Sedition, the Oath, and the Power of My Vote

Sedition is not a vague construct; it has a clear meaning. 

It’s conduct or speech that incites rebellion against the authority of the government, often involving efforts to undermine or overthrow established constitutional order. In U.S. law, it’s treated as a serious crime, reflected in statutes like 18 U.S.C. § 2384, which addresses conspiracies to use force against the government or its laws.

With that in mind, let’s talk plainly about what happened on January 6, 2021.

On that day, the man who served as the 45th President stood before a crowd and told them, “If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” Those words weren’t delivered in a vacuum. They came in the context of weeks of lies about a stolen election, directed at a crowd already primed to believe that their government had been illegitimately seized.

What followed was, in any ordinary sense of the word, a rebellion against the authority of the government: a mob storming the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to stop the lawful counting of electoral votes. That day was not a protest that got out of hand. It was an attempt, however chaotic and poorly organized, to derail a constitutional process by force and intimidation.

In my view, that’s exactly the kind of conduct people should have in mind when they use the word sedition.

A Second Injury: Pardoning the Rebellion

Fast-forward to the same individual now serving as the 47th President. One of his first acts in office was to pardon or commute the sentences of nearly 1,300 people convicted for their seditious roles in that assault on the Capitol, roughly half of whom were incarcerated at the time.

Think about what that says:

• The attack was aimed at stopping a lawful constitutional process.
• The people involved were investigated, charged, prosecuted, and convicted in courts of law.
• Then, almost as soon as political power shifted back into the hands of the very man whose rhetoric fueled the attack, those convictions were wiped away or softened.

That may not be sedition in the strict technical, legal sense, but it absolutely undermines accountability for a violent attack on our democratic process. It sends a message that loyalty to one man is more important than loyalty to the Constitution and the rule of law. To me, that’s a second blow against our system—different in form, but similar in spirit to the first.

Lawful and Unlawful Orders: What the UCMJ Actually Says

Now we come to the latest twist. A small group of six members of Congress recently emphasized a very basic fact about military service:

Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), service members are obligated to obey lawful orders—and they are not obligated for carrying out unlawful ones. In fact they can be punished.

• Article 92 criminalizes the failure` to obey lawful orders or regulations.
• Article 90 criminalizes willful disobedience of a superior commissioned officer—again, assuming the order is lawful.

Courts and military practice have long recognized that an order is lawful only if it:

• Serves a valid military purpose,
• Is clear and specific, and
• Does not conflict with U.S. law or the Constitution.

This is not a radical idea; it’s basic military ethics and long-standing law. Service members are not supposed to be unthinking tools. They swear an oath to the Constitution, not to a particular president.

These members of Congress simply pointed out that if a president issues an illegal order, military members not only have no duty to follow it—they may have a duty to refuse. That’s not sedition. That’s a reminder of the legal and moral structure that keeps our military under constitutional control instead of personal control.

Yet the very same man who once incited a crowd that went on to attack the Capitol now wants to label this reminder as “sedition.” To me, that doesn’t reveal strength; it reveals fear—fear that someone might refuse to carry out an unlawful command.

The Oath: Bedrock of the Republic

Both military members and members of Congress swear an oath:

To support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

That oath is the bedrock of our democracy. It is not an oath of personal loyalty to a president, a party, or a movement. It is an oath to the Constitution itself.

So when elected officials or officers remind us that unlawful orders must not be followed, they are not undermining the country. They are doing exactly what their oath requires—insisting that no one, not even the president, stands above the law.

My Vote, My Voice

Here’s something else that doesn’t count as sedition: disagreeing with the current administration.

Having a different opinion than the president does not make me a “domestic enemy.” Criticizing decisions, policies, or rhetoric is not rebellion; it’s part of my duty as a citizen paying attention.

As a registered voter, I have a quiet but powerful tool:
I can walk into a polling place, step into a booth, and express my opinion in complete secrecy with my vote.

That vote:

• Might be seen as a “threat” by those who want obedience instead of accountability.
• Might upset those who prefer a strongman over a constitutional system.
• Might annoy people who think loyalty to a leader should override loyalty to the law.

