November 26, 2025
NOTE: This Article is for education and opinion purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. All readers should consult their own attorneys.
Part of being a righteous, honest, and fair presidential leader, is being able to stand up and seek Justice for all the people in the land that you preside over whether they are from your political party or from an opposing political party, whether they agree with your beliefs or whether they are staunchly against your beliefs.
I voted for President Trump, something I am in hindsight beginning to deeply regret, albeit I feel I had very little choice at the time. In my speech, entitled, "The Speech That Can Save America", as well as in my book, The Republicrat - A Plea To Humanity," I warned that while I didn't feel Kamila Harris was the right pick for commander-in-chief, neither did I believe President Trump was the right pick for Commander in Chief because he would be far too divisive for the country.
That concern in prediction has proven to be painfully true and ever so evident given that the political division in our country is at the greatest level of hate it has ever been in history.
Certain members of the Republican party which I voted for, the members of the Trump administration, which I was at one point thrilled and excited for their arrival in office, have spewed primarily hatred towards the Democratic party.
In the Trump administration, many consider themselves Christians. Every last one of them who have spewed hatred towards members of the Democratic party seem to forget OR have no idea that they are on their way to hell.
The Bible is clear, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is clear in his command, love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself.
President Trump, if you haven't noticed, is becoming more and more unhinged and spewing more and more hateful rhetoric towards Democrats despite the fact that the Bible says to love your enemies. President Trump and Republicans think that Jesus Christ is somehow going to overlook the hateful words that come out of their mouth but they will be sadly mistaken on the day they stand before Jesus Christ and they will be cast in the lake of fire where there is weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth if they do not repent.
When Trump was first elected, I vaguely recall him declaring that he is not just the president of Republicans but president of Democrats as well and I thought he pledged to serve Democrats as well as Republicans.
Unfortunately, while claiming to be a Christian, President Trump has done little more for Democrats than call them harsh names and blame them for every problem the United States has. He repeatedly refers to Democrats as left wing lunatics. He increasingly uses rhetoric that is divisive and full of hate. This is not to say that Democrats have not responded with divisive and hateful rhetoric as well. But a president must be above that type of behavior and show love and respect for all parties and citizens which he/She presides over. Republicans, being the party and power, must also rise above divisive and hateful rhetoric and work to be friendly and showing love toward their Democratic neighbors. Dearly beloved citizens of the United states, this is the will of God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Currently, there seems to be a twitter/X campaign a foot spreading misinformation and lies, most of which comes from alleged members of the military or former military, calling for the arrest of six senators who put out a recent video that this campaign deems seditious or treasonous.
This unrighteous and unholy campaign refers to these six senators as "the seditious six."; Those senators are named Elissa Slotkin, Mark Kelly, Chris Deluzio, Maggie Goodlander, Chrissy Houlahan, and Jason Crow. They put out a video reminding members of our United States military that they are obligated not to follow unlawful orders citing the UCMJ. The UCMJ stands for the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Again, I voted for Trump. But Trump is growing more and more out of control! This was most recently demonstrated in his unhinged social media rants calling for the arrest, imprisonment, and death of these six senators planning with they have committed treason and falsely alleging that these six senators were encouraging members of the military to disobey his orders when that is not what they said at all. President Trump because of these unhinged and completely reckless social media rants, is solely responsible for the Twitter/X campaign that followed by members of the military who have joined President Trump's false accusations in this regard.
The argument that this campaign uses from what I can see holds to 2 main arguments.
1. "Sure these six senators are claiming they are only reminding members of our military to disobey unlawful orders. But everybody in the military already knows that therefore, since there are no unlawful orders, the only purpose for putting out such a video is to spread doubt in the minds of members of the military and therefore that doubt will cause them to disobey lawful orders"
I am sorry that this campaign feels that members of the military are smart enough to know the UCMJ allows them to disobey unlawful orders but yet they're somehow not smart enough to avoid being swayed into disobeying lawful orders?
The second point this campaign seems to rely on is:
2. "The military can call senator Mark Kelly back to active duty and face a court-martial under the UCMJ for treason because of the statements he made in the video while he was not only retired from the military, but also a sitting senator."
Contrary to what this campaign claims, first that there are no unlawful order being given to members of the US military by President Trump, that has been proven false. There are indeed recent court rulings that a deployment by Donald Trump of troops to certain states or cities was unlawful.
For example: A U.S. District Court in California ruled that Trump’s use of the National Guard in Los Angeles violated the Posse Comitatus Act (1878), because the troops were used for arrests, crowd-control and other civilian law-enforcement tasks rather than simply protecting federal property or functions.
Another court ruling found that Trump lacked a lawful basis to federalize the Guard and deploy them to Portland, Oregon, for civil-law enforcement functions.
Yet, again, a federal judge also ruled that Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops in Washington, D.C., without a request from local authorities, lacked legal authority.
