"You shall know the Truth, and the Truth will set you free"
Publisher / Editor:
Paul Hayden

Democrats Call On Our Military To Commit Treason

If not Trump, whose orders are the military supposed to follow?

November 24, 2025


 

Six Democrats of the U.S. Congress have done the unthinkable. They have engaged in insurrection by calling on the United States Military to ignore the authority of the President and take their orders from the Congress. This consists of two senators, Elissa Slotkin, (D)-Mich. and Mark Kelly, (D)-Ariz, along with four members of the House, Rep. Jason Crow (D)-Colo, Rep. Chris Deluzio (D)-Pa., Rep. Maggie Goodlander (D)-N.H., and Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D)-Pa. 

They appeared in a video called “Don’t Give Up The Ship,” posted by Slotkin, calling on the U.S. Military to “refuse illegal orders” in a message aimed at orders issued by President Trump to our military. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth posted his response on “X” as “Stage 4 TDS" - (Trump Derangement Syndrome). 

These so-called lawmakers are pushing two bills, “No troops on our streets,” by Sen. Slotkin, in her effort to keep the National Guard troops from aiding the police in cities that are out of control. Jason Crow has introduced a “War Powers Continuing Resolution,” in his effort to stop strikes on drug-runner boats. It seems Slotkin is okay with rampant crime in our cities, and Crow is trying to prevent action against drug runners, who will ensure illegal drugs make it to our streets. 

The video by these six Democrats is calling our military to disobey their orders, which is insurrection. President Trump calls them traitors, as this video is designed to convince our military to ignore presidential orders. So, whose orders are they supposed to follow, the six Democrat lawmakers?    


Comments: 2
You!
Note:
  1. Email address is REQUIRED, in case we need to contact you about your comment. However, we will not display or use your email address for any purpose other than to contact you about this comment.
  2. Nickname should be a short nickname that you choose to use. Please do NOT enter your full, real name. Nickname will be displayed along with your comment.
  3. Comments will not appear on our website until they have been reviewed by our Editorial Team. Inappropriate messages will be rejected by the Editorial Team. Free speech is important here at ConservativeTruth, however, the Editorial Team reserves the absolute right to determine what content appears on this website.
    • Comments that contain foul language, profanity or vulgarity will be rejected.
    • Comments that contain links will be rejected. (send email to the editor if you wish to let us know about another website)
    • Comments that advertise a product or service will be rejected.
    • Comments that contain email addresses will be rejected.
2500 characters max
    
TEWS_Pilot
Flagless Vessels A boat in international waters that is not running a national flag is categorized in international law the same way a pirate is. Such boats have absolutely no national or international protections, and you cannot commit a war crime against them. A vessel in international waters is required under UNCLOS to sail under the flag of a specific nation. If it does not, it is legally considered a stateless vessel. A stateless vessel has no right to the protections normally afforded to ships under a national flag, including immunity from interference by other states. UNCLOS Articles 92, 94, 110, and customary maritime law spell out the consequences clearly: 1. Stateless vessels have no sovereign protection. A flagged ship is an extension of its flag-state’s sovereignty. A stateless vessel is not. This matters because “war crimes” presuppose protected persons or protected property. A stateless vessel is legally unprotected. 2. Any state may stop, board, search, seize, or disable, a stateless vessel. UNCLOS Article 110 explicitly authorizes boarding and seizure. The law does not require states to risk their own personnel or assets while doing so. Disabling a vessel that refuses inspection, including firing on it, is legally permitted under both UNCLOS and long-established state practice. 3. War crimes require an armed conflict. You cannot commit a “war crime” outside an armed conflict. War crimes occur only within the context of international humanitarian law (IHL). Enforcing maritime law against a stateless vessel is a law enforcement action, not an IHL situation. No armed conflict = no war crime possible. 4. Lethal force may be used when a vessel refuses lawful orders. The International Maritime Organization’s “Use of Force” guidance for maritime interdiction recognizes that disabling fire, even lethal force, is lawful when a vessel refuses lawful boarding, attempts to flee, poses a threat, or engages in illicit activities such as piracy or narcotics trafficking. Once again: law enforcement rules apply, not IHL. 5. Sinking a stateless vessel is not prohibited by UNCLOS. UNCLOS permits seizure of a stateless vessel and leaves the means entirely to the enforcing state so long as necessity and proportionality are respected. If the vessel flees, attacks, or refuses lawful commands, sinking it is legally permissible. Many states routinely do this to drug-smuggling vessels (e.g., semi-submersibles) without it ever being treated as a war crime. 6. No flag = no jurisdictional shield. The entire reason international law requires ships to fly a flag is to prevent this exact situation. Flagless vessels are legally vulnerable by design. Because a stateless vessel has no protected status, because UNCLOS authorizes interdiction of such vessels, because lethal force may be used in maritime law enforcement when necessary, and because war crimes require an armed conflict that is not present here, sinking an unflagged ship in international waters is not a war crime.
John
You should note that at the Nuremberg trials for Hitler's henchmen who followed his orders,none were named Sergent, or Private, but all were Generals. Those are the people charged with determining if orders are lawful.
Copyright ©2025