November 28, 2025 • 63 mins
A headline said the quiet part wrong: a former Navy combat pilot and astronaut under investigation for “serious misconduct” because he affirmed the most basic military truth—refuse unlawful orders. We zoom out from the hot takes and lay down the actual hierarchy every recruit learns: Constitution, law, mission, order. When number four violates one through three, refusal isn’t insubordination. It’s duty.
We walk through the law that backs it—Article 92 of the UCMJ, the legacy of Nuremberg, and the real-world stakes JAG officers navigate when commanders tread near red lines. Then we follow Mark Kelly’s arc from the shooting of Gabby Giffords to the Senate, not to romanticize a politician, but to show how biography collides with a culture that rewards outrage and punishes clarity. Along the way, we dissect media framing that lops off the keyword “unlawful,” turning legal literacy into a panic about discipline, and we unpack the quieter machinery of administrative coercion: stalled promotions, vague investigations, and the slow sidelining of professionals who say no.
This conversation widens to the long tail of power. We connect historical debts—like Haiti’s coerced payments to France—to present instability, because justice is more than sentiment; it’s math with memory. And we scrutinize the rise of legal theater around high-profile cases, where press conferences outpace evidence and collapsing prosecutions teach the public the wrong lessons about how law actually works. If institutions keep bending to loyalty tests and performance politics, the bones will snap. Until then, there’s still time to hold the line: obey lawful orders, refuse unlawful ones, and insist that creeds mean what they say.
If this resonates, share it with a friend, leave a review, and subscribe so you don’t miss the next deep dive. Your voice helps keep the conversation anchored to facts, law, and the Constitution.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
SPEAKER_06 (01:32):
Welcome, welcome to the Rao McLean Show.
It's your host, Daryl McLean.
Independent media that won'treinforce travelists.
We have one planet.
Nobody is leaving, so let usreason together.
Okay, let's buckle up.
When I you know what a headlineflashed across my screen?
Uh Senator Mark Kelly underinvestigation for serious
(01:55):
misconduct.
I had one of those moments whereyou laugh.
Not because it's funny, butbecause the alternate is uh to
flip a table and start yelling,uh, circa Samuel L.
Jackson reading the Uniform Codeof Military Justice.
So Mark Kelly, uh Navy combatpilot, Mark Kelly, the
(02:17):
astronaut, Mark Kelly, the manwho literally strapped himself
to a controlled explosion, rodeinto the heavens, and trusted
physics and prayer to bring himback down.
And that man is beinginvestigated for misconduct.
So let me walk you through thisslow.
Like I'm teaching a boot campclass, and the class still can't
(02:40):
figure out how to lace theirboots, right?
He didn't.
He didn't sell intel to aforeign adversary, he didn't
misuse classified information,he didn't break the chain of
command, he didn't compromisenational security, he didn't lay
hands on somebody in uniform.
No, his crime, his grandearth-shattering act of serious
(03:05):
misconduct, was saying thattroops should not obey unlawful
orders.
So let me pause right there andhand out reading glasses because
apparently half of the politicalclass can't see anymore.
Unlawful orders.
I'm gonna say it for the peoplein the cheap seats and the ones
(03:28):
pretending they forgot.
Unlawful, not unpopular, notinconvenient, not politically
troublesome, not the presidentmight frown at you.
Unlawful.
Now that distinction is actuallythe backbone, the backbone I say
of the United States military.
It's the one thing drilled intoyou so deeply that week by week,
(03:52):
three of boot camp, you can sayit in your sleep.
As a master at arms in theUnited States Navy, that
distinction wasn't academic, itwas survival.
As a federal law enforcementofficer under the Department of
Homeland Security and underFederal Protective Services,
that wasn't a suggestion.
It was policy training, legaldoctrine, and our moral compass.
(04:16):
Every recruit learns the samehierarchy: constitution, law,
mission, order.
If number four violates numberone through three, you don't
obey it.
You stand your ground even ifyour voice shakes.
You refuse even if it costs youstripes.
You do not, under any condition,become the instrument of an
(04:39):
unlawful command.
So the question isn't why MarkKelly said it.
The question is why saying itsuddenly feels dangerous.
Why is Mark Kelly underinvestigation?
Let's be honest, because theword refuse makes insecure
leaders break out in hives.
Because someone with a shinytitle and thin skin thinks
(05:02):
loyalty to them is moreimportant than loyalty to the
United States Constitution.
Because the political cultureright now has an emotional range
of a toddler with a megaphoneoffended by everything and
accountable to nothing and noone.
Noam Chomsky warned us aboutthis drift.
This is a slow transformationwhere dissent gets relabeled as
(05:26):
instability, questioning becomesinsubordination, and the people
entrusted with power be uh begintreating scrutiny and security
as some type of sabotage.
And as somebody who regularlylikes to read and listen to
witty people like Gorvadal, Iwould say, you know, somewhere
(05:51):
if he was around, he would besipping a bourbon, raising an
eyebrow so sharp it could cut asteel, whispering, in America,
the only unforgivable sin istelling the truth before the
powerful people have preparedthe lie.
Mark Kelly's misconduct wasn'tmisconduct, it wasn't an
(06:11):
indictment of the system.
It was it was nothing more thanthe truth.
He didn't create a crisis, hetouched his sore spot, he didn't
disrupt military tradition, hedefended the only part of it
that matters, lawful obediencerooted in the United States
Constitution.
(06:32):
But here's where it gets cold.
This wasn't random, this wasn'taccidental, this wasn't
bureaucratic static, this was asignal, a flare shot across a
bow, a not so subtle messagefrom the political class to the
ranks.
We hear you, we see you, and wedon't like it when you make you
(06:52):
think for ourselves.
Veterans know, messages likethat don't originate from the
bottom.
Privates don't come up withstuff like this.
This stuff trickles down fromthe high towers, from the folks
who believe patriotism issomething you perform on
television, not something youbleed for in a uniform.
And if you have ever watched arepublic grow uneasy, you know
(07:15):
this smell.
This is how institutions tightentheir grip.
This is how democracy startssweating.
This is the moment wherespeaking truth sounds like
sedition, and blind obediencegets rebranded as loyalty.
But let me tell you one of theancient truths that every real
service member knows.
A military that cannotdistinguish between a lawful
(07:37):
order and an unlawful order isnot a military.
It is nothing more than a bluntinstrument for people who are in
power.
And free nations do not surviveblunt instruments.
The Republic doesn't crumblewhen enemies attack on the
outside, it crumbles whensilence becomes policy.
And I'll say this that moment isfastly approaching.
(08:00):
This Mark Kelly situation, thiskind of moment, historians
circle and read and ready cansay, yes, that was it right
here.
That was the warning shot.
And let me dig into this a bitmore by telling you how Mark
Kelly even became a senator.
Let's let's just go back inhistory for a moment.
Now, as people close to me know,I originally wanted to be a
(08:25):
history teacher and a wrestlingcoach.
And so a lot of times when I'mstaring at the face of what
seems like political chicaneryand foolishness, in order to not
uh explode, I look for ahistorical comparison.
And sometimes I will just diginto the history of a person,
(08:45):
place, andor thing, and see howdo we get to where we are.
It makes it more impersonal, uh,makes it a bit more impersonal
and a more academic.
So here's a brief history of howMark Kelly even rose to power.
Because Mark Kelly did notstumble into politics, he was
pushed into politics by tragedy,by grit, and by a national
(09:08):
moment that rewired the country.
Now, before Washington everlearned his name, he was already
the type of American myth.
Then it doesn't have to involvea lot of exaggerations.
He was a Navy captain, a combatpilot, and a NASA astronaut who
flew missions for shuttlemissions, and spent his adult
(09:29):
life strapped to machines thatcould kill him if a single boat
said quit.
Then it was around uh it was inJanuary, January 8th, uh, 2011,
when his wife, CongresswomanGabriel Giffords, was holding a
press conference on your corner,even outside of a Tucson
(09:52):
supermarket.
The most harmless form ofdemocracy there is a politician
standing in the open, hearingthe people that they serve.
A gunman walked up and shot herin the head at point blank
range.
The bullet traveled through theleft hemisphere of her brain,
but the doctors weren't sure ifshe would live.
(10:15):
Now, they definitely didn'tthink that she would be able to
speak again.
But Gabriel Giffords lived.
She fought, she caught her wayback through surgeries, therapy,
relearning words, relearningmotions, relearning the world.
And Mark Kelly, her husband, wasright there.
Not as a candidate, not as apublic figure, but as a husband
(10:39):
watching the ugliest part ofAmerican violence explode right
into his living room.
That shouldn't miss us, eventhough it was all the way in
2011.
Because the shooting didn't justwound Gabriel Giffords.
It launched the next chapter oftheir lives.
(11:01):
Together, they became activists.
Remember this, together theybecame activists against gun
violence, founding the Americansfor reasonable solutions, which
later became part of every townfor gun safety.
Kelly himself became a nationalvoice, calm, measured, but
unshakably serious in a debateover common sense gun reform.
(11:26):
For years, people nudged himtowards politics.
He resisted.
But Arizona wasn't changing.
John McCain was gone, MarthaMcSally was weak, and the state
needed someone with credibilitythat wasn't manufactured in a
focus group.
So, in 2019, he announcedfinally that he was running for
(11:51):
the United States Senate.
He ran on service, stability,constitutional duty, and a voice
that feels like a politician,less like a politician, and more
like a man who lived throughenough to skip all of the
political nonsense.
In 2020, he won this specialelection to fill the seat for
(12:16):
the late Senator John McCain.
Now in 2022, he went on to winre-election outright,
solidifying his position as oneof the most visible moderate
Democrats in the United Statesat the time.
And here's the twist of fate.
The man whose wife was shot inthe head while doing her job is
(12:38):
now being investigated becausehe told service members to honor
the law and do their jobs, notthe whims of political power.
Now, history has a funny way ofcircling right back to itself to
hope that we are payingattention.
Sometimes it's poetry, sometimesit's irony, sometimes it is a
(13:00):
raw, bitter truth that a manshaped by violence is now being
punished for upholding the veryprinciple that we were supposed
to protect his wife in the firstplace.
So let me get deeper into whythis matters.
And I'm gonna go past uh Kellyat the moment.
(13:21):
Because Mark Kelly is justchapter one of the opening
before the real uh symphonystarts.
And before I talk about purges,uh ideological pressure, our
filtrations, our politicalshadow boxing, we need to anchor
ourselves in words that made mewho I am and admit a lot of
people who we are.
The things that we recitedbefore we ever touched the
(13:44):
weapon, before we ever set awatch, before we ever enforced a
regulation and protected abuilding are guaranteed a
federal employee protection aswe guarded them.
The words that shaped ourbackbone because this was this
was the whole meeting ofpotatoes.
This is what we are messingwith.
(14:06):
This is the sailor's creed.
I am a United States sailor.
I will support and defend theConstitution of the United
States of America, and I willobey the orders of those
appointed over me.
I represent the fighting spiritof the Navy and those who go
before me to defend freedom anddemocracy around the world.
I proudly served my country'snaval combat team with honor,
(14:30):
courage, and commitment.
I have committed to excellencein the fair treatment of all.
This is the Master at ArmsCreed, and it's probably a
change.
This was from 2006 to 2015 whenI was around.
And it is I am a Master at Arms.
Hold allegiance to my country,devotion of duty, and personal
integrity of all.
I wear my shield of authoritywith dignity and restraint,
(14:52):
promote by example, highstandards of conduct,
appearance, courtesy, andperformance.
I will seek no favors because ofmy position.
