribbean).
- Past presidents (Obama drone-striking U.S. citizens, Bush-era rendition/waterboarding, Clinton bombing campaigns) faced similar accusations, yet no comparable Democratic video was ever made urging disobedience.
- The hosts see this as pure election-losers’ resistance and fear-uncertainty-doubt (FUD) campaigning.
- Free Speech vs. Consequences
- The lawmakers have the right to speak, but words from authority figures carry weight and can have deadly real-world effects (comparable to rhetoric that may have influenced recent assassination attempts).
- “Having your back” is empty; the politicians won’t swap places at a court-martial or take responsibility if hesitation causes catastrophe.
- Trump’s “Sedition/Death Penalty” Response
- Both hosts disagree with Trump’s rhetoric — sedition has never carried the death penalty in the U.S for civilians, and this is protected (if reckless) political speech. However, the UCMJ can carry the death penalty for sedition.
- They argue the congressmen’s actions are worse because they directly target serving troops.
Proposed Consequences
- Formal censure by Congress, contempt of Congress, or at minimum a strong public reprimand.
- The hosts believe these members crossed a dangerous line and should face some institutional accountability, even if not criminal charges.
Broader Takeaway
The hosts view the video as unprecedented, reckless virtue-signaling that politicizes the military, sows doubt in the chain of command, and endangers both service members and national security — all for partisan gain with zero personal risk to the lawmakers. They urge young troops to ignore the video, follow orders unless blatantly criminal, and let the courts (or Supreme Court) decide legality later.
Transcript
0:05Hey folks, welcome back to the Mac and Mike show. I’m Who am I? No, I’m just
0:10kidding. I’m Mac and he’s Mike. Um, and I’m telling you what, this is going to be a good show because we’re back
0:15together in the same place at the same time. It’s kind of like serendipitous, you know, serendipity that we’re here
0:22together and we had a chance to talk and we we went to a fancy restaurant for
0:27lunch, you know? Hardies. Hardies is a fancy I mean usually we go
0:33to McDonald’s or something. So Hardies is fancy. So listen, as soon as this
0:39story hit the news, I texted Mike and I said, “Mike, we got to talk about this this week.”
0:46Since then, of course, everybody starts talking about it. And Mike loa
0:52talking about things that everybody else is talking about, but I convinced him we should talk about it anyways. I even
0:58said to him at one point today, I said, “You know what? Since everybody’s talking about it, Mike, you want to talk about something else?” He said, “No, no.
1:04This is what we prepared to talk about, so we’ll talk about it.” Right, Mike? I gave you a chance to back out. I gave
1:11you a chance to change direction, switch it up, make a different decision, use misdirection to fool everybody, but
1:18no, you chose the path forward. The story we’re going to talk about today is
1:23the story of the six Democratic members of Congress who put a video together
1:30suggesting to your favorite um soldier,
1:36sailor, airman, and marine that they need to be extra special careful to not
1:42follow unlawful or illegal orders. you know, because all of our members who
1:50wear a uniform aren’t familiar already with the UCMJ and they don’t get classes
1:55on that on a regular basis about what is they’re allowed to do and what they’re not allowed to do. And my comment to
2:02Mike at the time was that the timing of this video for and by the way, two of
2:08the members of Congress, two members of the House of Representatives were from Pennsylvania. of the six, two of them
2:14were members from from Pennsylvania. So that makes it uniquely um in in our
2:19baywick in our area of interest because we’re both obviously we live in Pennsylvania. So you can search this
2:26video and I’m sure Michael put a link to it in in the comments when you look at it. But basically what each of these
2:32people said repetitiously is, you know, Mr. anyone who’s in any of the
2:39clandestine services or any of the uniform services, you don’t have to follow an unlawful order and you
2:47shouldn’t and we’ve got your back if you don’t. That hurt.