So yes — the courts have found that at least some of those deployments overstepped legal boundaries. Those were indeed extraordinary and unlawful orders given by a commander in chief and they are in addition to a series of unlawful orders the same Commander in Chief has given to his administration to carry out only to result in courts ruling those orders unlawful.
Finally, there's no case law supporting calling senator Mark Kelly out of military retirement and trying him for treason via a military tribunal under the UCMJ for his involvement in making the video encouraging members of the military not to follow unlawful orders and reminding them that this reminder was supported by the UCMJ.
Below are the strongest cases showing that courts have repeatedly rejected attempts to punish retired service members under the UCMJ for speech or political expression:
1. United States v. Hooper, 26 C.M.R. 417 (C.M.A. 1958) Retirees may be under UCMJ jurisdiction in theory, but cannot be punished for mere words or political opinions absent a direct threat to discipline.
2. Larrabee v. Del Toro, 45 F.4th 81 (D.C. Cir. 2022) Retirees may be court-martialed only for true military offenses. Political speech remains fully protected by the First Amendment.
3. United States v. Dinger, 77 M.J. 447 (C.A.A.F. 2018) Retirees retain full constitutional rights. Using the UCMJ to punish speech would raise serious First Amendment and separation-of-powers problems.
4. Barker v. Kansas, 503 U.S. 594 (1992) Retirees are not a separate class lacking constitutional protections. They must be treated as “not performing active military duties.”
5. United States v. Begani, 81 M.J. 273 (C.A.A.F. 2021) Court reaffirmed strict limits on applying the UCMJ to retirees. Political speech clearly remains outside military jurisdiction.
6. United States v. Howe, 37 C.M.R. 429 (C.M.A. 1967) Foundational speech case: political criticism of government/military is protected, even for active-duty personnel. This protection is even stronger for retirees.
Scholarly consensus: “The UCMJ does not allow court-martial of retirees for political speech.” — Military Law Review (2023).
“Attempts to prosecute retired service members for speech would fail under the First Amendment.” — Harvard National Security Journal (2022)
The bottom Line seems to clearly be that there is no case in U.S. history where a retired service member was successfully court-martialed for political speech. Every attempt has failed or been dropped due to clear constitutional limits. Thus, the argument that the military could “recall Mark Kelly and charge him” is legally impossible.
@bennyjohnson posted the following:
"Former Navy JAG Lawyer and Federal Prosecutor @donbrownfornc Don Brown says @SenMarkKelly May Face The Death Penalty, Breaks Down Exactly How He Would Prosecute Him: "For sedition, you could go all the way to the death penalty. That wouldn't happen here, but it is possible. He could also be prosecuted for treason." "If he is recalled, there will be an investigation, a commander will appoint an investigating officer to look at what he said and what the others have said, and determine whether or not there's probable cause that he has violated one of the articles. If the decision is made to prosecute him, there will be a general court-martial convening authority." "There are about six different articles that come to mind. Article 94, which prevents Mutiny and Sedition. Article 88 prevents disrespect or contempt against the commander-in-chief. Article 134, he's undermining good order and discipline. Those three are grounds for investigation, calling him back and subjecting him to a general court-martial."
JAG lawyers can say anything on YouTube and I WELCOME Don's response to anything I write here — but courts decide what is legally possible.
And every relevant court ruling contradicts what Don said.
So, let’s break it down carefully, point-by-point, with no emotion — only law.
1. Brown's argument requires ignoring the Constitution.
For the military to “recall” Mark Kelly for political speech, you would have to overcome:
The First Amendment
The Speech & Debate Clause (Article I, Section 6)
Separation of powers
Long-standing Supreme Court precedent
All existing UCMJ appellate decisions on retirees & speech
No JAG lawyer — not even the Judge Advocate General of the Navy — has legal authority to override those.
2. The cases PROVING he is wrong (which I already cited):
- Hooper — retirees cannot be punished for speech unless it directly threatens military discipline
- Dinger — retirees retain full constitutional rights
- Larrabee — UCMJ jurisdiction is narrow; political speech protected
- Begani — retirees still cannot be prosecuted for speech
- Barker v. Kansas — retirees are NOT in active-duty status
- Howe — political dissent is protected, even for ACTIVE DUTY officers
Every one of those conflicts with what the JAG lawyer claimed.
He is presenting a theoretical, not legal, argument.
3. His claim requires something illegal:
Recalling a sitting U.S. Senator into military custody.
This violates:
-Separation of powers
-Article I legislative immunity
-Precedent from Gravel v. United States
-Precedent from Doe v. McMillan
Supreme Court precedent that Congress members cannot be prosecuted or detained for political speech
A court would dismiss it immediately.