I perform my duties in a firm,courteous, and impartial manner.
I strive to the merit andrespect of my shipmates and all
whom I came in contact with.
Now let me take this up onelevel because when you um were
(15:14):
like me and you you left thefleet and you walked into the
place like the Department ofHomeland Security, we actually
weren't leaving the oath behind,we were expanding it.
And while the Department ofHomeland Security actually never
issued a formal creed, it livesby mission principles that once
drilled into every federalprotective officer as well,
every inspector, every agent whoever stood a federal post.
(15:38):
So I'm going to speak thosemissions principles like it's a
creed so the people hearing thisout of my voice can hear the
continuity of the duty thatnever left, that Washington
never seems to understand forsome reason.
This is the Department ofHomeland Security Creed style.
(16:00):
I am a member of the Departmentof Homeland Security.
I safeguard the homeland withintegrity, diligence, and
respect.
I protect the nation fromthreats of foreign and domestic.
I uphold the law and defend theUnited States Constitution.
I have a professionalism,impartiality, and duty to the
American public.
I stay in the watch to ensurethe safety, security, and
(16:21):
resilience of our nation.
Here's Federal ProtectiveServices mission style.
I am a Federal ProtectiveService Officer.
I protect federal employees,visitors, and facilities with
vigilance and resolved.
I deter and detect and respondto threats against the federal
government.
I enforce the law with fairness,courage, and restraint.
(16:43):
I safeguard public trust anduphold the United States
Constitution.
I swore to defend.
I stand ready to protect, readyto serve, and ready to secure
the institutions of ourdemocracy.
Now that the creeds are on thetable, now that the oaths are on
the table, the creed of thesailor, the creed of the Master
at Arms Mission, the Principlesof the Department of Homeland
(17:06):
Security and Federal ProtectiveServices, now we talk about
what's happening today becausewhat's going on inside of the
armed forces, especially insideof the Jazz Corps, is not a
misunderstanding.
It's not a routine turnover, andit's not a coincidence.
This is a kind of quiet shiftyou only watch if you have lived
inside of a machinery of thegovernment long enough to hear
(17:29):
when it starts making a newsound.
This is what uh people in socialscience calls administration
coercion.
You don't fire anyone, you don'tannounce anything, you just
apply pleasure until integritybecomes inconvenient.
And that is how the Republicgets purged without a single
(17:51):
shot being fired.
Reassign the principle, they'renot fired, they just move out of
the way.
Freeze promotions, careers don'tcollapse loudly, they suffocate
quietly into stalled paperwork,open vague and blurry
investigations, conductunbecoming, alignment concerns,
(18:15):
command climate issues.
These aren't charges, they'reair fresheners for corruption.
Reward the obedient.
Sugar tastes better thandiscipline.
Promote the ones who salutebefore they fake.
Label the um constitutionalistsas troublemakers.
Anyone who says this is lawfulsuddenly becomes a team player.
(18:40):
And this is happening right now.
The Jags, the very lawyers whoseentire purpose is to tell the
commanders when somethingcrosses the lines of legal, a
nation that begins to sidelineas military lawyers is a nation
preparing itself to violate thelaw.
And I'll say this as someone whostood in a federal building at 3
(19:01):
a.m.
watching the doors, protectingjudges, guarding prosecutors,
scanning cameras, listening tothe smallest sound, trying to
see if I can find a threat.
When the system removes thepeople under the law, the system
is preparing to break the law.
The chilling part isn't thepurge.
The chilling part is thesilence.
(19:23):
Commanders feel it, servicemembers sense it, Jags officers
(21:20):
whisper about it, federalemployees feel the same tension,
and that kind of s uh settles inthe air when the higher ups
start looking for yes meninstead of professionals.
And I I think about it like thisAmerica will never have a
(21:41):
fascist regime outright.
We will call it something politelike enhanced patriotism.
We aren't the regime, but we'redefinitely on the driveway,
hands in our pockets, kickingthe gravel, pretending we're not
walking towards something weswore we would never allow.
(22:01):
And this is the truth of thematter.
Spoken plainly and withoutapology, uh republics,
democracies, etc.
They don't die when peoplerevolt.
It dies when good men become toocowardly, I'll just say.
(22:21):
And and when they decide to stayquiet.
Not the extremists, not thecorrupt, not the opportunists,
not the grifters.
It dies when the people who knowbetter, the ones who know the
critics, the ones who know theoaths, the ones who have a shit
(22:42):
of authority, fall silent.
But if you know that you didn'tswear an allegiance to silence,
you swore allegiance to theConstitution of the United
States of America, you sworeallegiance to duty, you swore
allegiance to integrity, andthat oath doesn't expire, it
doesn't dim, and it doesn'tbend.
(23:02):
Now not now, not ever.
And that is why this whole thingwith uh Mark Kelly had me on
high alert this morning.
Right back more than the RomeClean show, and I'm gonna get
into some of this commentary toshow how it it permit I just
(23:26):
have to get to this uh BillMaher stuff.
And uh we will dive deeper.
So first let me go to the actualvideo that is being uh talked
about here, and then we're gonnahear the framing and see why
this is is uh troublingproblematic.
SPEAKER_03 (23:44):
I'm Senator Alyssa Slotkin.
SPEAKER_02 (23:46):
Senator Mark Kelly, Representative Chris Deluzio.
SPEAKER_03 (23:49):
Congressman Maggie Gulinian, Representative Chrissy
Hoolin.
SPEAKER_02 (23:52):
Congressman Jason Crow, who was a captain in the
United States Navy, former CMAofficer.
Former Navy, former formertrooper and army ranger, former
intelligence officer, former airforce.
We want to speak directly tomembers of the military and the
intelligence community to takerisks.
SPEAKER_03 (24:08):
We know you are under enormous trust.
Americans trust the military.
SPEAKER_02 (24:15):
This administration is leaving a uniform military.
Intelligence community againstAmerican citizens.
Uniform military just comingfrom right here.
You can refuse illegal orders.
SPEAKER_11 (24:36):
You must refuse illegal orders.
SPEAKER_03 (24:39):
No one has to carry out the violence of the
Constitution.
SPEAKER_02 (24:43):
We know this is hard and that it's a difficult time
to be a public servant.
Your vigilance is critical.
(25:04):
Don't give up, don't give up.
SPEAKER_03 (25:07):
Senator Alyssa Summit.
SPEAKER_02 (25:09):
Senator Mark Hill, Representative Chris Clean.
SPEAKER_03 (25:13):
Senator Christopher.
We know we are under enormoustrust.
(25:34):
Americans trust the military.
SPEAKER_02 (25:37):
This administration is giving our uniform military.
Uniform.
You can refuse illegal orders.
SPEAKER_03 (25:57):
Refuse illegal orders.
SPEAKER_11 (25:59):
You must refuse illegal orders.
SPEAKER_03 (26:01):
No one has to carry out the violence of the
Constitution.
SPEAKER_02 (26:06):
We know this is hard, and that it's a difficult
time to be a public servant.
Your vigilance is critical.
More than number.
SPEAKER_03 (26:19):
The American people need you.
We need you to stand up for themobs.
SPEAKER_02 (26:27):
Don't give up.
Don't give up.
Don't give up the ship.
SPEAKER_06 (26:31):
So yeah, I played that twice on purpose, only
because I want you to hear whatthey said versus what is being
said in this clip.
Let's go to the overtime andreal time by Bill Maher, and so
we can get into what wasactually said and then the
framing of what was said.
SPEAKER_10 (27:01):
No, what the hell?
This is what I'm talking aboutwith mill about like with the
things that bother me versus thethings that don't bothers me.
You see, the the the bullroom, Igive a fuck.
I don't care about the bullroom.
I care about that.
You just, I mean, like, it justand um also like did you see the
thing about um the six Democratswho uh are all military service
(27:25):
and intelligence work in theirbackground said, Look, you don't
have to follow orders.
unknown (27:31):
No.
SPEAKER_10 (27:32):
I don't know about that.
SPEAKER_06 (27:33):
Now, I understand what they mean.
Now listen to the the word thatwas should that was missing.
Did did they say, did you hearin that video that I just
played, you don't have to followorders?
No.
That is not what was said.
So the entire premise of how hestarts the conversation is
false, because it's built onfalse information.
(27:54):
They all said specifically andclearly, you do not have to
follow a lawful, you do not haveto follow illegal orders.
Let's go back to the showthough, for the sake of uh
argument here.
SPEAKER_10 (28:09):
Democrats who uh are all military service and
intelligence work in theirbackground said, Look, you don't
have to follow orders.
I don't know about that.
Now, I understand what theymean, because this thing with
Venezuela is not legal.
But what do you think abouttelling people in the armed
(28:31):
services you don't have tofollow orders?
Now, Trump, of course, wentballistic and said, uh, George
Washington would have hung them.
Sedition, death, you know, hegoes right to that, and then
today he walked in back.
I didn't mean death, you saiddeath.
SPEAKER_05 (28:45):
And meanwhile, those those lawmakers have to reach
out to the U.S.
Capital Police and the HouseSergeant and the mum speakers
getting getting death threatsbecause they're afraid.
Those members fucking MarkHenley, who's membered to get a
beginning.
I mean, to get death threats, heunderstands that.
(29:07):
So it was wrong for Donald Trumpto say that on the court.
Here's the point.
The military, there's a militaryrule that says you must follow
legal, local orders.
It's it's already in a militarycontract.
They know what they're taking.
SPEAKER_10 (29:23):
Who's to say what that is?
Aren't the courts looking atthat right now?
And now you're gonna say to21-year-olds on the USS
Enterprise, you have todisagree.
SPEAKER_05 (29:32):
Because there's an effort under the way to
politicizing the military.
I'm understanding.
And and then the point was don'tgive up the ship.
You you have you've taken theoath, don't give up the ship.
SPEAKER_10 (29:46):
I it's once you say to the military, you you get to
decide as opposed to yes sir,no, sir, follow orders.
It's it's a dangerous area.
What about what we say?
SPEAKER_06 (29:57):
Okay, so let me go ahead and correct the record
here.
So we've already seen that onething that Bill Maher, so
obviously a member of the media,Bill Maher not only has the show
Rooftime at Bill Maher that airson HBO, it also airs on CNN now.
So do the U.S.
(30:18):
military members have to followunlawful orders?
No.
In fact, we're actually requirednot to.
There is no gray fog here.
There is no poetic wiggle room.
A service member is legally uhlegally obligated to refuse
unlawful orders, and not justmorally, but legally, under the
(30:41):
Uniform Code of MilitaryJustice, though, under the
federal law and under the veryDNA of the American military
tradition.
That's the part that politiciansconveniently forgot when the
suits got together and they werean outrageous week.
Now the law itself says it loudand clear.
(31:02):
Again, I was a master at arms inthe United States Navy.
Under the Uniform Code MilitaryJustice Article 92, it says you
must obey lawful order.
The word lawful isn't just therefor decoration.
It's the whole point.
You do not obey orders thatviolate the Constitution, orders
that violate the Uniform Code ofMilitary Justice, orders that
(31:25):
violate federal or state law,orders that violate law and
armed conflict, orders thatviolate basic human rights,
orders that target civilians,prisoners, or protected persons,
orders to commit war crimes,torture or assault, orders given
outside the authority of theperson given to them.
If you follow such an order,you're actually criminally
responsible right alongside theperson who gave it to you.
(31:48):
This is why just followingorders died as defense during
the Nuremberg trials.
From basic training, the Biblein the racks, every service
member is taught this.
Every branch drills it into us.
Two truths.
