Would you obey an illegal or unconstitutional order?

Absolutely not. I swore to uphold the constitution and defend against all enemies foreign and domestic.

Well, trumpski is out so we don't have that worry anymore.

Why are so many afraid of controversy? President JFK's statement that, 'it should be a crime to shrink from controversy,' remains timeless. Yet this post asks a simple question: Are you an oathkeeper, or not? Do you believe the law or not?

I want to start by saying I don't consider myself a Trump 'supporter', and I'm not a lawyer, but to answer the question..

There's variables involved..

First observe the question is framed with the presumption the order is 'unlawful', as opposed to a 'real' assessment of a very dynamic situation, where those military personnel must determine if they're being targeted with military-style IO disinformation propaganda, in an effort to destabilize and demoralize their own official operations, or any individual inclinations to rally support.

In our case,
The sitting President had multiple reasonable questions about the legitimacy of the 'election', and from the outside, watching the 'counting' stop for a couple days, and then suddenly move in favor of the DNC, a party that recently went to court to justify they had no responsibility to be objective or fair, to their own 'voters'.. It seems reasonable, a legitimate government Congress or really any investigative structure, would want to investigate.

That didn't happen.

We the People, were hit with 'news' that the President didn't have the right, to declare martial law or invoke the Insurrection Act.. but is that correct? *If, there was election fraud, and it was going without challenge, what exactly *are the options available to ensure there is opportunity to investigate fully?

'but they failed every court challenge..'

Sure, but look closer at what that actually 'means'.. In the couple months between the 'election' and January 6th, it's supposed every single possible piece of evidence, is in hand and available, without any official assistance from our substantial investigative institutions.

Each court situation was unique, but examples include GA., the 'judge' was related to a political adversary and ought to have recused herself immediately. Still others used technicalities to refuse to even review the evidence.. and the MSM loved the 'judge' who made a mockery of legitimate demands that 'observers' actually be close enough to 'observe'..

In this 'election' where We were told for months to expect a landslide 15% beat for Biden, the *actual (apparent) numbers in some key states, was *less than, 1%.
https://www.politico.com/2020-election/results/arizona/
https://www.politico.com/2020-election/results/georgia/
https://www.politico.com/2020-election/results/pennsylvania/

The best that corporate MSM could come up with, was 'no significant evidence of election fraud' on repeat.. (See 'Command Message'.. then ask, who's in 'command'?)
For example, Washington Post, who recently (*after the damage was done), printed a retraction for false information used against Trump regarding his Georgia phone calls..
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/12/14/there-is-not-has-not-been-any-credible-evidence-significant-fraud-2020-election/

Thinking people, would be demanding the President's allegations be investigated, for example, the truck driver delivering ballots across state lines in a manner that didn't allow for provable chain of custody.

Then there's the 'recounts'.. 'Recounting doesn't do anything when the 'votes' being counted, were already corrupted. (here's where I was drawing comparisons to the Joseph Stalin quote about '..who counts the votes', and within two days, MSM was using it, in reference to the President..)

We were inundated with MSM telling us, everything the President said, was 'false', before they themselves had a hold of what complaints even existed.. To this day, every single MSM report will begin with 'Trump's false claims'.. (see famous Nazi propaganda lesson quote)
Not one corporate MSM source, including those traditionally conservative leaning like FOX, even entertained the possibility the electoral count could have been falsified.

Then our sitting President, and many of his supporters, were publicly discredited without evidence, (or through straw man arguments such that because a person espoused Q-spiracy crap, any *other arguments they held must be equally invalid).

Corporate sabotage even literally silenced both the People, and the President. (so much for the the People's 'right' to dissent. That alone, is a violence-worthy corporate slap in the face to any American claiming to value Civil 'Rights' like freedom of speech, in any way.. and no, the, 'they're not government, and not subject to the Constitution', is horse crap to any thinking person.

Possibly the most vulgar admission (so far) of coordinated efforts against the President (and by extension, all of Us), was the TIME story here https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/

By the time January 6th came:
-corporate MSM 'declared' Biden the 'winner' despite no official investigation of any claims of possible election fraud.

-there was zero official government effort to investigate the President's claims. (although MSM was prepared, with allegations that the 'President's DOJ' wasn't impartial.. even though by all examples, it's true, the DOJ was biased, but *against, the President.)

-congress intended to conduct the Electoral College 'count' regardless of the President's claims, and regardless of the petition of untold numbers of Americans, who deserve answers, from a 'legitimate' 'representative' government.

-the President, and many others, were silenced on social media, with the 'justification' of ensuring public safety.. *NOTE: The Founders listed freedom of speech, first of our Civil 'Rights', for a reason, and knew it was worth going to war, to guarantee.

-the President spoke to supporters (later proven to have been intentionally falsified and or misrepresented by both the MSM and house democrats, in the 2nd Impeachment 'trial'..)
You'll probably recall MSM focusing on the use of the term 'fight' in political rhetoric, but the *most valuable take away, went mostly ignored.. The full context of exactly what the President said, that was being cut in a way to try to justify the "Incitement of Insurrection" 'charge'.
*NOTE: He starts with his own propaganda video, then calls out the prosecution propaganda, but, at 14:35
19:47 "you have to get your people to fight" edited.
22:30 "false in one thing, false in everything"

https://www.c-span.org/video/?508916-3/impeachment-trial-day-4-part-2

As you hear what was actually said, vs. what the MSM and DNC presented to the American people, further keep in mind, despite provable facts, a biased congress allowed themselves to make a partisan political decision to impeach anyway. *I submit, that is not the act of 'legitimate' government.