2:53So anyways, I said to Mike, I said, you know, Mike, this is dangerous. This is this is bad. You know, Mike and I
3:01obviously are both military prior service. Um we we both served him he and
3:06the air force and myself in the army and um you know the army is built on
3:12discipline and morale and a spree and the military is successful because
3:18orders are followed and if you put people in a set of circumstances where
3:24you allow them to question the orders that they receive. Is this legal? Is
3:30this lawful? Is this a good order or a bad order? People can die. And that’s
3:35not hyperbole, folks. That’s not that’s not BS that I’m making up. I’m telling you that if soldiers, sailor, airmen,
3:44and marine stop to question the orders that they’re given, other people or
3:50themselves can potentially die. Now, we’re not fighting any hot wars right now, and most Americans are not in an
3:57area where they’re likely to be shot, but you can’t allow orders to be questioned. Now, there’s certain orders
4:03that one knows instinctively, you know, you can’t like the melee incident in Vietnam. You can’t go somewhere and kill
4:11innocent civilians. You can’t do that. You can’t make innocent civilians your target. And there’s there’s other issues
4:18that are, you know, you can’t mistreat prisoners of war, for example. There’s there’s a whole range of things that you
4:23instinctively know are illegal or unlawful orders. But, you know, the the
4:30topic of the day that has been in the news recently is the ordinance that’s
4:35been used to take out these speedboats that are in the Caribbean running drugs.
4:41And um you know, is that an unlawful order or not? Because there’s been a lot of complaints. People say that the
4:47government doesn’t have the authority to take those boats out and um you know
4:52they they they claim that what President Trump is ordering and what Secretary of
4:58Defense Hesketh is doing is unlawful or illegal. Do we want our airmen or our,
5:06you know, our sailors on these ships that are responsible for
5:11the ordinance that takes out these speedboats? Do we want them questioning orders? And if they question order, what
5:18any order, what happens to the morale and discipline of the of the unit
5:25itself? And you know, I was going to say company or or or platoon, but that’s not
5:30necessarily appropriate for air force air force or navy. So, I’ll just I’ll just say the unit. You know, Mike, in
5:38the past, not that you’re able to disclose some of those things, but your unit was responsible for doing some
5:45things that were at least clandestine, if not um, you know, maybe on the border of whether
5:52or not you could question an order that was given to you. And I know that your unit did not. I know your unit
5:58faithfully delivered on their orders and faithfully served. But I I know from
6:05some of the things that you’ve intimated that you might have been participating in in the past that maybe there were
6:11those kind of orders that somebody could have questioned. Yeah. I mean it’s very similar to what’s going on in the
6:16Caribbean right now. We used to participate, which is out in the open now, exercise flowing pen as they called
6:22it, and um we had other code names, and we would go up and intelligence gather
6:28uh about drugs and narco terrorists because they would also take hostages
6:33off of oil platforms in the Caribbean, and suddenly, you know, there’d be an F-16 takeoff from Howard Air Force Base
6:39in Panama. The boats would disappear and people in jungles would disappear. and we had special operations teams that
6:46would go in for hostage rescue. So, yeah, that’s all out in the open now. Um, you know, we didn’t talk about it.
6:52You know, Trump’s making a big deal about talking about it, and I think that’s what’s getting everybody’s attention. Uh,
7:00cat just walked in if you hear a cat meowing. So, the other thing is this,
7:06just to address the six first, it was despicable what they said. uh because we
7:12know that what they said is true. So you you know it’s it’s true. You know, you’re not supposed to carry out an unlawful order, but they’re intimating
7:19that President Trump is going to do this. Now, they make all kinds of generalization claims and they don’t
7:25come right out and like Martha Macallen was doing an interview with one of them and she said, “Well, what are you talking about? Are you talking about the
7:31the troops in the cities? Are you talking about the stuff in the Caribbean? Uh the bombing of Iran?” So,
7:38they won’t say. And I think it’s important to remember a couple things. Presidents Obama,
7:45Biden, Bush, and I’m sure if I go back before Clinton, they have all been
7:51accused of taking unconstitutional actions when it comes to military operations. All of them.
7:58Yes. I mean, go back Clinton, you know, bombing in Libya, Libya, uh Obama. Yeah.
8:03Obama taking out American citizens. Then we had rendition during the terrorist
8:08wars and we had the question about water boarding and torture. So you know it’s not like Trump is the first one to be
8:15questioned. So why where was that type of rhetoric against all the other
8:21presidents in the past when it comes to war? So that that’s that’s the thing that really bugs me. Now I’m going to
8:27say something that’s going to be unpopular with my Veterans for Trump group. for President Trump then to come out and
8:34and you know make the kind of statements that he did about sedition and
8:39punishment by death. Number one, he’s wrong. I mean, go read the definition of sedition. If you go back to the 1700s in
8:46England, maybe you can find a sedition law that is punishable by death, but that hasn’t been in American history.