You obey lawful orders, yourefuse unlawful orders, even if
(32:09):
the rank is big, shiny, andscreaming.
Nobody outranks the UnitedStates Constitution.
Not a general, not an admiral,not a colonel, not a captain,
not a president, not a senatoron cable news, fishing for sound
dates.
And let's be real, it takes thebackbone to refuse one.
(32:30):
Refusing an unlawful order isone of the heaviest
responsibilities in uniform.
You're risking disciplinaryaction, career retaliation, and
social blowback, political heat.
But that is what separates theUnited States military from the
armies of tyrants.
We are loyal to the law, not tothe men who sign your paychecks.
(32:52):
Now, what the political peoplein DC or wherever they all get
wrong all the time, or theypretend not to know, folks like
JD Vance, who wore the military,who wore the military uniform as
a Marine, and others before himplay this game where they
pretend military must do what Isay.
No, the military must do whatthe law says.
(33:13):
Congress writes the laws, yes,but Congress cannot order
someone to break theConstitution.
So when lawmakers tell troops todisobey illegal orders, that is
literally what the military.
Already trains us to do.
But when lawmakers accuse accusetroops of disobedience for
rejecting illegal orders, that'swhen they veer into
(33:34):
authoritarian cosplay.
As a master at arms, I alreadyknow the creed.
I was literally trained withthis devotion to duty, personal
integrity above all, and theshield of authority worn with
the straight.
Authority without legality isnot authority.
It is illegal.
It is actually abuse.
So bottom line (33:55):
military members must obey lawful orders.
Military members must refuseunlawful orders, and the law
protects us when we have to.
Anyone saying otherwise iseither misinformed, performing,
or hoping you are too stupid toknow or you're not paying
(34:15):
attention.
Got it?
So I just did the work for youlike I did on the previous show.
Uniform Code of MilitaryJustice, Article 92.
It fully defines what you aresupposed to do with lawful and
unlawful orders.
Go back to the Nuremberg trialsand go look at what happened
(34:35):
when the soldiers said we werefollowing orders.
We did not accept that.
They were found guilty.
And the rest, as they like tosay, is history.
Now I'm going to move on toJames Comey and Letitia James.
Uh but first I'm going to get tosomething that the Defense
(34:58):
Secretary uh said, and because Ihave to well look, I I didn't
have to, but because I wantedto, because I'm a public figure
now, I had to step right intoit.
So the mill the the the defensesecretary Pete Hexek is very
active on social media.
(35:19):
And uh he posted on uh Twitter,he posted on Facebook uh calling
them seditious traitors and andso on and so forth.
And so i i if you are followingthe Department of War as it has
been uh labeled by them, he putout a statement that said, and I
(35:42):
quote This is the officialstatement, by the way, three
days ago as if I'm reading it.
The Department of War hasreceived allegations of
misconduct against Captain MarkKelly, United States in
retirement United States Navyretired.
In accordance with the UniformCode of Military Justice 10 USC
6088 and other applicableregulations, a thorough review
(36:05):
of these allegations has beeninitiated and determined further
actions, which may includerecall to active duty for court
martial proceedings oradministrative measures.
This matter will be handled incompliance with military law,
ensuring due process andimpartiality.
Further official comments willbe limited to preserve the
integrity of the proceedings.
The Department of War reminds usall that individuals at military
(36:27):
retirees remain subject to theUniform Code of Military Justice
for ethical offenses.
And federal laws such as Article18 USC 2387 prohibit actions
instead intended to interferewith the loyalty, moral, or good
order and discipline of thearmed forces.
Any violations will be addressedthoroughly through appropriate
(36:48):
legal channels.
All service members are remindedthat they have a legal
obligation under the UniformCode of Military Justice to
obey, get this, lawful orders,and those orders are presumed to
be lawful.
A service personnel philosophydoes not justify an excuse for
disobedience, otherwise lawfulorder.
(37:08):
Now, so this is what I said tothe Secretary of Defense.
It is difficult not to noticethe familiar choreography here.
The government issues a sternlyworded communique invoking the
full ritual of the legalcitations, statutory reminders,
and solemn declarations aboutgood order and discipline.
(37:29):
And yet conspicuously absent isany examination of the context
of or any political unity ofsuch statements.
Historically, when aninstitution stresses the
presumption of lawfulness of itsown directives, one should play
closer attention not because theorders are necessarily unlawful,
but because the power systemtends to obscure their own
(37:53):
deviations behind formallanguage.
The text reads less like anatural legal clarification and
more like a preemptive attemptto discipline the boundaries of
acceptable dissents.
The invocation of 18 USC 2387 isparticularly telling.
This statute has been deployedtime and again not to guard
(38:15):
against genuine subversion, butto suppress unwelcome criticism,
especially when such criticismexposes institutional failure or
misconduct.
To imply that questioningauthority risks undermining
loyalty or morale is awell-known technique of
bureaucratic self-protection.
Democracies, at least in theory,function on the assumption that
(38:38):
loyalty flows upward after theaccountability flows downward,
not the other way around.
Moreover, the remainder and thereminder that the retirees
remain subject to the UniformCode of Military Justice is
technically accurate, butselectively emphasized.
One might ask why the fullcoercive apparatus of the U.S.
(38:59):
military law becomes deactivatedin some cases, but not others,
particularly when far moreconsequential misconduct by
senior officials has beenhistorically ignored, minimized,
or retroactively justified underthe banner of national security.
The statement's closing linethat service members' personal
philosophy does not justify ourexcuses, obedience deserves
(39:21):
special scrutiny.
The phrasing implies that moralreasoning is an inherent rather
is an irritant rather than anexistential safeguard against
unlawful behavior.
But the Nuremberg principles,which the United States
ostensibly endorses, rest on theopposite premises.
Individuals have an obligationnot to obey unlawful orders, and
(39:43):
personal consciousness is notmerely permissible but required.
If the aim is to defend theintegrity of the armed forces,
transparency would serve farbetter than admonitions.
The public doesn't need morereminders about the reach of the
military law.
It needs assurance that suchpower will not be deployed
selectively, politically, orpunitively.
(40:05):
Until then, declarations likethis function mainly as signals
not of justice, but of justinstitutional anxiety.
So we will see if I get a letterfrom the uniform uh from the
Department of Defense.
And and just for the record, uhthe six senators who uh the
(40:25):
Congressator CIE officials whosaid this are getting visits
from the FBI as if the FBI doesnot know that they said the word
unlawful.
SPEAKER_10 (40:40):
Look, you don't have to follow orders.
I don't know about that.
Now, I understand what theymean, because this thing with
Venezuela is not legal.
But what do you think abouttelling people in the armed
services you don't have tofollow orders?
Now, Trump, of course, wentballistic and said, uh, George
Washington would have hung them.
(41:02):
Seduce your death.
You know, he goes right to thatand then today he walked it
back.
I didn't mean death.
You said death.
SPEAKER_05 (41:09):
And meanwhile, those those lawmakers have to reach
out to the U.S.
Capital Police and the HouseSergeant and the Mum's speakers
getting getting death threatsbecause it's getting afraid.
And look, say Mark Kelly.
Those members.
This is looking Mark Kelly who'smarried to Gabby Gifford.
I mean, to get death threats, heunderstands that.
(41:30):
So it was wrong for Donald Trumpto say that on the course.
Here's the point (41:35):
the military, there's a military rule that
says you must follow legal,local orders.
It's already in a militarycontract.
They know what they're taking.
SPEAKER_10 (41:47):
Who's to say what that is?
Aren't the courts looking atthat right now?
And now you're gonna say to21-year-olds of the USS
Enterprise, you have to decide?
SPEAKER_05 (41:56):
Because there's an effort underway to politicizing
the military.
Understanding.
And then the point was don'tgive up the ship.
You you have you've taken anoath, don't give up the ship.
SPEAKER_10 (42:11):
Wouldn't you say to the military, you you get to
decide as opposed to yes, sir,no, sir, follow orders?
It's it's it's a dangerous area.
SPEAKER_07 (42:19):
What about what we say in ninth grade civics class,
though, about the Bill of Rightsin the United States
Constitution?
That goes back to undereducatingAmericans, period.
I think that there's a goal inpublic schools to make sure
Americans are dumb.
And I don't just mean Americansthat look like me.
To make sure the averageworking-class American is dumb.
The average.
Yeah, I do.
Because I think that the averageclass.
SPEAKER_10 (42:39):
Well, again, that's that's the Democratic portfolio
is educated.
SPEAKER_07 (42:43):
I'm gonna give a shit with some other things you
want.
It hasn't been good for America.
I happen to believe in thisrepublic, and I think that as
young as we are in 250 years, westand the greatest chance of
being one of the greatestrepublics ever to have been
formed on earth.
But we are giving up too much.
And part of what you give up isthe adherence to the United
(43:03):
States Constitution and theunderstanding that that
constitution can transform.
It can be amended, it can begrown.
I personally think the 13thAmendment needs to be re-amended
so that we don't have an excusefor slavery, period.
That ends the need for puttingup in the state prisons in the
same way, reduces the prisonpopulation from what used to be
a half a million to over twomillion now.
But I think that soldiers dohave a responsibility to adhere
to the Constitution.
(43:24):
I think if you're sitting onorders to disrupt a First
Amendment constitutionallyprotected thing, I think the
soldiers should say absolutelynot.
George Connelly said years ago,you know what's the club and you
(43:44):
may name it.
What we're doing is pickingmembers of the club who are
gonna come on the jet togetherafterwards, to whether no
Democrat or Republican.
They went to the Humber, theywent to Yam, they went to
Moorham, they went to the Hammertogether, they're still gonna be
friends because the bourgeoisieand the claims is gonna be okay,
but we the working claims, thepeople gonna wear shit like this
to work every day, we're gonnaget bumped over in this.
And people who wear shit likethis every day usually do this
(44:06):
and say yes, sir or no, sir.
So for me, I would rather havesoldiers be strictly adherent to
the United States Constitutionand not following the order
that's not council.
SPEAKER_10 (44:18):
You're asking I mean the military is just different.
I'm sorry.
SPEAKER_06 (44:25):
You're asking you're asking No, the military is not
different because the militaryhas already been told, according
to the articles, to already dothis.
The military is all sorry, uh,Bill, uh we we we can walk and
chew gum at the same time here.
(44:46):
If if oh, you should followorders.
If if if the president told themto assassinate Bill Maher, would
he have the same have the sameuh belief system?
I highly doubt it.
I I doubt he I think he'd bescreaming at the top of his
lungs.
Oh, that they need to obey theyneed to not obey that.
(45:07):
They did this is unlawful.
This is silliness.
This is the same person who,when George Bush was president,
was with running around in thegroup saying he was a war
criminal, etc., etc.
Just just just ridiculous.
SPEAKER_10 (45:25):
Kids who probably don't know anything about the
Constitution to make thatdecision.
SPEAKER_06 (45:31):
And I'm sorry, I think I skipped over a bit, but
what I have to say here is thathe's missing is is that the
senators said, you know, who doknow about the Constitution,
Bill Maher is missing the pointthat they said that they would
have their backs.
That's a big point that has gonemissing in this.
The big point that has gonemissing, and that if you I paid
(45:53):
attention to the video, it wasthe senators, the lawmakers, you
know, the co-equal branch ofgovernment saying, We will have
your back.
That's the big thing that BillMaher's missing.
You disobey the order, whatever,you you write the letter to your
congressmen and your senators,and they will have your back
because it will be a federalcharge, and the only people who
(46:15):
can get you out of those federalcharges are who?
Thank you for this attention tothis man.
SPEAKER_10 (46:21):
Make that decision.