Despite what most MSM says, those who attended the alleged Trump insurrection speech, weren't a 'single' unit, group. The presumed 'intent' of *everyone present, was 'insurrection'. Presumably, you'd have to ask each individual, what their 'intent' was, that day.

Each, having 'their day in court' is great (presuming the arrests were justified in the first place), but one, can not, because her 'rights' to due process, were stripped from her, while she was unarmed. She was at least related to military law enforcement, and would reasonably 'know' her actions didn't warrant a lethal response.

The greatest threat to our nation, was the circumstances surrounding the only shot fired during the 'insurrection', the murder of Ashli Babbitt. Follow me here, to understand why I cite this as a national disgrace, *most dangerous precedent, never before seen since before the founding of our nation.

Ashli Babbit was unarmed, a political adversary to congress-'protester', invited by the President, to the Capitol 'of the People', trying to enter doors that I'm not convinced should've been locked in the first place, when a single officer, (possibly with congressional unlawful orders) made no effort to arrest her (due process), they went straight to execution. On it's face, that's horrendous.

Then congress and the incoming administration with support of corporate mainstream media, named her 'terrorist', and sanctioned the murder.

Then the 'Justice' Department, declared there would be no charges or identification of the officer, and that his actions under duress weren't illegal. Apparently the DOJ ignored a few things, including the fact the shooter rolled the fingers of his support hand, prior to engaging. That (to me at least) suggests forethought.. That it wasn't an instant 'snap' response to a legitimate threat.

'but she was warned'

No, listening to the video, police aren't heard issuing any verbal warning.. Even if they had, that presupposes police are authorized to use lethal force on unarmed Americans.

Well with that precedent, now police *are authorized to use lethal force against *all unarmed American political adversary protesters.

The D.C. police chief and D.C. National Guard twitter feeds mentioned having briefings to change their Rules of Engagement (ROE)/ Rules for the Use of Force (RUF) after that, without disclosure of what 'changed', but presumably with observation to that precedent.

To this day, Americans are paying for an Army of occupation, to 'guard' the Capitol 'of the People', against, 'the People' (taxation without representation; 3rd and 4th Amendment violations?)

I submit none of those, are the acts of 'legitimate' 'representative' government.

Getting back to the January 6th crowd.. Some other questions..

*Did the crowd have (reasonable) cause to believe their government was about to fall to a DNC insurrection? *I submit, the government gave them no reason to doubt it, through investigation of the President's allegations of possible election fraud.

*Even worst case scenario, saying everyone present intended to somehow physically, 'stop the steal'.. hypothetically, *is a physical resistance to insurrection or subversion of the intent of the Constitution, an insurrection?

*is it legitimate to call a group of primarily unarmed gun-owners, 'insurrectionists'? (only one known, possibly off-duty police officer, was armed).

*is it 'legitimate' to criminalize a group of American citizens, their presence, and right to peaceably assemble to air grievances, in the 'hallowed' Capitol 'of the People', especially after 'representatives' denied them those 'rights', and while they're there by Presidential invite?

*I submit, in hindsight, the President should have done more to ensure the People could confidently believe a legitimate transfer of power was about to occur. (through official investigation)

*NOTE: by my best estimate, the entire concept of a 'peaceful transfer of power' is both, a relatively recent social construct, and presupposes no illegitimate transfer, which every American has a duty to resist, and militia must resist with all force necessary.

*NOTE: It would also be my best estimate, that the obligation to 'peaceably assemble' presupposes Civil 'Rights' aren't being oppressed, and that our Founders actions are *the best example for what they deemed worth going to war to protect.

Do any of you have the moral courage to agree with those two points? (of course, if you disagree, feel free to explain any faults in my reasoning)

Given the extremely questionable circumstances surrounding the 2020 'election' as a whole, and congress and the DOJ ignoring the petition of '75 million' Americans, not to mention the President, he may well have been within his rights to call up the militia of every state, along with specific direction for the DOJ, to secure and ensure a fair 'vote count'.

"Treason doth never prosper, what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it Treason." - John Harington

We are Myanmar right now, just untested. Let that sink in, and tell me I'm wrong.

So finally to answer the original question, under these current conditions, where I believe we may very well be operating under an illegitimate government, I would actively support *any action toward guaranteeing for the People, a free and fair election result was achieved, consistent with Constitutional intent; fully understanding, I would be named by likely criminals and conspirators, as a 'terrorist', with all that entails.

It is my duty as an American service member to ignore, not follow, and report such an order.

Maybe the question should be, would you obey a president if it's found through an election audit that he really didn't win?? Then what??

Methinks some Democratic Communist is trying to smoke out the real Patriots…

Yes

I swore my oath to this country and the Constitution, not to any sitting President. If the President gives an order that is Not Constitutional, we have an obligation to the people and the Constitution to disobey it.

Not, but I think more clarity needs to be shed on what “looses an election” means. Mainly was the election fairly and correctly administered in all areas according to established election laws without any election tampering or non-citizen voting being counted in the election results?