8:53Uh, you know, other people cry treason and lock everybody up. It’s like, okay, so the argument is going to come down to
8:59free speech. The lawmakers have a freedom of speech. They can say stupid stuff if they want. Trump can say stupid
9:07stuff like, “We’re going to punish you by death if he wants.” You know, just it it’s the words versus the deeds. Um, so
9:15yeah, what Mack is pointing out too is true. It’s it’s the young we were having a discussion about this earlier. It’s
9:21the young impressionable troops. you know, old seasoned guy. I served 23 years active duty, you know, max 20ome
9:28years between active duty and guard. Old seasoned veterans know this. You know,
9:34it’s the 18 year olds, the 20 year olds, the idealistic people that are coming out that might say, “Well, I don’t think
9:40that’s a lawful order.” Well, guess what? You’re going to end up being punished under the UCMJ for not
9:46following orders. See, the default is that you follow the order unless it’s a it’s something obvious like killing
9:52civilians on purpose, uh shooting prisoners, torturing people, uh what
9:57happened in Abu Grave. Okay, those kind of things are are obvious, but if it’s a
10:03gray area, guys, I want to talk to the young people out there right now because the old guys, this doesn’t matter.
10:09You will be punished under the UCMJ for not following orders. If it’s a gray area, it’s going to be the Supreme Court
10:15that’s going to make this decision. It’s not going to be you. And if it’s a gray area, they’re not going to hold you
10:22accountable in some kind of Nermberg trial. That’s just not going to happen because even when the Supreme Court
10:28makes a decision. It’s an opinion and it’s most of the time it’s a split opinion on what is and is not
10:35constitutional. So, see, they can’t expect you to make
10:41this kind of ultimate decision that the Supreme Court may even be and usually is split on. And by the way, the lawmakers
10:48are not even in agreement about what’s lawful and unlawful. Okay? And it doesn’t it’s not by party lines. It’s by
10:55both parties have people questioning some of the uh actions that have gone on
11:01or or are currently going on. You know, President Obama, and people don’t remember this, President Obama killed an
11:09American citizen with a drone strike. Now, an American citizen has certain
11:14constitutional rights different than the average terrorist. An American citizen
11:20has, as indicated in the Bill of Rights, there are certain things that an American citizen must have in order to
11:28have their their final judgment. Um, and President Obama killed an American
11:34citizen with a drone strike without the benefit of any of those protections of the Bill of Rights. Not a peep. There
11:40are people that talked about it, but there was never any kind of group of of Congress people who said, “Should we
11:46follow legal orders or are these orders illegal?” And here’s the problem. At one
11:52point in time, one of the Congress people said, “We’ll have your back.” And as you said, Mike, in our conversation
11:58earlier when we’re talking about the young and impressionable troops, you know, you have young people that have a
12:05lot of responsibility. You know, these operators that are taking care of the drones, you flying the drones from
12:11thousands of miles away, they have a tremendous amount of responsibility. L literally life and death decisions. You
12:18have people in, you know, con operations, um, you know, on on on ships
12:24and you have people that are, uh, in critical communications position on the battlefield. You have people in critical
12:31positions of these small uh, teams of of special ops that are, let’s say,
12:38impressionable, okay? and uh and they see these things and if they start to
12:44question their orders, if they start to question what it is that they’re doing, it could have major and terrible
12:52ramifications. And I don’t think that we, you know, what I said when I talked about it was
12:58that I thought this was dangerous and I didn’t say that these people were were guilty of treason or that their actions
13:05were sedicious. I didn’t say anything like that. What I I the two things I said about this video was one I didn’t
13:11believe that anything like this had ever been done in the past and number two I said it was dangerous and it was
13:18dangerous from a number of different perspectives not only the weakening of the chain of command for maybe some
13:26people that you know as you noted the Supreme Court decides what’s lawful and
13:31unlawful. The UCMJ was it was passed in the 40s or the 50s something.
13:37It was a pro progressive thing that you know was refined in it’s a set of laws passed by Congress.