I know, but we haven't fixed it,but we have a fucking
schoolhouse.
SPEAKER_07 (46:28):
We gotta just take it, brother.
We we can't just take a fit ofan ignorant proletariat.
SPEAKER_10 (46:33):
But like you'll be okay if they did that with
Obama, because he blew up.
SPEAKER_07 (46:36):
I don't give a fuck.
We can't look at that.
We knocked him up from the shit.
As a black person, I saw slaveryreturning to Libya.
I saw I saw a man who waswilling to help black people in
their fighting and a struggle,um, by giving billions, ignore.
I saw someone who wanted tounite Africa under one currency
(46:59):
and have a potential UnitedStates of Africa, and I know how
dangerous that is to you in theUnited States.
I saw that crushed.
And as an American, I had toshut the fuck up, go with the
Republic.
But that's something if I neverhad a chance to talk to Obama,
I'd really say.
I see Qaddafi has been not asbad as they said.
Because I can't see anypresident I have as good guy.
I love Obama.
The symbol of Obama is up in mymotherfucking house.
(47:21):
He's a black man, he becamepresident, and he did more drone
bombings than any other USpresident before.
He and Hillary Clinton disturbeda country called Libya in which
you used to have a free house,re-education, free, and now it's
not free anymore.
And there are people who looklike me that aren't free.
So as much as I love myRepublic, you know it was a very
repressive dictator.
SPEAKER_06 (47:38):
Now think about how pathetic, how absolutely
pathetic that sounds.
One guy says, look, here is thefact, here's a history.
This happened through thisadministration, through this
person, and then the immatureresponse from the the the host
that Bill Maher is, oh, whatabout his oh well he are you
(48:02):
saying that he's good?
Even used there was factspointed out what that one
government did to anothergovernment.
And because Bill Maher has sometype of either amnesia or his
addiction to pretending like thegovernment he is sitting in is
perfect, his brain does not knowwhat to do except say, oh, uh uh
(48:26):
uh so he must be good.
No, governments are neither goodnor bad, these are decisions
being made by adults in a room,and the people who make the
decisions affect other peoplewho are not in the room.
Hence when D.
Killman Michael Render, alsoknown as Killer Mike, pointed
(48:47):
out the fact that these are thepolicies that were being passed
in Libya that were active, andand this is what's happening
now.
Bill Marr has to gloss rightover that because he does not
want to either does not want todeal with those facts or he is
ignorant, hopefully ignorant ofthose facts.
He he glossed right over themention of housing.
(49:10):
He glossed right over themention of slavery returning to
the area and had to say, oh, hewas repressive.
What about right now?
What about the slavery that ishappening right now because of
US foreign policy that has beenburdensely battlesome in the
Middle East and that includesDemocrats like Barack Hussein
(49:32):
Obama?
SPEAKER_07 (49:33):
I hear what you're saying.
We're living under one now.
We ain't storming a fucking onenow.
You know what?
SPEAKER_10 (49:39):
He's walking down an American neighborhood.
Okay, if you think that's thesame as Libya, but let's let's
have some perspective.
SPEAKER_07 (50:30):
What I'm saying was Hayley has been coming
sensating.
And if the incominations want totake some form of problems, I
think one who threw colonies orthe colonists represent.
So one of them can beultimately.
SPEAKER_10 (50:47):
I mean, the people who are the people who have been
repressing the people in Haitifor a very long time are not
French.
SPEAKER_07 (51:00):
We don't put the dictators in the place.
SPEAKER_10 (51:01):
Okay.
SPEAKER_07 (51:10):
Haitian things go to the French from Haiti anymore.
I'm just saying Haiti's Haiti.
What's going on?
Haiti's still sending money toFrance.
SPEAKER_05 (51:22):
That's what I know.
Okay.
And we need to do more to helpcountries like Haiti,
especially.
SPEAKER_07 (51:27):
So what's to do more?
I would say we need to reparatecountries we've colonized.
There's there's there's apayment to be made to help
countries get.
So we took Libya.
What have we done to help theircountry get become democratic?
SPEAKER_06 (51:39):
So look, um, let me let me just do this right now.
Um to because I've heard themtalk long enough about that,
even though I may or may not goback to it.
So you ever notice how nationslove to bring about entitlement,
liberty, democracy until youbring up the one bill they
(52:00):
didn't never pay.
And when we talk about this, wehave to think about Haiti in
context.
And I'm actually talking assomeone who had to do a disaster
relief mission in Haiti.
So let's talk about it.
Haiti, the little island thattook on the world's greatest
slave empire in a won, is theonly successful slave revolt in
human history.
(52:20):
Haiti did what Rome couldn't,what America wouldn't, and the
French never imagined.
Enslaved people broke theirchains and then broke their
captors.
And how did France respond tolosing its wealthiest colony,
its sugar crown jewel, theisland powered its economy?
France said, You want freedom?
(52:40):
Beautiful, pay us for it.
Imagine fighting for a man foryour life, beating him, and then
he charges you rent for theprivilege.
That's what happened.
In 1825, France sailed a wholequadron of warships to Haiti,
not to trade, not to negotiate,but to show the flag and cook
(53:01):
the gun, and France so Haiti,you will compensate us for the
loss of our enslaved labor, orwe will re-enslave you.
Now that is not diplomacy,that's the most gangster
economic threat in Westernhistory.
And Haiti, a brand new nation,made of formerly enslaved people
(53:23):
with no allies, had no choice.
They signed, they borrowed moneyfrom the French banks to pay
France itself.
They fell into debt and the trapdesigned to keep them from
crawling.
Let me put it plainly here.
Haiti paid its enslavers untilexactly 1947.
(53:46):
You know, think about that.
My grandparents weren't evenborn a part of that timeline.
One of them was, because mygranddad was born in 1937.
But so that's not ancienthistory.
That's like yesterday, with theserial numbers filed off.
(54:08):
Now, fast forward to thequestion that we get all the
time that you just heard BillMaher ask, is France still
living off of Haiti today?
So let me give you a rule, uh areal smooth, sharp, not
actively, but absolutely.
So no, France does not have apipeline running for uh Haiti to
(54:31):
Paris right now.
But nations move through historylike people move through money.
If you robbed somebody rich 200years ago and invested every
dollar that they've been brokeand they've been broke ever
since, you are still living offof that robbery.
Haiti started its national lifewith a ball chain made of gold.
(54:54):
Gold that sailed straight acrossthe Atlantic and dropped into
French banks.
That money built Frenchinstitutions, it cushioned
French budgets, it protectedFrench elites.
It multiplied through centuriesof compound interest.
Meanwhile, Haiti, the nationthat dared to say we are free
because God made us free, wasstuck, tried to build a country
(55:16):
while paying the ransom for itsown liberty.
And that's why you see so muchof the instability.
That's why you see so muchpoverty.
That's why Haiti keeps gettingpushed into the arms of foreign
helpers who always seem to helpthemselves just a little bit too
much.
This wasn't destiny, it wasn'tfate, it was engineered debt and
(55:37):
engineered extraction, andFrance still refuses to pay it
back, still refuses toacknowledge the scale of theft,
still gives speeches aboutfriendship and partnership, like
none of this ever happened.
So let me make this very plainagain.
For the people in the back row,France is not stealing from
Haiti today.
France is still benefiting fromthe wealth it stole yesterday.
(55:59):
And until the day France repaysthe ransom, or at least admits
it, the conversation will not beover.
Because justice isn't just abouthow you steal now.
Justice gives back what youtook.
Now I know somebody's gonnalisten to this and say, Darrell,
why would you bring up ahistory?
And then I'll just say this isbecause the past is never the
(56:21):
past, the consequences are stillliving in the present.
That is not about guilt.
It's about math, it's aboutaccountability, it's about
truth, and it's the only thingstrong enough to disinfect
history.
So to answer the question onelast time, are the French still
(56:41):
living off Haiti?
No, with not with new chains,not with new ships, not with new
threats.
But yes, they're still standingon old memory, old crimes, old
interests, old advantages.
And until that ledger isacknowledged, the world will
keep wondering why one of thosemost courageous nations on earth
has struggled to stand tallsince they got their freedom.
(57:05):
But Haiti will rise again oneday.
It always has, and it alwayswill, because a nation born in
liberation cannot and will notstay down forever.
Now we have to get to JamesComey and Letitia James.
I'm not going back to the BillMark.
That's available for you towatch on YouTube.
It was the overtime segment.
Let's go to Letitia James andJames Comey so we can get out of
(57:28):
here.
I haven't getting far enoughabout these things lately, so
the shows have been running abit longer.
But um now let's talk about thelegal theater that became the uh
James Comey and uh Letitia uhLetita James case that were
hyped, paraded, live streamed,webonized, turned into
headlines, and sold to thepublic like political payback
(57:50):
wrapped in a bow.
And then, just like a flimsycourtroom drama with bad acting,
dismissed, tossed, dropped likea script even a lifetime movie
wouldn't buy.
See, America is now in love withthe illusion of accountability.
The illusion of accountability,but allergic to discipline of
(58:13):
justice.
We crave perplos, we cravemugshots, we crave humiliation,
but the law, real law, itdoesn't care about how angry you
are, it doesn't care aboutTikTok clips or Twitter rants,
it doesn't care about yourfavorite politicians' promise to
get 'em.
(58:34):
Courts don't deal in emotions,they deal in evidence, they deal
with a procedure, they deal inthe burden of proof and a phrase
half of the country refuses tolearn, but still has loud
opinions about.
So when the cases collapse, itwasn't because James Comey is a
choir boy or Latita James isuntouchable.
(58:56):
It's because the charges werebuilt on a wet cardboard held
together with political ducttape and wishful thinking.
So let me say it like this.
Politicians promise theconsequences they knew they
couldn't deliver.
They weaponized public angerwithout understanding the law,
(59:18):
they sounded the trumpet withoutchecking if the cavalry even
existed.
And when the courts, in the dry,cold, beautiful, unsentimental
way, simply replied No.
That is the moment where I wouldlean in to what I said earlier
about no com no chomsky.
(59:39):
States manufacture narrativesfar more easily than they
administer justice.
I had to recline back in mychair as I sit here screen and I
take this.
(59:59):
In America, failure is an artform, and lying is a patriotic
duty.
Look at the cycle.
Promise a takedown, lead theinvestigation, tease the
indictment, celebrateprematurely, watch the case
(01:00:22):
implode, pretend like nothinghappened, when the case
collapses, when the case doeseventually collapse, silence,
shrug, technical issue, biasedjudges, deep state interference,
pending appeal, noaccountability for the people
who lie to the public, noexplanations for millions
(01:00:44):
wasted, no apology for theoutrage machine that they turned
on high, they just move on tothe next target like addicts
chasing the next political high.
But the damage is cumulative.
Because what does this teach thecountry?
It teaches people that justiceis just a vibe, not a process.
It teaches people that thecourtroom is a battlefield, not
(01:01:07):
a safeguard.
It teaches people that law canbe molded like clay shaped by
whoever wins the last election.
And that right there is howrepublics die.
Not through tanks rollingthrough downtown Pennsylvania
Avenue, but through cynicism.
And if you tell a nation longenough that a law is a joke,
eventually the nation willbecome a joke itself.
(01:01:30):
And here's a deeper warning.
These cases and their collapse,they are not the end of the
story.
They reveal some of the story.
They are flashing red lightsshowing us how fragile the
system is becoming.
Because every now and then thecourts still hold the line.
They still say no.
(01:01:51):
They still show us that thebackbone of the republics aren't
fully broken.
But make no mistake, the bonesare being bent.
