Summary:
Democratic Senator Ruben Gallego of Arizona has sparked controversy by suggesting that military personnel involved in a potential court-martial of Senator Mark Kelly could face “consequences” once President Donald Trump leaves office. Gallego’s comments, made during a CNN interview, imply that Trump’s protection would not last forever, urging military members to adhere to the Constitution. This incident follows a video where six Democratic senators, including Kelly, encouraged military personnel to defy “illegal” orders from Trump. The remarks have drawn criticism for potentially undermining military integrity and stoking political division.
What This Means for You:
- Understand the Political Climate: Gallego’s statements highlight the deepening polarization in U.S. politics, particularly around the role of the military in partisan disputes.
- Evaluate Media Narratives: Be cautious of sensationalized claims and seek out balanced perspectives to avoid misinformation about political figures and events.
- Consider Constitutional Implications: The debate over military obedience and constitutional duty underscores the importance of understanding U.S. laws and governance structures.
- Future Outlook: Expect heightened scrutiny of political rhetoric as the 2024 election approaches, with potential implications for military-civilian relations.
Original Post:
One wonders: Have the Democrats thought this through? Do they have an endgame?
Either way, their reckless rhetoric can only lead to a dark place — as it has already.
Monday on CNN’s “The Arena with Kasie Hunt,” Democratic Sen. Ruben Gallego of Arizona appeared to threaten “consequences” for military service members who take part in a potential court-martial of his colleague, Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona.
In a clip posted to the social media platform X, host Kasie Hunt asked Gallego about his “level of trust in the U.S. military justice system,” to which the senator, with shocking brazenness, replied that service members need to remember that President Donald Trump will not be around to protect them forever.
“I trust them, actually, a lot,” Gallego began.
That sounded like a compliment, of course. But if you listen closely, you will hear the Democrats’ seditious anti-Trump message embedded in the senator’s response.
“These are professionals,” Gallego said moments later. ‘They are also swearing to the Constitution of the United States. They know that there will be fallout and consequences if they are used in a hard way to basically railroad someone like Senator Kelly, ’cause Donald Trump’s gonna be gone in a couple years.”
What a slimy way to insinuate that Trump either has or will give orders at odds with the Constitution.
“And if you’re part of the military that’s going after sitting senators, sitting members of Congress, and part of the weaponization of government,” Gallego continued, “there will be consequences, without a doubt.”
Should Sen. Mark Kelly be court-martialed?
Yes: 0% (0 Votes)
No: 0% (0 Votes)
Incredibly, Gallego then predicted that officers who participate in a potential Kelly tribunal would be “looking over their shoulders because they know that Donald Trump will be gone and they will not have that protection there, and they’re gonna have to do the safest thing possible, which is follow the Constitution of the United States, and you’ll be fine.”
Again, note the deliberate distinction drawn between Trump and the Constitution.
MORE THREATS: Ruben Gallego promises legal retaliation over military’s investigation into Mark Kelly:
“Donald Trump’s going to be gone in a couple of years.”
“If you’re part of the military that is going after sitting Senators…and part of the weaponization of government —… pic.twitter.com/QJwq2v6GLe
— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) November 24, 2025
Last week, Kelly joined five other elected Democrats in posting an outrageous and likely seditious video. In that video, the six Democrats urged intelligence professionals and military service members to ignore “illegal” orders from Trump.
Of course, the Seditious Six identified no such orders. Thus, anyone who has lived through the grand anti-Trump conspiracy of the last 10 years knows what they intended. Those Democrats had no purpose but to cast the duly elected commander in chief as illegitimate.
And those ghouls — now joined by Gallego — had the gall to talk about the Constitution.
Meanwhile, Trump and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth reacted with an appropriate mixture of alarm and outrage.
How, then, can we make sense of the Democrats’ tactics here?
First, Democrats’ Trump-related assertions seem so divorced from reality that those who have followed the president closely for years often have no idea where or how to begin refuting them.
For starters, Trump has now served as president for nearly five years total. One hesitates to criticize a man of undeniable courage who has beaten back every deep-state effort to eliminate him, but one must concede nonetheless that in that time, Trump has largely allowed himself to be neutralized by neocon plants (see: Pence, Mike, and Pompeo, Mike) and diabolical judges usurping authority. If anything, many Trump supporters undoubtedly regard the president’s executive stewardship as too weak.
Still, Democrats have conjured a bugbear, and they cling to it with a tenacity that defies reason. We have seen them do it many times.
For instance, we now know that former President Barack Obama’s administration engaged in what Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard called a “treasonous conspiracy” when it manufactured intelligence designed to prop up the 2016 Russia collusion hoax.
We also know that Democrat-aligned media outlets regularly doctored videos in an effort to harm Trump. The worst of those edits made it appear that Trump encouraged the Capitol incursion of Jan. 6, 2021.
But rank-and-file Democrats believe these hoaxes and many others. Why else would they march in silly “No Kings” rallies?
It is true, of course, that liberals, particularly young women, disproportionately suffer from mental illness. One therapist, in fact, recently characterized Trump Derangement Syndrome as “the defining pathology of our time.”
And that brings us back to the Seditious Six and their endgame. What could they have hoped to achieve with this video? And what did Gallego hope to achieve by threatening military service members?
The most plausible answer lies in their understanding of their own base. Rank-and-file Democrats, radicalized by propaganda, have demanded violence. When it actually occurred, as in the Sept. 10 assassination of conservative Christian icon Charlie Kirk, thousands of leftists celebrated with demonic glee.
Thus, elected Democrats have to know that they risk activating a lone wolf in the military. Are they, in fact, counting on it? Their behavior demands an answer to that once-unthinkable question.
Meanwhile, it remains to be seen how the president responds to the latest challenge from Gallego. Might these Democrats, in an act filled with supreme irony, finally call into existence the Trump of their dark and deranged fantasies?
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.
Extra Information:
For further reading on U.S. military policy and constitutional law, explore these resources: The U.S. Constitution and U.S. Department of Defense.
People Also Ask About:
- What is a court-martial? A court-martial is a military court that tries members of the armed forces for violations of military law.
- Can military personnel refuse presidential orders? Military personnel are required to follow lawful orders but are obligated to refuse those that violate the Constitution or laws.
- What is Trump Derangement Syndrome? It’s a term used to describe intense and irrational criticism of Donald Trump, often rooted in partisan bias.
- How does the Constitution protect military integrity? The Constitution ensures civilian control of the military and establishes it as a force for defense, not political manipulation.
Expert Opinion:
Political analysts warn that Gallego’s rhetoric could further erode trust in the military’s nonpartisan role, potentially destabilizing the balance between civilian and military leadership. Such actions risk undermining public confidence in the armed forces as a neutral institution.
Key Terms:
- Constitution and military obedience
- Senator Ruben Gallego controversy
- Court-martial implications 2024
- Trump and military loyalty
- Democratic Party military strategy
Edited by 4idiotz Editorial System
ORIGINAL SOURCE:
Source link