13:42So it’s it’s it’s not that it’s undefined. It’s clearly well defined and
13:47and um members of the army. I can’t speak to the Navy and Air Force, but I’m
13:52assuming it’s the same for all the branches. um you know we were we received training in the UCMJ and and
13:58the and the law of war on a regular basis. It was not a you know a sometimes
14:04once a year kind of thing. It was often that we received instruction on what is lawful and unlawful orders. What is what
14:11is the law of war? What and even rules of engagement when you’re actually in a a situation where it is a hot area. um
14:20you know you you you were instructed regularly about the things that you could do and could not do. So I don’t
14:26think our our I don’t think six former members of intelligence or military
14:33needed to point out to our average military whether that’s officer or
14:39enlisted that they have the ability to refuse an unlawful order. What I do
14:44think that this video may have done is created some uncertainty in in the minds
14:50of some only in some whether or not they should or should not follow orders that were
14:58given to them. And in the military that can be a very bad thing and uh I don’t
15:05know how you fix it. You know, you said Mike it was a free speech issue and I disagree. You know what is it? The
15:11Supreme Court said you can’t yell fire in a crowded restaurant, right? Wasn’t Wasn’t that their def crowded theater?
15:18Um, that was their definition of when you crossed over into free speech. And I’m not so certain that having members
15:25of Congress because they have this vestage of of authority, right? There’s they’re the
15:32lawmakers. They have certain status. You know, our military is responsible to
15:40who? Our military is responsible to civilian authority. The commander-in-chief, of course, is a
15:46civilian office. Not I mean, we have up to four star generals, fivestar generals, but the commander-in-chief is
15:54a civilian. He’s not a he’s doesn’t wear the military uniform. And my only point is is that these people who are members
16:01of Congress emphasizing that that people who are in these positions whether it’s one of the
16:09you know uh multi-letter agencies or whether it’s the military that they should question whether the order is
16:15lawful and or unlawful. First of all that slows down the entire process.
16:21Second, often times in in in the military at least, an order must be followed immediately because there is
16:28danger of loss of life, both our own loss of life, our own military, but also
16:33loss of life in in of of enemies that we face. And third, when they they say in
16:39the video, “We’ll have your back,” it seems to indicate that we’re forcing
16:45military and, you know, multi-letter agencies to consider political aspects
16:53of their decisions, not just lawful or unlawful. According to the UCMJ, when
17:00you inject political interest into the military, that’s going to turn out badly
17:06as well. Yeah. So, let me pick up on what you said. First, lawmakers telling you,
17:12young people out there, that they’re going to have your back. I’m sorry. They can’t have your back. They’re not the
17:19authority in this particular position. This president of the United States, and if it goes beyond him, then it’ll go to
17:24the Supreme Court. So lawmakers aren’t going to have your back, especially not six of them. I mean, they could they
17:31could get together if you could ever get Congress to agree on anything, which you can’t anymore, all come together and
17:37make a new law, but again, it’s going to be retroactive. You’re not going to be punished for something like that. The
17:43other thing that you mentioned was um what what was the other thing that you mentioned, Mac? Well, let me while
17:49you’re thinking about that, I’ll just say this. you know, these six lawmakers, if there was an incident where a
17:56soldier, sailor, airman, or marine decided to disobey orders and there was
18:01some catastrophic result of their disobeying of the order. Guess what those six lawmakers would do?
18:08They would run the other direction as fast as they possibly could. There would be, “No, I’ve got your back at that
18:14particular point in time.” Because what their response would be is, “Oh, I didn’t mean that.” Yeah. So the other
18:19point that I was going to make uh had to do along those lines um if I don’t lose
18:25my train of thought again sorry that if there is a a sedicious or a
18:33treasonous or some other legal term and I’m not a legal scholar uh that you want
18:39to apply to this you’d almost have to make up a new law. That’s why I said this is going to come
18:45down to a free speech. you’re you’re you’re free in America to be as dumb as you want. If if we were going to hold
18:52Congress people accountable for what they said, there’d be no Congress left.