They are being bit in themilitary, they are being bit in
the courts, they are being bitin Congress, they are being bit
by pundits and influences andpoliticians who treat the
constitutions like it's anoptional reading.
(01:02:11):
If we keep bending them, if wekeep letting the system become a
loyalty test, a weapon, a toolfor theatrics, eventually the
bones are going to snap.
And when the bones snap andinfrastructures fall with them,
boom.
Now we are a banana republic.
(01:02:36):
Thank you for tuning in, and Iwill see you on the next
episode.
Welcome, welcome to the Rao McLean Show.
It's your host, Daryl McLean.
Independent media that won'treinforce travelists.
We have one planet.
Nobody is leaving, so let usreason together.
Okay, let's buckle up.
When I you know what a headlineflashed across my screen?
Uh Senator Mark Kelly underinvestigation for serious
(01:55):
misconduct.
I had one of those moments whereyou laugh.
Not because it's funny, butbecause the alternate is uh to
flip a table and start yelling,uh, circa Samuel L.
Jackson reading the Uniform Codeof Military Justice.
So Mark Kelly, uh Navy combatpilot, Mark Kelly, the
(02:17):
astronaut, Mark Kelly, the manwho literally strapped himself
to a controlled explosion, rodeinto the heavens, and trusted
physics and prayer to bring himback down.
And that man is beinginvestigated for misconduct.
So let me walk you through thisslow.
Like I'm teaching a boot campclass, and the class still can't
(02:40):
figure out how to lace theirboots, right?
He didn't.
He didn't sell intel to aforeign adversary, he didn't
misuse classified information,he didn't break the chain of
command, he didn't compromisenational security, he didn't lay
hands on somebody in uniform.
No, his crime, his grandearth-shattering act of serious
(03:05):
misconduct, was saying thattroops should not obey unlawful
orders.
So let me pause right there andhand out reading glasses because
apparently half of the politicalclass can't see anymore.
Unlawful orders.
I'm gonna say it for the peoplein the cheap seats and the ones
(03:28):
pretending they forgot.
Unlawful, not unpopular, notinconvenient, not politically
troublesome, not the presidentmight frown at you.
Unlawful.
Now that distinction is actuallythe backbone, the backbone I say
of the United States military.
It's the one thing drilled intoyou so deeply that week by week,
(03:52):
three of boot camp, you can sayit in your sleep.
As a master at arms in theUnited States Navy, that
distinction wasn't academic, itwas survival.
As a federal law enforcementofficer under the Department of
Homeland Security and underFederal Protective Services,
that wasn't a suggestion.
It was policy training, legaldoctrine, and our moral compass.
(04:16):
Every recruit learns the samehierarchy: constitution, law,
mission, order.
If number four violates numberone through three, you don't
obey it.
You stand your ground even ifyour voice shakes.
You refuse even if it costs youstripes.
You do not, under any condition,become the instrument of an
(04:39):
unlawful command.
So the question isn't why MarkKelly said it.
The question is why saying itsuddenly feels dangerous.
Why is Mark Kelly underinvestigation?
Let's be honest, because theword refuse makes insecure
leaders break out in hives.
Because someone with a shinytitle and thin skin thinks
(05:02):
loyalty to them is moreimportant than loyalty to the
United States Constitution.
Because the political cultureright now has an emotional range
of a toddler with a megaphoneoffended by everything and
accountable to nothing and noone.
Noam Chomsky warned us aboutthis drift.
This is a slow transformationwhere dissent gets relabeled as
(05:26):
instability, questioning becomesinsubordination, and the people
entrusted with power be uh begintreating scrutiny and security
as some type of sabotage.
And as somebody who regularlylikes to read and listen to
witty people like Gorvadal, Iwould say, you know, somewhere
(05:51):
if he was around, he would besipping a bourbon, raising an
eyebrow so sharp it could cut asteel, whispering, in America,
the only unforgivable sin istelling the truth before the
powerful people have preparedthe lie.
Mark Kelly's misconduct wasn'tmisconduct, it wasn't an
(06:11):
indictment of the system.
It was it was nothing more thanthe truth.
He didn't create a crisis, hetouched his sore spot, he didn't
disrupt military tradition, hedefended the only part of it
that matters, lawful obediencerooted in the United States
Constitution.
(06:32):
But here's where it gets cold.
This wasn't random, this wasn'taccidental, this wasn't
bureaucratic static, this was asignal, a flare shot across a
bow, a not so subtle messagefrom the political class to the
ranks.
We hear you, we see you, and wedon't like it when you make you
(06:52):
think for ourselves.
Veterans know, messages likethat don't originate from the
bottom.
Privates don't come up withstuff like this.
This stuff trickles down fromthe high towers, from the folks
who believe patriotism issomething you perform on
television, not something youbleed for in a uniform.
And if you have ever watched arepublic grow uneasy, you know
(07:15):
this smell.
This is how institutions tightentheir grip.
This is how democracy startssweating.
This is the moment wherespeaking truth sounds like
sedition, and blind obediencegets rebranded as loyalty.
But let me tell you one of theancient truths that every real
service member knows.
A military that cannotdistinguish between a lawful
(07:37):
order and an unlawful order isnot a military.
It is nothing more than a bluntinstrument for people who are in
power.
And free nations do not surviveblunt instruments.
The Republic doesn't crumblewhen enemies attack on the
outside, it crumbles whensilence becomes policy.
And I'll say this that moment isfastly approaching.
(08:00):
This Mark Kelly situation, thiskind of moment, historians
circle and read and ready cansay, yes, that was it right
here.
That was the warning shot.
And let me dig into this a bitmore by telling you how Mark
Kelly even became a senator.
Let's let's just go back inhistory for a moment.
Now, as people close to me know,I originally wanted to be a
(08:25):
history teacher and a wrestlingcoach.
And so a lot of times when I'mstaring at the face of what
seems like political chicaneryand foolishness, in order to not
uh explode, I look for ahistorical comparison.
And sometimes I will just diginto the history of a person,
(08:45):
place, andor thing, and see howdo we get to where we are.
It makes it more impersonal, uh,makes it a bit more impersonal
and a more academic.
So here's a brief history of howMark Kelly even rose to power.
Because Mark Kelly did notstumble into politics, he was
pushed into politics by tragedy,by grit, and by a national
(09:08):
moment that rewired the country.
Now, before Washington everlearned his name, he was already
the type of American myth.
Then it doesn't have to involvea lot of exaggerations.
He was a Navy captain, a combatpilot, and a NASA astronaut who
flew missions for shuttlemissions, and spent his adult
(09:29):
life strapped to machines thatcould kill him if a single boat
said quit.
Then it was around uh it was inJanuary, January 8th, uh, 2011,
when his wife, CongresswomanGabriel Giffords, was holding a
press conference on your corner,even outside of a Tucson
(09:52):
supermarket.
The most harmless form ofdemocracy there is a politician
standing in the open, hearingthe people that they serve.
A gunman walked up and shot herin the head at point blank
range.
The bullet traveled through theleft hemisphere of her brain,
but the doctors weren't sure ifshe would live.
(10:15):
Now, they definitely didn'tthink that she would be able to
speak again.
But Gabriel Giffords lived.
She fought, she caught her wayback through surgeries, therapy,
relearning words, relearningmotions, relearning the world.
And Mark Kelly, her husband, wasright there.
Not as a candidate, not as apublic figure, but as a husband
(10:39):
watching the ugliest part ofAmerican violence explode right
into his living room.
That shouldn't miss us, eventhough it was all the way in
2011.
Because the shooting didn't justwound Gabriel Giffords.
It launched the next chapter oftheir lives.
(11:01):
Together, they became activists.
Remember this, together theybecame activists against gun
violence, founding the Americansfor reasonable solutions, which
later became part of every townfor gun safety.
Kelly himself became a nationalvoice, calm, measured, but
unshakably serious in a debateover common sense gun reform.
(11:26):
For years, people nudged himtowards politics.
He resisted.
But Arizona wasn't changing.
John McCain was gone, MarthaMcSally was weak, and the state
needed someone with credibilitythat wasn't manufactured in a
focus group.
So, in 2019, he announcedfinally that he was running for
(11:51):
the United States Senate.
He ran on service, stability,constitutional duty, and a voice
that feels like a politician,less like a politician, and more
like a man who lived throughenough to skip all of the
political nonsense.
In 2020, he won this specialelection to fill the seat for
(12:16):
the late Senator John McCain.
Now in 2022, he went on to winre-election outright,
solidifying his position as oneof the most visible moderate
Democrats in the United Statesat the time.
And here's the twist of fate.
The man whose wife was shot inthe head while doing her job is
(12:38):
now being investigated becausehe told service members to honor
the law and do their jobs, notthe whims of political power.
Now, history has a funny way ofcircling right back to itself to
hope that we are payingattention.
Sometimes it's poetry, sometimesit's irony, sometimes it is a
(13:00):
raw, bitter truth that a manshaped by violence is now being
punished for upholding the veryprinciple that we were supposed
to protect his wife in the firstplace.
So let me get deeper into whythis matters.
And I'm gonna go past uh Kellyat the moment.
(13:21):
Because Mark Kelly is justchapter one of the opening
before the real uh symphonystarts.
And before I talk about purges,uh ideological pressure, our
filtrations, our politicalshadow boxing, we need to anchor
ourselves in words that made mewho I am and admit a lot of
people who we are.
The things that we recitedbefore we ever touched the
(13:44):
weapon, before we ever set awatch, before we ever enforced a
regulation and protected abuilding are guaranteed a
federal employee protection aswe guarded them.
The words that shaped ourbackbone because this was this
was the whole meeting ofpotatoes.
This is what we are messingwith.
(14:06):
This is the sailor's creed.
I am a United States sailor.
I will support and defend theConstitution of the United
States of America, and I willobey the orders of those
appointed over me.
I represent the fighting spiritof the Navy and those who go
before me to defend freedom anddemocracy around the world.
I proudly served my country'snaval combat team with honor,
(14:30):
courage, and commitment.
I have committed to excellencein the fair treatment of all.
This is the Master at ArmsCreed, and it's probably a
change.
This was from 2006 to 2015 whenI was around.
And it is I am a Master at Arms.
Hold allegiance to my country,devotion of duty, and personal
integrity of all.
I wear my shield of authoritywith dignity and restraint,
(14:52):
promote by example, highstandards of conduct,
appearance, courtesy, andperformance.
I will seek no favors because ofmy position.
I perform my duties in a firm,courteous, and impartial manner.
I strive to the merit andrespect of my shipmates and all
whom I came in contact with.
Now let me take this up onelevel because when you um were
(15:14):
like me and you you left thefleet and you walked into the
place like the Department ofHomeland Security, we actually
weren't leaving the oath behind,we were expanding it.
And while the Department ofHomeland Security actually never
issued a formal creed, it livesby mission principles that once
drilled into every federalprotective officer as well,
every inspector, every agent whoever stood a federal post.
(15:38):
So I'm going to speak thosemissions principles like it's a
creed so the people hearing thisout of my voice can hear the
continuity of the duty thatnever left, that Washington
never seems to understand forsome reason.
This is the Department ofHomeland Security Creed style.
(16:00):
I am a member of the Departmentof Homeland Security.
I safeguard the homeland withintegrity, diligence, and
respect.
I protect the nation fromthreats of foreign and domestic.
I uphold the law and defend theUnited States Constitution.
I have a professionalism,impartiality, and duty to the
American public.
I stay in the watch to ensurethe safety, security, and
(16:21):
resilience of our nation.
Here's Federal ProtectiveServices mission style.