But in a healthy democracy, that’s exactly how it’s supposed to work.

My opinion, expressed through my ballot, is not sedition. It is my right, my responsibility, and one of the last clear ways I can say:

I stand with the Constitution, not with any one man.

And I intend to keep using that power as long as I draw breath.

So when a man who should easily have been convicted of sedition. Who has been convicted as a felon; decides to call people who are upholding their oaths, the UCMJ, and our Constitution, “seditious”, it lands like an insult to every one of us who ever swore an oath. In my opinion (and I’ve got plenty), we need more people who stand firmly to their oaths and the Constitution and a lot fewer folks like old Number 47 and his cadre of grifters...

ANTIFA Really...

Re: On “designating Antifa” and claims about foreign-funded political violence

Thanks for writing. I have three concerns with your message: (1) it treats “Antifa” as a unitary group with command-and-control; (2) it asserts a domestic “terrorist organization” designation solves a legal problem it does not; and (3) it claims foreign financing of “Antifa” without evidence.

1) “Antifa” is not a singular organization

• The FBI Director told Congress that “antifa is an ideology, not an organization.” That’s sworn testimony from Director Christopher Wray. AP News

• Independent explainers (drawing on CRS and ADL) describe antifa as a decentralized movement with no formal leadership or hierarchy — loose networks and individuals, not a chartered group you can “list” like al-Qaeda. Reuters

When we pretend an amorphous tendency is a single, tightly run group, we invite both over-broad policing and sloppy intelligence work.

2) “Domestic terrorist organization” designations are not how U.S. law works

• The State Department can designate Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) under the Immigration and Nationality Act. There is no parallel legal list for purely domestic groups. That’s why for years, experts across the spectrum explained the U.S. cannot simply “designate” a domestic movement. State Department

• I recognize that, on Sept. 22, 2025, the White House announced an order purporting to designate “Antifa” as a domestic terrorist organization. But national-security law groups have already flagged that move as legally questionable, precisely because “Antifa” lacks organizational contours and U.S. law doesn’t provide a domestic-listing framework. Courts will ultimately decide the order’s effect. Reuters

If the goal is to prosecute violent crimes, existing federal and state statutes (weapons, conspiracy, arson, assault on federal officers, etc.) already provide ample authority — without bending designation law built for foreign groups.

3) “Foreign financiers” and organized funding claims require evidence — none has been shown

• Repeated government briefings and reporting over the last several years have not substantiated claims that a centrally run “Antifa” receives foreign funding. Reuters’ backgrounders and FBI testimony stress the movement’s leaderless nature, which makes the “foreign financier” frame implausible without new, public evidence. Reuters

• If there is credible, declassified evidence of foreign state financing of specific violent plots, it should be presented — not asserted. Absent that, claims of “foreign promotion of political violence” should focus on actual foreign actors (e.g., documented malign influence and election-interference efforts) rather than a domestic label. See ODNI/DHS/DOJ assessments on foreign interference: real, but distinct from your Antifa claim. intel.gov

4) Political violence isn’t owned by one ideology

• High-quality datasets (CSIS) show the domestic terror landscape has varied over time and across motives; right-wing, left-wing, and jihadist-inspired actors have all committed violence. The consistent point is plurality, not monopoly by “antifa.” CSIS

• During the 2020 protest wave, ACLED found the vast majority of demonstrations were peaceful; violent events were the exception — which argues for precise, offender-based prosecutions rather than movement-wide labeling. ACLED

5) Constructive next steps

• Focus on chargeable conduct (assaults, weapons, arson, conspiracy) rather than a label so vague it sweeps in lawful dissent. That keeps prosecutions tight and constitutional. (See the legal critiques of the September 2025 order.) Brennan Center for Justice

• If your office has specific intelligence indicating foreign state financing of identifiable U.S. violent plots, please release the unclassified basis or brief constituents with as much detail as possible. Otherwise, let’s not conflate online rumor with evidence. Reuters

I support vigorous prosecution of violence whoever commits it — left, right, or apolitical — and equally vigorous protection of peaceful speech and assembly. That approach is truer to the rule of law than trying to turn a diffuse ideology into a foreign terrorist organization.