18:58I I mean, just just look at how much they lie. Now, I know everybody says, “Oh, Trump lies, Trump.” You know what I
19:03came to the conclusion the other day? People that have TDS, whether they’re
19:08Democrat or Republican, cannot stand the fact that Donald Trump acts like a
19:15Democrat congressman. Really, I’m not being political or sarcastic on that
19:20because remember folks, Republicans traditionally, at least at my ages,
19:26changed somewhat now. traditionally were the conservative Christian nice guys that they if one of
19:35us in the Republican or conservative part of our government had even a hint
19:41of impropriety, you’re out. It’s always been the Democrats that could have sex
19:48in the Oval Office, can say the outrageous things that you’re seeing today, like the guy that’s running for
19:53Senate from California as a congressman, the Russia hoax thing. Uh the the fine
19:58people hoax. Think Joe Biden. Fine people hoax. I mean the guy the guy ran on
20:03Chinese spy that was Chinese spy. All these things that would have a Republican would normally just
20:09you know they’d quit because their peers would push them out. The Democrats
20:15picked these people up to the top. I mean again Joe Biden ran for president on a on a lie. The fine people hoax. He
20:22asked why are you running? Well because Trump said you know fine people on both sides. Remember the congressman from New
20:28York, the Republican congressman who lied and stole money or they forced him out immediately. I mean, that was just
20:33recent. Yeah. Yeah. So, that that’s what I’m saying is that it just dawned on me that
20:41Trump has the attitude of a Democrat congressman, the policies of a conservative, and some new policies that
20:48weren’t necessarily considered conservative. He was more of a populist. So, you know, that’s what has everybody
20:54in Washington, you know, upset and the civilians, the voters suffering from
21:00Trump derangement system syndrome because he acts like a Democrat when he’s talking. He I say I don’t even
21:08listen to the guy. I care about the policy and that’s it. I I I don’t want to oppose what you’ve
21:15said in a in a staunchly negative way. I just want to say that it violated my
21:22sense of propriety when you said Trump lies because I don’t think Donald Trump
21:27lies. I think No, I said the public they say he lies. The left say he says he lies all whoever
21:34the Washington Post had what 286,000 lies. He said I said well there’s more
21:39fewer seconds in that four years than there are lies. So go exaggerate somewhere else. Whoever
21:45says that Donald Trump lies has to understand a couple of things. First, um
21:50Donald Trump’s language is often impre imprecise. Um when he says this is, you
21:56know, this is the greatest the greatest thing ever, and of course it’s not the greatest thing ever, but oftenimes
22:02people use hyperbole when they’re talking about a very specific set of circumstances and they want to and they
22:08want to emphasize how good or how bad something is. So he he often times talks
22:14in imprecise language with hyperbole. That doesn’t mean it’s a lie. At the
22:20kernel of uh the center of most of what he says, there’s a very important
22:26very strong um specific issue that that that he’s
22:31speaking of that he’s absolutely on solid ground with. The other thing is is that you know
22:40who was it that said and you know this better than I when I say something there’s three things that said what I
22:46said what you heard and what I meant and you know there there’s a there’s a gap
22:52there in communication that occurs often and I think that’s especially true with Donald Trump since you know he wants
22:59things to be so wonderful from his perspective and often times they are you
23:05when he’s talking about the tariffs and he’s saying tariffs are bringing prices down. Well, there’s lots of examples
23:11where that’s exactly what has happened. But there’s also examples where tariffs have mean meant increased prices. So
23:19when he says that tariffs have brought prices down, he’s accurate. And when the opposition says no, no, no, in this case
23:27the tariffs have increased prices, that’s true, too. And I know that it’s frustrating when people want one
23:34statement to be all-incclusive about everything. That’s just not the way the real world is. And and I guess all I
23:42wanted to say was you didn’t say, but when you reference that people say Trump
23:47lies, that’s just not that’s just not factual. That just isn’t the truth. And
23:52I’m sorry. You know how I feel about the truth, right? The truth is always the truth. We may not recognize it. We may
23:59want to ignore it. We may want to pretend it doesn’t exist, but the truth is always the truth. And at his core,
24:05Donald Trump is not a liar. He just simply isn’t. No, the man the man actually tells you what he’s thinking at
24:11the time. He’s the most transparent guy ever. And he’s oftenimes more accurate than he is inaccurate, even with his
24:19hyperbole and his glossing over and his imprecise language. And I will say this,
24:24his mistakes of impropri in imp
24:30his mistakes of imprecise language are often times more truthful than the lies
24:36that many people tell look right into the camera and tell you directly. You know, I used to I used to watch Rachel
24:44Matto and I would watch her tell an absolute lie and she told it with such
24:51conviction and such sense of shy as she’s looking directly at the camera and
24:56telling you that it’s the absolute truth and I knew it to be a lie. And there are people who can do that. There are people
25:03who can lie to themselves and tell you something that’s untrue even if if they know that it’s untrue. I don’t have that
25:09ability. And certainly Donald Trump is not either. Yeah. I I mean, you know, he inflates
25:15numbers. You know, that’s one thing people say and that’s true. I mean, I don’t know. And and but he’s not alone.