I am a Federal ProtectiveService Officer.
I protect federal employees,visitors, and facilities with
vigilance and resolved.
I deter and detect and respondto threats against the federal
government.
I enforce the law with fairness,courage, and restraint.
(16:43):
I safeguard public trust anduphold the United States
Constitution.
I swore to defend.
I stand ready to protect, readyto serve, and ready to secure
the institutions of ourdemocracy.
Now that the creeds are on thetable, now that the oaths are on
the table, the creed of thesailor, the creed of the Master
at Arms Mission, the Principlesof the Department of Homeland
(17:06):
Security and Federal ProtectiveServices, now we talk about
what's happening today becausewhat's going on inside of the
armed forces, especially insideof the Jazz Corps, is not a
misunderstanding.
It's not a routine turnover, andit's not a coincidence.
This is a kind of quiet shiftyou only watch if you have lived
inside of a machinery of thegovernment long enough to hear
(17:29):
when it starts making a newsound.
This is what uh people in socialscience calls administration
coercion.
You don't fire anyone, you don'tannounce anything, you just
apply pleasure until integritybecomes inconvenient.
And that is how the Republicgets purged without a single
(17:51):
shot being fired.
Reassign the principle, they'renot fired, they just move out of
the way.
Freeze promotions, careers don'tcollapse loudly, they suffocate
quietly into stalled paperwork,open vague and blurry
investigations, conductunbecoming, alignment concerns,
(18:15):
command climate issues.
These aren't charges, they'reair fresheners for corruption.
Reward the obedient.
Sugar tastes better thandiscipline.
Promote the ones who salutebefore they fake.
Label the um constitutionalistsas troublemakers.
Anyone who says this is lawfulsuddenly becomes a team player.
(18:40):
And this is happening right now.
The Jags, the very lawyers whoseentire purpose is to tell the
commanders when somethingcrosses the lines of legal, a
nation that begins to sidelineas military lawyers is a nation
preparing itself to violate thelaw.
And I'll say this as someone whostood in a federal building at 3
(19:01):
a.m.
watching the doors, protectingjudges, guarding prosecutors,
scanning cameras, listening tothe smallest sound, trying to
see if I can find a threat.
When the system removes thepeople under the law, the system
is preparing to break the law.
The chilling part isn't thepurge.
The chilling part is thesilence.
(19:23):
Commanders feel it, servicemembers sense it, Jags officers
(21:20):
whisper about it, federalemployees feel the same tension,
and that kind of s uh settles inthe air when the higher ups
start looking for yes meninstead of professionals.
And I I think about it like thisAmerica will never have a
(21:41):
fascist regime outright.
We will call it something politelike enhanced patriotism.
We aren't the regime, but we'redefinitely on the driveway,
hands in our pockets, kickingthe gravel, pretending we're not
walking towards something weswore we would never allow.
(22:01):
And this is the truth of thematter.
Spoken plainly and withoutapology, uh republics,
democracies, etc.
They don't die when peoplerevolt.
It dies when good men become toocowardly, I'll just say.
(22:21):
And and when they decide to stayquiet.
Not the extremists, not thecorrupt, not the opportunists,
not the grifters.
It dies when the people who knowbetter, the ones who know the
critics, the ones who know theoaths, the ones who have a shit
(22:42):
of authority, fall silent.
But if you know that you didn'tswear an allegiance to silence,
you swore allegiance to theConstitution of the United
States of America, you sworeallegiance to duty, you swore
allegiance to integrity, andthat oath doesn't expire, it
doesn't dim, and it doesn'tbend.
(23:02):
Now not now, not ever.
And that is why this whole thingwith uh Mark Kelly had me on
high alert this morning.
Right back more than the RomeClean show, and I'm gonna get
into some of this commentary toshow how it it permit I just
(23:26):
have to get to this uh BillMaher stuff.
And uh we will dive deeper.
So first let me go to the actualvideo that is being uh talked
about here, and then we're gonnahear the framing and see why
this is is uh troublingproblematic.
SPEAKER_03 (23:44):
I'm Senator Alyssa Slotkin.
SPEAKER_02 (23:46):
Senator Mark Kelly, Representative Chris Deluzio.
SPEAKER_03 (23:49):
Congressman Maggie Gulinian, Representative Chrissy
Hoolin.
SPEAKER_02 (23:52):
Congressman Jason Crow, who was a captain in the
United States Navy, former CMAofficer.
Former Navy, former formertrooper and army ranger, former
intelligence officer, former airforce.
We want to speak directly tomembers of the military and the
intelligence community to takerisks.
SPEAKER_03 (24:08):
We know you are under enormous trust.
Americans trust the military.
SPEAKER_02 (24:15):
This administration is leaving a uniform military.
Intelligence community againstAmerican citizens.
Uniform military just comingfrom right here.
You can refuse illegal orders.
SPEAKER_11 (24:36):
You must refuse illegal orders.
SPEAKER_03 (24:39):
No one has to carry out the violence of the
Constitution.
SPEAKER_02 (24:43):
We know this is hard and that it's a difficult time
to be a public servant.
Your vigilance is critical.
(25:04):
Don't give up, don't give up.
SPEAKER_03 (25:07):
Senator Alyssa Summit.
SPEAKER_02 (25:09):
Senator Mark Hill, Representative Chris Clean.
SPEAKER_03 (25:13):
Senator Christopher.
We know we are under enormoustrust.
(25:34):
Americans trust the military.
SPEAKER_02 (25:37):
This administration is giving our uniform military.
Uniform.
You can refuse illegal orders.
SPEAKER_03 (25:57):
Refuse illegal orders.
SPEAKER_11 (25:59):
You must refuse illegal orders.
SPEAKER_03 (26:01):
No one has to carry out the violence of the
Constitution.
SPEAKER_02 (26:06):
We know this is hard, and that it's a difficult
time to be a public servant.
Your vigilance is critical.
More than number.
SPEAKER_03 (26:19):
The American people need you.
We need you to stand up for themobs.
SPEAKER_02 (26:27):
Don't give up.
Don't give up.
Don't give up the ship.
SPEAKER_06 (26:31):
So yeah, I played that twice on purpose, only
because I want you to hear whatthey said versus what is being
said in this clip.
Let's go to the overtime andreal time by Bill Maher, and so
we can get into what wasactually said and then the
framing of what was said.
SPEAKER_10 (27:01):
No, what the hell?
This is what I'm talking aboutwith mill about like with the
things that bother me versus thethings that don't bothers me.
You see, the the the bullroom, Igive a fuck.
I don't care about the bullroom.
I care about that.
You just, I mean, like, it justand um also like did you see the
thing about um the six Democratswho uh are all military service
(27:25):
and intelligence work in theirbackground said, Look, you don't
have to follow orders.
unknown (27:31):
No.
SPEAKER_10 (27:32):
I don't know about that.
SPEAKER_06 (27:33):
Now, I understand what they mean.
Now listen to the the word thatwas should that was missing.
Did did they say, did you hearin that video that I just
played, you don't have to followorders?
No.
That is not what was said.
So the entire premise of how hestarts the conversation is
false, because it's built onfalse information.
(27:54):
They all said specifically andclearly, you do not have to
follow a lawful, you do not haveto follow illegal orders.
Let's go back to the showthough, for the sake of uh
argument here.
SPEAKER_10 (28:09):
Democrats who uh are all military service and
intelligence work in theirbackground said, Look, you don't
have to follow orders.
I don't know about that.
Now, I understand what theymean, because this thing with
Venezuela is not legal.
But what do you think abouttelling people in the armed
(28:31):
services you don't have tofollow orders?
Now, Trump, of course, wentballistic and said, uh, George
Washington would have hung them.
Sedition, death, you know, hegoes right to that, and then
today he walked in back.
I didn't mean death, you saiddeath.
SPEAKER_05 (28:45):
And meanwhile, those those lawmakers have to reach
out to the U.S.
Capital Police and the HouseSergeant and the mum speakers
getting getting death threatsbecause they're afraid.
Those members fucking MarkHenley, who's membered to get a
beginning.
I mean, to get death threats, heunderstands that.
(29:07):
So it was wrong for Donald Trumpto say that on the court.
Here's the point.
The military, there's a militaryrule that says you must follow
legal, local orders.
It's it's already in a militarycontract.
They know what they're taking.
SPEAKER_10 (29:23):
Who's to say what that is?
Aren't the courts looking atthat right now?
And now you're gonna say to21-year-olds on the USS
Enterprise, you have todisagree.
SPEAKER_05 (29:32):
Because there's an effort under the way to
politicizing the military.
I'm understanding.
And and then the point was don'tgive up the ship.
You you have you've taken theoath, don't give up the ship.
SPEAKER_10 (29:46):
I it's once you say to the military, you you get to
decide as opposed to yes sir,no, sir, follow orders.
It's it's a dangerous area.
What about what we say?
SPEAKER_06 (29:57):
Okay, so let me go ahead and correct the record
here.
So we've already seen that onething that Bill Maher, so
obviously a member of the media,Bill Maher not only has the show
Rooftime at Bill Maher that airson HBO, it also airs on CNN now.
So do the U.S.
(30:18):
military members have to followunlawful orders?
No.
In fact, we're actually requirednot to.
There is no gray fog here.
There is no poetic wiggle room.
A service member is legally uhlegally obligated to refuse
unlawful orders, and not justmorally, but legally, under the
(30:41):
Uniform Code of MilitaryJustice, though, under the
federal law and under the veryDNA of the American military
tradition.
That's the part that politiciansconveniently forgot when the
suits got together and they werean outrageous week.
Now the law itself says it loudand clear.
(31:02):
Again, I was a master at arms inthe United States Navy.
Under the Uniform Code MilitaryJustice Article 92, it says you
must obey lawful order.
The word lawful isn't just therefor decoration.
It's the whole point.
You do not obey orders thatviolate the Constitution, orders
that violate the Uniform Code ofMilitary Justice, orders that
(31:25):
violate federal or state law,orders that violate law and
armed conflict, orders thatviolate basic human rights,
orders that target civilians,prisoners, or protected persons,
orders to commit war crimes,torture or assault, orders given
outside the authority of theperson given to them.
If you follow such an order,you're actually criminally
responsible right alongside theperson who gave it to you.
(31:48):
This is why just followingorders died as defense during
the Nuremberg trials.
From basic training, the Biblein the racks, every service
member is taught this.
Every branch drills it into us.
Two truths.
You obey lawful orders, yourefuse unlawful orders, even if
(32:09):
the rank is big, shiny, andscreaming.
Nobody outranks the UnitedStates Constitution.
Not a general, not an admiral,not a colonel, not a captain,
not a president, not a senatoron cable news, fishing for sound
dates.
And let's be real, it takes thebackbone to refuse one.
(32:30):
Refusing an unlawful order isone of the heaviest
responsibilities in uniform.
You're risking disciplinaryaction, career retaliation, and
social blowback, political heat.
But that is what separates theUnited States military from the
armies of tyrants.
We are loyal to the law, not tothe men who sign your paychecks.
(32:52):
Now, what the political peoplein DC or wherever they all get
wrong all the time, or theypretend not to know, folks like
JD Vance, who wore the military,who wore the military uniform as
a Marine, and others before himplay this game where they
pretend military must do what Isay.
No, the military must do whatthe law says.
(33:13):
Congress writes the laws, yes,but Congress cannot order
someone to break theConstitution.
So when lawmakers tell troops todisobey illegal orders, that is
literally what the military.
Already trains us to do.
But when lawmakers accuse accusetroops of disobedience for
rejecting illegal orders, that'swhen they veer into
(33:34):
authoritarian cosplay.