My Cousin Kent Christopher

 Kent Christopher passed away on Oct. 2nd.  You can read his obituary here 
(https://www.maupinfuneralhome.com/obituaries/Stephen-Kent-Christopher?obId=45814312#/obituaryInfo). His son, Shaun reached out to me and asked if I would be willing to speak about Kent during the funeral.  Here is what I came up with and of course there was some adlibbing, but this is very close to what I shared.

Remarks for Kent’s Funeral

I’m honored to be asked to share a few words about my cousin Kent. Please realize these are my recollections, and sometimes that doesn’t match anyone else’s reality.

When Shaun told me that Kent thought of me as a brother — I understood that completely. My Dad and three of his siblings each had just one child, so for me, my cousins weren’t just cousins. They were more like brothers and sisters.

Kent was four years younger than me — I’m 71 now — so we go way back. When we were boys, we spent a lot of time together… staying over at each other’s houses, wrestling, arguing, making each other mad — and just as quick, well not always just as quick, making up again. You know… brother stuff.

We both went to McIntire elementary school together for a little bit. Often we’d walk to my house after school. Kent’s family moved around a bit —Auxvasse, Effingham, and Oklahoma City as I recall — but we stayed close. I visited them wherever they were. And his mom, Ethel, well… she was like another mother to me.

One of my favorite memories goes back to the mid-sixties, when CB radios and walkie-talkies were all the rage. Kent and I decided we’d start our own radio station. We set up shop right there in the living room. I had a record player and a stack of 45s. We’d hold the walkie-talkie up to the speaker, play songs, make announcements, and even deliver “news.” We thought we were real DJs. Looking back, I think that might’ve been one of the happiest times we ever had together — just two kids with big imaginations having a blast.

Another memory was the summer of ’69. I went down to Oklahoma City to stay with them. Kent had this sweet little Yamaha motorcycle, and there was a spot nearby where we could ride, kinda like a dirt flat track. That summer, his folks — Richard and Ethel — took us on a road trip to California to visit family. We stopped in Las Vegas along the way, naturally, and checked out this brand-new casino called Circus Circus. My job was to keep an eye on Kent and stay out of trouble — I was 15, he was 11… neither job was easy! But we found the upper deck that had an arcade full of cheap games, and we thought we’d struck gold. The trip included Disneyland. It was a magical summer…

Life moved on, as it does. About seven years later, I left Missouri, and we didn’t see each other as much for a while. Kent became an over-the-road truck driver, got married, and had two wonderful children — Mary and Shaun. From what I saw family meant the world to him. Likewise I know he always carried a deep love for his mom, Ethel.

When I eventually moved back to Missouri, we started talking more often again. Our conversations were always a mix of catching up and storytelling. Kent had a mind like a steel trap — he could remember every name, every place, and every detail. I’ll admit, half the time I didn’t know who he was talking about! But that didn’t matter. He’d laugh when the story was funny, grumble when something got under his skin, and light up when he talked about his grandson, Sawyer. You could just hear how proud he was, how much he loved his family.

Now, Kent could be stubborn — and I say that with love. I read somewhere that stubbornness sometimes comes from fear, and maybe there’s truth in that. But it can also come from strength — from caring deeply, from wanting to do things the right way. That what I remember about Kent.

For much of my life, he was the closest thing I had to a brother. And I’m going to miss him — deeply.

But I take comfort in knowing that he’s now reunited with his mom and dad, and his Grandparents. I know he missed them terribly. And now they’re together again.

Rest easy, cousin. You’ll always be family — always my brother in spirit…

We drove down to Fulton today (10/10/25) for the graveside service. On the way I got a call from Shaun, the minister that officiated the Thursday night funeral service was having trouble with his powered wheel chair and couldn't get to the Central Christian Church graveyard.  Would I be willing to say a prayer.  The second time in less than 24 hours that I was given the gift of the chance to show up, much like the countless times Kent's Mom showed up for me.  What follows is what I could come up with between Williamsburg and the church.