25:22See, this is the thing. Donald Trump’s not alone in that. For example, we go back to how many millions of illegal
25:29immigrants are living in this country. We don’t really have a handle on it. You know, if you gro it, you know, there are
25:35estimates from 30 million all the way down to 12 million. And we we know that probably the truth is somewhere between
25:41those large numbers. I think it’s more than 30, but that’s just me. Yeah, it I mean 30 is is around uh you
25:48know one in 10 people. So it’s uh I I don’t think it’s quite 30, but I mean if
25:56you include just regular immigrants maybe. Anyway, the point is dollar amounts he’ll he’ll often inflate, you
26:03know, and and things of that nature. And and I know that irritates people, but he’s not the first. If again, I I know
26:11people hate it because it sounds so partisan of me, but he sounds like a Democrat. I’ve listened to Democrats lie
26:17through their teeth where Republicans were never allowed to get away with that. He is playing on their turf now.
26:25And that’s what pisses off the Democrats. And for the proper the proper
26:32Republicans, they’re the ones, oh my goodness, we can’t act like that. We
26:37can’t act like Democrats. But he broke the mold. He said, “I’m going to fight fire with fire. I’m going to fight your
26:43with my bullshit.” But the other part of it, getting back to the original point of this thing, is the six
26:49Democrats go on on on a video campaign that they paid for, that they that they
26:54published all over social media and even on public airwaves televisions. They
27:00said euphemistically, Mr. Soldier, sailor, airman, and marine
27:06or multi-letter agency representative, you don’t have to follow unlawful
27:11orders. Now that that’s a standard of any of those services that you
27:17mentioned. So what was the purpose of the video? The purpose of the video was to make a
27:24suggestion. You give me another reason for this video other than there’s a implicit
27:32suggestion in that video that the Donald Trump administration whether it’s Trump
27:37himself or the Department of Defense or one of the multi-letter agencies are being asked to do things that are
27:43unlawful or illegal. Isn’t that the intent of the V to create as we used to
27:49say in business fear, uncertainty, and doubt that if you don’t pay attention, you’re something bad is going to happen
27:55or you’re going to miss out on something. You know, it’s it’s it’s almost like the fafo idea, right? F
28:03around and find out. I always said fool around and find out. You got kids. Fool around and that’s what I said. F
28:09around. Fool around and find out. But my point is is that there was no purpose other to to this video. The intent of
28:17this video was to seow some sort of uncertainty, some sort of doubt about
28:23what the current administration was doing with our military and our spy
28:28agencies. And in and of itself, that’s a dangerous thing. It’s a dangerous thing
28:34if people not affiliated with those organizations believe that. It’s it’s an
28:39even more dangerous thing if people who are inside those organizations respond to it, accept it as being maybe
28:46true and and res, as you said, respond to it in a in a way that is inappropriate. And those are the kinds
28:53of things that I think these Congress people should be held accountable for. I don’t
28:59think it’s sedicious. I don’t think it’s treason, but I do think that there should be some sort of
29:06admonition that comes to these Congress people to say, look, you may not like
29:11what the current administration is doing, but as President Obama said,
29:17elections have consequences. And um you know, it used to be when the election
29:23was over, all of the people who were elected came back together and said, “Okay, we may be Democrats, we may be
29:29Republicans, we may be independents, we may be some other party, but after the election is over, we’re still all
29:35Americans, and we should get together and do what’s best for the American people.” And this video, this video with
29:42this six members of Congress, senators, and and members of the House of Representatives, was not good for the
29:48American people. It was not good for our military. It was not good for our spy agencies. And most importantly, it was
29:55not good for the American people. I guess that’s what I wanted to say about this. Mike, you have something else? Well, we have a few minutes left. And
30:02and I just wondered what you think would be a a good consequence. I mean, in Congress, what they do is typically a
30:07censure, you know, and somebody steps way out of line like that. It’s not enough to get you put out, but it’s
30:13enough to have your name brought up on a ledger somewhere where this person did something outrageous. And and the
30:18problem I have is now that Donald Trump said what he said, he would almost be under the same kind of scrutiny, you
30:24know, for a censure. Uh, and I don’t know, do they censure presidents? I actually don’t know the answer to that.