4. His specific UCMJ articles do NOT apply — and he knows it.
Article 94 — Mutiny & Sedition
This requires:
organizing violence,
overthrowing command, or
forcing change by force.
Mark Kelly did NONE of these.
No court has EVER applied Article 94 to political speech.
Article 88 — Contempt toward officials
Article 88 applies ONLY to:
commissioned officers
on ACTIVE DUTY
Retirees are NOT subject to Article 88 for political statements, per Hooper, Dinger, and Begani.
Also — Kelly didn’t insult Trump.
He gave a legal reminder citing the UCMJ.
Article 134 — Good order and discipline
Courts have ruled repeatedly that:
Political speech cannot be prosecuted under Article 134.
See Howe (anti-war political speech — overturned), Parker v. Levy (strict limits), Dinger, Larrabee.
Article 134 has NEVER been applied to a speech by a retiree about constitutional obligations.
5. He ignores binding Supreme Court protections for a sitting Senator.
The Speech & Debate Clause gives:
absolute immunity from arrest, questioning, or prosecution for any legislative or political speech. This also calls the FBI into question for even attempting to interview these senators which is also an abuse of power under the 1st amendment chilling these senators' 1st amendment speech.
Kelly’s statement was explicitly constitutional & legislative in nature.
This alone kills the entire argument.
6. He is giving a hypothetical that is legally impossible.
He is describing PROCEDURE — not LEGALITY. Essentially, he’s saying: “IF the military recalled him, and IF they investigated him, and IF they found probable cause… then they COULD court-martial him."
That’s like saying: “IF Batman was real, and IF he ran for office, he COULD be elected President.”
Benny, I love ya brother, but your guest is putting forth a conditional fantasy. He is presenting a hypothetical chain of events that cannot legally begin.
7. Even his premise contradicts itself. He admits: “For sedition, you could go all the way to the death penalty. That wouldn’t happen here.”
He is acknowledging that the law would never allow it — but he keeps the “death penalty” language to shock viewers. That is rhetoric, not law.
8. His interpretation contradicts current congressional legal advisors, DOJ precedent, military appellate courts, and all constitutional scholars.
NO military prosecutor in America today could bring this charge.
NO military judge would allow it.
NO district court would accept it.
NO appellate court would sustain it unless of course, "The fix" is in place! i.e. A conspiracy to violate Kelly's rights despite the law and maliciously prosecute Kelly, which "Malicious Prosecution" is a tort in and of itself.
The Supreme Court would crush it.
9. Bottom Line Interpretation (Truth in One Sentence):
The JAG lawyer is giving a dramatic “what if” scenario that has zero legal grounding, contradicts Supreme Court precedent, contradicts military appellate rulings, and contradicts constitutional limits on executive power.
10. I could be wrong but if so, I sure don't see it, so my takeaway 1st amendment opinion is this:
Case law agrees with this.
The Constitution agrees with this.
The Supreme Court agrees with this.
Every UCMJ appellate court agrees with this.
This is why: No recall order has been issued.
No investigation exists.
No military authority has endorsed the idea
No legal expert outside fringe media is claiming it’s possible Because it’s not legally possible. Period.
I don't know if the CIA is behind all the propaganda posts calling for the charges of sedition, treason, and the death penalty against these 6 senators but the posts are ad nauseum and smack of a government encouraged conspiracy. But by now most Americans should be sick and tired of all the division and can't you all see the forces of darkness trying to divide us?
Now we conveniently have an Afghan national shooting and critically wounding 2 national Guard members in DC? Is this another MK-Ultra plant for a false flag? Oh Gee, Trump wants to add another 500 National Guard members to DC? How convenient! Folks if that was another false flag to justify adding 500 more troops illegally to our city streets DON'T YOU KNOW JESUS CHRIST AND GOD THE FATHER WILL HOLD YOU ACCOUNTABLE ON THE DAY OF JUDGMENT FOR DECIEVING THE PEOPLE AND WORKING WITCHCRAFT VIA MANIPULATON AND DECEPTION??? You will scream and beg for mercy on the day we all stand before God. If so, Please repent from this madness.
I have supported the Republicans on many issues including my belief that the January 6th event at the Capitol was a pre-planned and staged entrapment campaign as we are now learning. People need to know that was likely not just perpetrated by democrats but also the deep state, just as the deep state is involved now with this administration.
But on this subject of the six senators exercising their first amendment rights to make the video in question I believe Republicans have once again fallen into a trap fueled primarily by their own hate causing them to exaggerate the words spoken in the video and the purpose behind it, which has also caused Republicans and members of the military to falsely accuse these six senators of committing treason, sedition, and being Worthy of jail and eventually the death penalty.
My fellow Americans, this ought not to be. All those involved in this hatred and slander will go into the lake of fire with Satan and his fallen angels. I beg you all to repent!
May the Grace, Mercy, and Peace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you all.
In His Love,
WLBJ