Graveside Service for Kent

Good morning everyone.  I consider everyone here family and am honored to be asked to help. Thank you all for being here today as we lay Kent to rest. Your presence — family, friends, and those who knew him through the years — is a reminder of how many lives he touched.
We gather not just in grief, but in gratitude — for the time we had with him, and for the ways he made each of our lives a little better.

We gather not just in grief, but in gratitude — for the time we had with him, and for the ways he made each of our lives a little better..

Kent was a good man — steady, humble, and kind-hearted. He had that quiet strength that didn’t need to announce itself. The kind of man who’d show up when you needed help, stay until the job was done, and never expect a thank you. He had a quick wit and a soft heart — and somehow managed to be both practical and full of mischief at the same time.
Folks like Kent make the world better just by being themselves.

It's too long ago to pin down a time frame, but I probably wouldn't be as good a swimmer as I am without Kent.  One summer Ethel singed Kent up for the Red Cross swimming lessons at the city park pool.  As luck would have it, Kent had an accident and got some stitches in his knee.  Ethel asked if I wanted to take Kent's place and of course I jumped at the chance. I've never been overly fond of swimming, jumping into deep water still takes my breath away for a moment. Because of Kent, and Ethel, I can calm down and apply the knowledge that those lessons provided me.

Read the 23rd Psalm

As we say goodbye today, let’s hold on to those moments — the laughter, the work done side by side, the quiet talks. Kent’s gone from our sight, but not from our hearts.
And I believe he’s at peace — reunited with loved ones, free of pain, and resting in the care of a loving God.

I closed with the Lord's Prayer

When Soldiers Patrol Main Street, Liberty Is Under Siege

I wore the uniform of this nation, served to the best of my ability. And in my years overseas, I saw what it looks like when armed soldiers stand on street corners with rifles at the ready. It does not protect the people—it frightens them. It does not symbolize freedom—it screams control. It is not safety—it is intimidation.

And now I see the same thing happening here, in the United States of America—the very land that claims to be “the land of the free.” Soldiers and military-grade weapons on our own streets. Let’s call it what it is: an attempt to cow the public into silence and submission.

This is not patriotism. This is not liberty. This is the ugly face of fear masquerading as security. We, the people, did not sacrifice generations of service and blood so that our cities could be turned into armed encampments.

Every rifle slung across a soldier’s chest on Main Street is a slap in the face to the Constitution. Every display of military force against citizens is a betrayal of the freedoms we swore to defend.

If we tolerate this, we are not “free.” We are being managed, manipulated, and kept in check by the very symbols of power that once stood as our defense. And let me be clear: there is no safety, no justice, and no future in an America that turns its military inward against its own people.

The “Big Beautiful” Bill Is a National Tragedy in the Making

My opinion and what I am sending to my Senators...

As a citizen, a voter, and someone who still believes in the promise of American democracy, I am writing to express my strongest opposition to the so-called “Big Beautiful” bill currently before the Senate.

Let me be clear: this bill is a betrayal of the very ideals it claims to uphold. Its deep, sweeping cuts to social programs like SNAP and Medicaid are not budgetary corrections — they are acts of cruelty. Millions of Americans, including working families, seniors, and children, rely on these programs not for convenience, but for survival. Slashing them is not fiscal responsibility; it is moral failure.

But the threat runs deeper. Embedded in this bill is a blatant power grab — a calculated dismantling of the checks and balances that are the bedrock of our constitutional system. Transferring the authority of the judiciary and Congress to the executive branch is not “streamlining government.” It is the blueprint for authoritarian rule.

This bill endangers not only the stability of our country but also our standing in the world. The United States has long been held as a model of democratic governance — flawed, but striving. If this bill becomes law, we forfeit that legacy.

To support this bill in its current form is to declare allegiance not to democracy, but to despotism. No one who votes for it can rightly call themselves a patriot. Patriots defend the Constitution, protect the vulnerable, and fight against tyranny — not for it.

Senator, your job is not to rubber-stamp power. It is to stand guard over it. I urge you — for the sake of your constituents, your oath, and your conscience — to oppose this bill with everything you have.

History will remember who stood for democracy, and who stood silent...