30:30Can they do I I don’t I don’t have the answer to that either. I don’t think so. I think the the governing body, either the House
30:36of Representatives or the Senate of the United States, has the ability to censure one of their members, one of their own members. And you know I
30:41I I think um you know there there’s you can be held in contempt of Congress
30:49in for certain matters as well and that is a legal definition that has specific
30:55ramifications and and maybe maybe that would be an an appropriate route to
31:01follow as well because you know even if you remember Obama’s attorney general was held in contempt of Congress nothing
31:08really there was no physical penalt punishment or penalty to that but it was
31:14a black mark on his career and and and maybe that kind of thing could you know
31:19and maybe he’s not they’re not really in contempt of Congress you know I’m not entirely certain all I know is is that
31:25it was wrong and it was dangerous dangerous for the people involved in the
31:30military and the multi-letter agencies and also dangerous for the people of America yeah the thing that bugs me okay this
31:37everybody has to realize too again I’m I’m addressing the young people to think
31:42all of these folks were Democrats. Number one, if there was anything to what they were saying that would affect
31:47you, it would be bipartisan. You hear because there’s, I’m sure, more Republican veterans than there are
31:54Democrats. I mean, it’s just falls out that way. Veterans are way more conservative than Democrat uh than they
32:01they wouldn’t fall into the Democratic party. The other thing is, you know, I looked at the records and
32:07how long these people served. There’s only one guy that served 29 years or 28 years. Everybody else were short-
32:13timerrs, even the astronaut Kelly, which really bugs me because he carries my same last name. No relation. Uh I used
32:22to think maybe he was an okay guy, but after this stunt and some of the other things I’ve seen him say, he is a total
32:27embarrassment. Uh none of these people should el truly ever be eligible to run
32:33for office again in my opinion, but I’m a very opinionated person. Uh, you know,
32:38I’m very level-headed, people say, but I I I still do hold certain pretty strong opinions. You cross certain lines, and
32:46if we’re gonna, you know, if it’s good for the goose, it’s good for the gander. If you’re telling me that Trump has
32:51stepped way out of line, you you can’t hold the positions of Mark Kelly and
32:56these other six Democrats and other people besides them. You know, what’s the black girl’s name from Texas?
33:03Jasmine Crockett. Jasmine Crockett. And then you have AOC and Bernie Sanders. All these people would say
33:09Ilhan. Ilhan. They say all these outrageous things and then you’re going to criticize Trump. He’s just acting like a
33:16Democrat. Again, I go back to that. I don’t approve of the way the Democrats act. But see, Mike, here’s the
33:22dangerous. The guy that shot President Trump, what’s his name? Crooks, I think. Crooks. Yeah.
33:27And and then the guy that assassinated um Charlie Kirk. I believe within their
33:34sphere of relationships, someone spoke to them and made it okay
33:41because of the accusations or the rhetoric that they use, they made it okay for that person to take that step
33:47and say to themselves, “It’s okay that I kill this person.” Mhm. And though and these words from these
33:55six members of Congress are the kinds of words that can have that impact, that
34:01effect on some people who are not necessarily strong willed, strongminded
34:07individuals and that’s where it becomes so dangerous. Okay, it does. If you have
34:12someone who has access to the to their finger on the button of of of launching
34:17a missile or you have somebody who has who whatever pos dropping you know flying a drone and dropping a payload in
34:25the wrong place because they think they’re doing the right thing. You know these are the kinds of things that can
34:31be very very dangerous. And those people when they have the effect of of feeling
34:38like they’ve been told by a higher authority that what they’re about to do or what they can do is righteous in some
34:46way. You know, they’re holding the moral high ground. Taking a shot at Trump is a good thing. Taking taking out Charlie
34:53Kirk is a good thing because your girlfriend or boyfriend, whatever it is, is trans and Charlie is against him. And
34:59and what I’m saying is is that those words coming from a position of authority can have that debilitating
35:06effect on someone to give them that edge, that little push, that little nudge that they need to do something
35:11really, really ugly and bad. And that’s where the dangerousness comes from. And
35:16I think that that’s why ultimately these people need to have some sort of retribution for what they’ve decided to
35:23do. I believe in free speech. I believe in the Bill of Rights. I absolutely do. But I think that there’s some set of
35:30circumstances for which there needs to be some respons some some level of
35:37responsibility being adhered to. Again, I want to speak to the younger crowd and maybe this applies to the older crowd. What Max said is important.