As a master at arms, I alreadyknow the creed.
I was literally trained withthis devotion to duty, personal
integrity above all, and theshield of authority worn with
the straight.
Authority without legality isnot authority.
It is illegal.
It is actually abuse.
So bottom line (33:55):
military members must obey lawful orders.
Military members must refuseunlawful orders, and the law
protects us when we have to.
Anyone saying otherwise iseither misinformed, performing,
or hoping you are too stupid toknow or you're not paying
(34:15):
attention.
Got it?
So I just did the work for youlike I did on the previous show.
Uniform Code of MilitaryJustice, Article 92.
It fully defines what you aresupposed to do with lawful and
unlawful orders.
Go back to the Nuremberg trialsand go look at what happened
(34:35):
when the soldiers said we werefollowing orders.
We did not accept that.
They were found guilty.
And the rest, as they like tosay, is history.
Now I'm going to move on toJames Comey and Letitia James.
Uh but first I'm going to get tosomething that the Defense
(34:58):
Secretary uh said, and because Ihave to well look, I I didn't
have to, but because I wantedto, because I'm a public figure
now, I had to step right intoit.
So the mill the the the defensesecretary Pete Hexek is very
active on social media.
(35:19):
And uh he posted on uh Twitter,he posted on Facebook uh calling
them seditious traitors and andso on and so forth.
And so i i if you are followingthe Department of War as it has
been uh labeled by them, he putout a statement that said, and I
(35:42):
quote This is the officialstatement, by the way, three
days ago as if I'm reading it.
The Department of War hasreceived allegations of
misconduct against Captain MarkKelly, United States in
retirement United States Navyretired.
In accordance with the UniformCode of Military Justice 10 USC
6088 and other applicableregulations, a thorough review
(36:05):
of these allegations has beeninitiated and determined further
actions, which may includerecall to active duty for court
martial proceedings oradministrative measures.
This matter will be handled incompliance with military law,
ensuring due process andimpartiality.
Further official comments willbe limited to preserve the
integrity of the proceedings.
The Department of War reminds usall that individuals at military
(36:27):
retirees remain subject to theUniform Code of Military Justice
for ethical offenses.
And federal laws such as Article18 USC 2387 prohibit actions
instead intended to interferewith the loyalty, moral, or good
order and discipline of thearmed forces.
Any violations will be addressedthoroughly through appropriate
(36:48):
legal channels.
All service members are remindedthat they have a legal
obligation under the UniformCode of Military Justice to
obey, get this, lawful orders,and those orders are presumed to
be lawful.
A service personnel philosophydoes not justify an excuse for
disobedience, otherwise lawfulorder.
(37:08):
Now, so this is what I said tothe Secretary of Defense.
It is difficult not to noticethe familiar choreography here.
The government issues a sternlyworded communique invoking the
full ritual of the legalcitations, statutory reminders,
and solemn declarations aboutgood order and discipline.
(37:29):
And yet conspicuously absent isany examination of the context
of or any political unity ofsuch statements.
Historically, when aninstitution stresses the
presumption of lawfulness of itsown directives, one should play
closer attention not because theorders are necessarily unlawful,
but because the power systemtends to obscure their own
(37:53):
deviations behind formallanguage.
The text reads less like anatural legal clarification and
more like a preemptive attemptto discipline the boundaries of
acceptable dissents.
The invocation of 18 USC 2387 isparticularly telling.
This statute has been deployedtime and again not to guard
(38:15):
against genuine subversion, butto suppress unwelcome criticism,
especially when such criticismexposes institutional failure or
misconduct.
To imply that questioningauthority risks undermining
loyalty or morale is awell-known technique of
bureaucratic self-protection.
Democracies, at least in theory,function on the assumption that
(38:38):
loyalty flows upward after theaccountability flows downward,
not the other way around.
Moreover, the remainder and thereminder that the retirees
remain subject to the UniformCode of Military Justice is
technically accurate, butselectively emphasized.
One might ask why the fullcoercive apparatus of the U.S.
(38:59):
military law becomes deactivatedin some cases, but not others,
particularly when far moreconsequential misconduct by
senior officials has beenhistorically ignored, minimized,
or retroactively justified underthe banner of national security.
The statement's closing linethat service members' personal
philosophy does not justify ourexcuses, obedience deserves
(39:21):
special scrutiny.
The phrasing implies that moralreasoning is an inherent rather
is an irritant rather than anexistential safeguard against
unlawful behavior.
But the Nuremberg principles,which the United States
ostensibly endorses, rest on theopposite premises.
Individuals have an obligationnot to obey unlawful orders, and
(39:43):
personal consciousness is notmerely permissible but required.
If the aim is to defend theintegrity of the armed forces,
transparency would serve farbetter than admonitions.
The public doesn't need morereminders about the reach of the
military law.
It needs assurance that suchpower will not be deployed
selectively, politically, orpunitively.
(40:05):
Until then, declarations likethis function mainly as signals
not of justice, but of justinstitutional anxiety.
So we will see if I get a letterfrom the uniform uh from the
Department of Defense.
And and just for the record, uhthe six senators who uh the
(40:25):
Congressator CIE officials whosaid this are getting visits
from the FBI as if the FBI doesnot know that they said the word
unlawful.
SPEAKER_10 (40:40):
Look, you don't have to follow orders.
I don't know about that.
Now, I understand what theymean, because this thing with
Venezuela is not legal.
But what do you think abouttelling people in the armed
services you don't have tofollow orders?
Now, Trump, of course, wentballistic and said, uh, George
Washington would have hung them.
(41:02):
Seduce your death.
You know, he goes right to thatand then today he walked it
back.
I didn't mean death.
You said death.
SPEAKER_05 (41:09):
And meanwhile, those those lawmakers have to reach
out to the U.S.
Capital Police and the HouseSergeant and the Mum's speakers
getting getting death threatsbecause it's getting afraid.
And look, say Mark Kelly.
Those members.
This is looking Mark Kelly who'smarried to Gabby Gifford.
I mean, to get death threats, heunderstands that.
(41:30):
So it was wrong for Donald Trumpto say that on the course.
Here's the point (41:35):
the military, there's a military rule that
says you must follow legal,local orders.
It's already in a militarycontract.
They know what they're taking.
SPEAKER_10 (41:47):
Who's to say what that is?
Aren't the courts looking atthat right now?
And now you're gonna say to21-year-olds of the USS
Enterprise, you have to decide?
SPEAKER_05 (41:56):
Because there's an effort underway to politicizing
the military.
Understanding.
And then the point was don'tgive up the ship.
You you have you've taken anoath, don't give up the ship.
SPEAKER_10 (42:11):
Wouldn't you say to the military, you you get to
decide as opposed to yes, sir,no, sir, follow orders?
It's it's it's a dangerous area.
SPEAKER_07 (42:19):
What about what we say in ninth grade civics class,
though, about the Bill of Rightsin the United States
Constitution?
That goes back to undereducatingAmericans, period.
I think that there's a goal inpublic schools to make sure
Americans are dumb.
And I don't just mean Americansthat look like me.
To make sure the averageworking-class American is dumb.
The average.
Yeah, I do.
Because I think that the averageclass.
SPEAKER_10 (42:39):
Well, again, that's that's the Democratic portfolio
is educated.
SPEAKER_07 (42:43):
I'm gonna give a shit with some other things you
want.
It hasn't been good for America.
I happen to believe in thisrepublic, and I think that as
young as we are in 250 years, westand the greatest chance of
being one of the greatestrepublics ever to have been
formed on earth.
But we are giving up too much.
And part of what you give up isthe adherence to the United
(43:03):
States Constitution and theunderstanding that that
constitution can transform.
It can be amended, it can begrown.
I personally think the 13thAmendment needs to be re-amended
so that we don't have an excusefor slavery, period.
That ends the need for puttingup in the state prisons in the
same way, reduces the prisonpopulation from what used to be
a half a million to over twomillion now.
But I think that soldiers dohave a responsibility to adhere
to the Constitution.
(43:24):
I think if you're sitting onorders to disrupt a First
Amendment constitutionallyprotected thing, I think the
soldiers should say absolutelynot.
George Connelly said years ago,you know what's the club and you
(43:44):
may name it.
What we're doing is pickingmembers of the club who are
gonna come on the jet togetherafterwards, to whether no
Democrat or Republican.
They went to the Humber, theywent to Yam, they went to
Moorham, they went to the Hammertogether, they're still gonna be
friends because the bourgeoisieand the claims is gonna be okay,
but we the working claims, thepeople gonna wear shit like this
to work every day, we're gonnaget bumped over in this.
And people who wear shit likethis every day usually do this
(44:06):
and say yes, sir or no, sir.
So for me, I would rather havesoldiers be strictly adherent to
the United States Constitutionand not following the order
that's not council.
SPEAKER_10 (44:18):
You're asking I mean the military is just different.
I'm sorry.
SPEAKER_06 (44:25):
You're asking you're asking No, the military is not
different because the militaryhas already been told, according
to the articles, to already dothis.
The military is all sorry, uh,Bill, uh we we we can walk and
chew gum at the same time here.
(44:46):
If if oh, you should followorders.
If if if the president told themto assassinate Bill Maher, would
he have the same have the sameuh belief system?
I highly doubt it.
I I doubt he I think he'd bescreaming at the top of his
lungs.
Oh, that they need to obey theyneed to not obey that.
(45:07):
They did this is unlawful.
This is silliness.
This is the same person who,when George Bush was president,
was with running around in thegroup saying he was a war
criminal, etc., etc.
Just just just ridiculous.
SPEAKER_10 (45:25):
Kids who probably don't know anything about the
Constitution to make thatdecision.
SPEAKER_06 (45:31):
And I'm sorry, I think I skipped over a bit, but
what I have to say here is thathe's missing is is that the
senators said, you know, who doknow about the Constitution,
Bill Maher is missing the pointthat they said that they would
have their backs.
That's a big point that has gonemissing in this.
The big point that has gonemissing, and that if you I paid
(45:53):
attention to the video, it wasthe senators, the lawmakers, you
know, the co-equal branch ofgovernment saying, We will have
your back.
That's the big thing that BillMaher's missing.
You disobey the order, whatever,you you write the letter to your
congressmen and your senators,and they will have your back
because it will be a federalcharge, and the only people who
(46:15):
can get you out of those federalcharges are who?
Thank you for this attention tothis man.
SPEAKER_10 (46:21):
Make that decision.
I know, but we haven't fixed it,but we have a fucking
schoolhouse.
SPEAKER_07 (46:28):
We gotta just take it, brother.
We we can't just take a fit ofan ignorant proletariat.
SPEAKER_10 (46:33):
But like you'll be okay if they did that with
Obama, because he blew up.
SPEAKER_07 (46:36):
I don't give a fuck.
We can't look at that.
We knocked him up from the shit.
As a black person, I saw slaveryreturning to Libya.
I saw I saw a man who waswilling to help black people in
their fighting and a struggle,um, by giving billions, ignore.
I saw someone who wanted tounite Africa under one currency
(46:59):
and have a potential UnitedStates of Africa, and I know how
dangerous that is to you in theUnited States.
I saw that crushed.
And as an American, I had toshut the fuck up, go with the
Republic.
But that's something if I neverhad a chance to talk to Obama,
I'd really say.
I see Qaddafi has been not asbad as they said.
Because I can't see anypresident I have as good guy.
I love Obama.
The symbol of Obama is up in mymotherfucking house.
(47:21):
He's a black man, he becamepresident, and he did more drone
bombings than any other USpresident before.