35:44We have free speech, but what we don’t has have is freedom from consequence. Yes. You know, I mean, even I know you guys
35:52aren’t Christian. You don’t all believe in Jesus Christ like M and I do. But he did say something philosophically very
35:57clear to the to the world. It’s worth thinking about even if you’re not a Christian. He told us in the end that we
36:05would be judged by the very words to come out of our mouth. So, you know, that that’s important and that’s a
36:11standard that I I think that we’re talking about, you know, uh the impropriy that was put forth the way
36:18that our words, you know, I want to get real religious for you in a minute. You know, and excuse me if you’re not
36:24Christian and just turn off for a second. John 1:1 starts in the beginning was the word and the word was God. The
36:31word has power. The word logos there in Greek it, you know, Jesus was called the
36:36word. But what does that mean? It it’s the thing that has the power. It it has the power of logic behind it. The the
36:42power to create, the power to destroy. You can encourage somebody with your words or you can beat them into
36:48submission. You know, your words are powerful, you know, and just keep that
36:53in mind. I I wish we could go back to a time when we understood this that our
37:00politicians would use their words and be impeccable with your word. You know, I I
37:06mean, if you lie, God, that’s that’s not going to help anyone. Even when you exaggerate and
37:12people take your exaggerations as truth and then the other side calls you a liar because they don’t understand hyperbole.
37:18It’s still something that we should be a little bit cautious of, especially in the negative. Look, Jesus used hyperbole. You know, he said if you’re
37:25IFNS, you pluck it out. Does anybody do that? No, it’s hyperbole. So, the the
37:30point is, but he says it to make a point. And so if we understand hyperbole can be used to make a point but not
37:37taken to the extreme. Again, if you’re young and you’re impressionable, remember that not everything that is
37:43said is meant to be taken literally all the time. Uh just be careful with your
37:49words. My caution. I’m sorry. I went on a rant and there you have it. I like it
37:54when you go on a rant, Mike, because you do that so rarely. you know, you’re usually so even-handed, even killed. And
38:01and let me just say this about those six people who decided to do this video. I
38:08think that they did it because they wanted to implicitly imply that what that Donald
38:15Trump was doing something illegal and immoral and there’s a political benefit to them of doing that. Beyond that,
38:22there is also because so many of the people on their side of the aisle are
38:28very liberal left-leaning people, they would receive some virtue
38:34virtue signaling that they doing the right thing, that they’re that they’re
38:39standing up against the evil president. So there there’s do you understand it
38:44that while they’re putting other people at risk with their words,
38:50they receive the benefit of approval from certain people for what they did.
38:57So do you do you get the double-edged nature of what they’ve done? By their
39:04virtue signaling, they’re they receive accolades within their peer group. While
39:10there’s no risk to them, the risk is for another group of people who who
39:15potentially face in the case of of disobeying an order and being judged by UCMJ very serious consequences for that.
39:24So do you understand why it’s bad from both perspectives? I mean to to me there
39:30has to be some sort of again it’s not treason it’s not sedition
39:36as President Trump had indicated but it was wrong and it is dangerous and they
39:41should face consequences for what they did my opinion. Yeah. I I would add to that too. I I wonder if the lawmakers
39:48that made this video would sign a document that said if you make a
39:55decision and call something unlawful that you would stand in there, Mr.
40:02Congressman, for that military member as he’s facing a court marshal and 20 years
40:07in Fort Levvenworth. Now, when they say they have your back, no, I’d want that guarantee. You have my back. You take my
40:15place. Yeah. Never happened. Or you don’t listen to him. Never happened. If I ever tell you I have your back,
40:21that means I would substitute myself for you. That’s it.
40:26I guess we’re done. All right. I enjoyed that conversation, Mike. Was it good for you? Good for me.
40:32It was uh okay for me. Okay. Mac and Mike out. Out.
Recent Comments