He and Hillary Clinton disturbeda country called Libya in which
you used to have a free house,re-education, free, and now it's
not free anymore.
And there are people who looklike me that aren't free.
So as much as I love myRepublic, you know it was a very
repressive dictator.
SPEAKER_06 (47:38):
Now think about how pathetic, how absolutely
pathetic that sounds.
One guy says, look, here is thefact, here's a history.
This happened through thisadministration, through this
person, and then the immatureresponse from the the the host
that Bill Maher is, oh, whatabout his oh well he are you
(48:02):
saying that he's good?
Even used there was factspointed out what that one
government did to anothergovernment.
And because Bill Maher has sometype of either amnesia or his
addiction to pretending like thegovernment he is sitting in is
perfect, his brain does not knowwhat to do except say, oh, uh uh
(48:26):
uh so he must be good.
No, governments are neither goodnor bad, these are decisions
being made by adults in a room,and the people who make the
decisions affect other peoplewho are not in the room.
Hence when D.
Killman Michael Render, alsoknown as Killer Mike, pointed
(48:47):
out the fact that these are thepolicies that were being passed
in Libya that were active, andand this is what's happening
now.
Bill Marr has to gloss rightover that because he does not
want to either does not want todeal with those facts or he is
ignorant, hopefully ignorant ofthose facts.
He he glossed right over themention of housing.
(49:10):
He glossed right over themention of slavery returning to
the area and had to say, oh, hewas repressive.
What about right now?
What about the slavery that ishappening right now because of
US foreign policy that has beenburdensely battlesome in the
Middle East and that includesDemocrats like Barack Hussein
(49:32):
Obama?
SPEAKER_07 (49:33):
I hear what you're saying.
We're living under one now.
We ain't storming a fucking onenow.
You know what?
SPEAKER_10 (49:39):
He's walking down an American neighborhood.
Okay, if you think that's thesame as Libya, but let's let's
have some perspective.
SPEAKER_07 (50:30):
What I'm saying was Hayley has been coming
sensating.
And if the incominations want totake some form of problems, I
think one who threw colonies orthe colonists represent.
So one of them can beultimately.
SPEAKER_10 (50:47):
I mean, the people who are the people who have been
repressing the people in Haitifor a very long time are not
French.
SPEAKER_07 (51:00):
We don't put the dictators in the place.
SPEAKER_10 (51:01):
Okay.
SPEAKER_07 (51:10):
Haitian things go to the French from Haiti anymore.
I'm just saying Haiti's Haiti.
What's going on?
Haiti's still sending money toFrance.
SPEAKER_05 (51:22):
That's what I know.
Okay.
And we need to do more to helpcountries like Haiti,
especially.
SPEAKER_07 (51:27):
So what's to do more?
I would say we need to reparatecountries we've colonized.
There's there's there's apayment to be made to help
countries get.
So we took Libya.
What have we done to help theircountry get become democratic?
SPEAKER_06 (51:39):
So look, um, let me let me just do this right now.
Um to because I've heard themtalk long enough about that,
even though I may or may not goback to it.
So you ever notice how nationslove to bring about entitlement,
liberty, democracy until youbring up the one bill they
(52:00):
didn't never pay.
And when we talk about this, wehave to think about Haiti in
context.
And I'm actually talking assomeone who had to do a disaster
relief mission in Haiti.
So let's talk about it.
Haiti, the little island thattook on the world's greatest
slave empire in a won, is theonly successful slave revolt in
human history.
(52:20):
Haiti did what Rome couldn't,what America wouldn't, and the
French never imagined.
Enslaved people broke theirchains and then broke their
captors.
And how did France respond tolosing its wealthiest colony,
its sugar crown jewel, theisland powered its economy?
France said, You want freedom?
(52:40):
Beautiful, pay us for it.
Imagine fighting for a man foryour life, beating him, and then
he charges you rent for theprivilege.
That's what happened.
In 1825, France sailed a wholequadron of warships to Haiti,
not to trade, not to negotiate,but to show the flag and cook
(53:01):
the gun, and France so Haiti,you will compensate us for the
loss of our enslaved labor, orwe will re-enslave you.
Now that is not diplomacy,that's the most gangster
economic threat in Westernhistory.
And Haiti, a brand new nation,made of formerly enslaved people
(53:23):
with no allies, had no choice.
They signed, they borrowed moneyfrom the French banks to pay
France itself.
They fell into debt and the trapdesigned to keep them from
crawling.
Let me put it plainly here.
Haiti paid its enslavers untilexactly 1947.
(53:46):
You know, think about that.
My grandparents weren't evenborn a part of that timeline.
One of them was, because mygranddad was born in 1937.
But so that's not ancienthistory.
That's like yesterday, with theserial numbers filed off.
(54:08):
Now, fast forward to thequestion that we get all the
time that you just heard BillMaher ask, is France still
living off of Haiti today?
So let me give you a rule, uh areal smooth, sharp, not
actively, but absolutely.
So no, France does not have apipeline running for uh Haiti to
(54:31):
Paris right now.
But nations move through historylike people move through money.
If you robbed somebody rich 200years ago and invested every
dollar that they've been brokeand they've been broke ever
since, you are still living offof that robbery.
Haiti started its national lifewith a ball chain made of gold.
(54:54):
Gold that sailed straight acrossthe Atlantic and dropped into
French banks.
That money built Frenchinstitutions, it cushioned
French budgets, it protectedFrench elites.
It multiplied through centuriesof compound interest.
Meanwhile, Haiti, the nationthat dared to say we are free
because God made us free, wasstuck, tried to build a country
(55:16):
while paying the ransom for itsown liberty.
And that's why you see so muchof the instability.
That's why you see so muchpoverty.
That's why Haiti keeps gettingpushed into the arms of foreign
helpers who always seem to helpthemselves just a little bit too
much.
This wasn't destiny, it wasn'tfate, it was engineered debt and
(55:37):
engineered extraction, andFrance still refuses to pay it
back, still refuses toacknowledge the scale of theft,
still gives speeches aboutfriendship and partnership, like
none of this ever happened.
So let me make this very plainagain.
For the people in the back row,France is not stealing from
Haiti today.
France is still benefiting fromthe wealth it stole yesterday.
(55:59):
And until the day France repaysthe ransom, or at least admits
it, the conversation will not beover.
Because justice isn't just abouthow you steal now.
Justice gives back what youtook.
Now I know somebody's gonnalisten to this and say, Darrell,
why would you bring up ahistory?
And then I'll just say this isbecause the past is never the
(56:21):
past, the consequences are stillliving in the present.
That is not about guilt.
It's about math, it's aboutaccountability, it's about
truth, and it's the only thingstrong enough to disinfect
history.
So to answer the question onelast time, are the French still
(56:41):
living off Haiti?
No, with not with new chains,not with new ships, not with new
threats.
But yes, they're still standingon old memory, old crimes, old
interests, old advantages.
And until that ledger isacknowledged, the world will
keep wondering why one of thosemost courageous nations on earth
has struggled to stand tallsince they got their freedom.
(57:05):
But Haiti will rise again oneday.
It always has, and it alwayswill, because a nation born in
liberation cannot and will notstay down forever.
Now we have to get to JamesComey and Letitia James.
I'm not going back to the BillMark.
That's available for you towatch on YouTube.
It was the overtime segment.
Let's go to Letitia James andJames Comey so we can get out of
(57:28):
here.
I haven't getting far enoughabout these things lately, so
the shows have been running abit longer.
But um now let's talk about thelegal theater that became the uh
James Comey and uh Letitia uhLetita James case that were
hyped, paraded, live streamed,webonized, turned into
headlines, and sold to thepublic like political payback
(57:50):
wrapped in a bow.
And then, just like a flimsycourtroom drama with bad acting,
dismissed, tossed, dropped likea script even a lifetime movie
wouldn't buy.
See, America is now in love withthe illusion of accountability.
The illusion of accountability,but allergic to discipline of
(58:13):
justice.
We crave perplos, we cravemugshots, we crave humiliation,
but the law, real law, itdoesn't care about how angry you
are, it doesn't care aboutTikTok clips or Twitter rants,
it doesn't care about yourfavorite politicians' promise to
get 'em.
(58:34):
Courts don't deal in emotions,they deal in evidence, they deal
with a procedure, they deal inthe burden of proof and a phrase
half of the country refuses tolearn, but still has loud
opinions about.
So when the cases collapse, itwasn't because James Comey is a
choir boy or Latita James isuntouchable.
(58:56):
It's because the charges werebuilt on a wet cardboard held
together with political ducttape and wishful thinking.
So let me say it like this.
Politicians promise theconsequences they knew they
couldn't deliver.
They weaponized public angerwithout understanding the law,
(59:18):
they sounded the trumpet withoutchecking if the cavalry even
existed.
And when the courts, in the dry,cold, beautiful, unsentimental
way, simply replied No.
That is the moment where I wouldlean in to what I said earlier
about no com no chomsky.
(59:39):
States manufacture narrativesfar more easily than they
administer justice.
I had to recline back in mychair as I sit here screen and I
take this.
(59:59):
In America, failure is an artform, and lying is a patriotic
duty.
Look at the cycle.
Promise a takedown, lead theinvestigation, tease the
indictment, celebrateprematurely, watch the case
(01:00:22):
implode, pretend like nothinghappened, when the case
collapses, when the case doeseventually collapse, silence,
shrug, technical issue, biasedjudges, deep state interference,
pending appeal, noaccountability for the people
who lie to the public, noexplanations for millions
(01:00:44):
wasted, no apology for theoutrage machine that they turned
on high, they just move on tothe next target like addicts
chasing the next political high.
But the damage is cumulative.
Because what does this teach thecountry?
It teaches people that justiceis just a vibe, not a process.
It teaches people that thecourtroom is a battlefield, not
(01:01:07):
a safeguard.
It teaches people that law canbe molded like clay shaped by
whoever wins the last election.
And that right there is howrepublics die.
Not through tanks rollingthrough downtown Pennsylvania
Avenue, but through cynicism.
And if you tell a nation longenough that a law is a joke,
eventually the nation willbecome a joke itself.
(01:01:30):
And here's a deeper warning.
These cases and their collapse,they are not the end of the
story.
They reveal some of the story.
They are flashing red lightsshowing us how fragile the
system is becoming.
Because every now and then thecourts still hold the line.
They still say no.
(01:01:51):
They still show us that thebackbone of the republics aren't
fully broken.
But make no mistake, the bonesare being bent.
They are being bit in themilitary, they are being bit in
the courts, they are being bitin Congress, they are being bit
by pundits and influences andpoliticians who treat the
constitutions like it's anoptional reading.
(01:02:11):
If we keep bending them, if wekeep letting the system become a
loyalty test, a weapon, a toolfor theatrics, eventually the
bones are going to snap.
And when the bones snap andinfrastructures fall with them,
boom.
Now we are a banana republic.
(01:02:36):
Thank you for tuning in, and Iwill see you on the next
episode.
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by Audiochuck Media Company.
The Brothers Ortiz
The Brothers Ortiz is the story of two brothers–both successful, but in very different ways. Gabe Ortiz becomes a third-highest ranking officer in all of Texas while his younger brother Larry climbs the ranks in Puro Tango Blast, a notorious Texas Prison gang. Gabe doesn’t know all the details of his brother’s nefarious dealings, and he’s made a point not to ask, to protect their relationship. But when Larry is murdered during a home invasion in a rented beach house, Gabe has no choice but to look into what happened that night. To solve Larry’s murder, Gabe, and the whole Ortiz family, must ask each other tough questions.