WorldNetDaily cheered how the government and the military tried to retaliate against Sen. Mark Kelly for thte commonsense claim that members of the military are not required to follow illegal orders — even though WND itself egged on military man and birther obsessive Terry Lakin’s failed quest to refuse legal military orders by President Obama. When a court ruled in favor of Kelly, WND didn’t take it well, with Bob Unruh trying to dismiss the legitimacy of the court in a Feb. 12 article:
A judge at the entry level of the federal court system has prevented, for now, the Department of War from punishing Mark Kelly, a Democrat [sic] senator, for his “seditious” comments directed to the U.S. military.
The judge, Richard Leon, granted Kelly’s request for a preliminary injunction against War Secretary Pete Hegseth.
Kelly’s claim is that Hegseth is trying to punish him for “political speech.”
In fact, Kelly was part of a group of six Democrats in Congress who joined to make a video to members of the U.S. military insisting that they can “refuse illegal orders.”
They identified none, but the suggestion was that orders from President Donald Trump were, in fact, illegal.
Unruh made no mention of the fact that WND spent years insisting that Obama’s military orders were, in fact, illegal. He continued to whine about the court ruling:
The ruling blocks the Pentagon from taking any action, but the Trump administration has seen dozens of such rulings from district judges, and frequently is able to move forward with its plans after an appellate court reverses the lower court.
Kelly, in court, claimed, “The First Amendment forbids the government and its officials from punishing disfavored expression or retaliating against protected speech. That prohibition applies with particular force to legislators speaking on matters of public policy.”
The video was released on social media and sought to undermine the confidence members of the U.S. military would have in the command structure by talking about “illegal orders” without, of course, identifying any.
Again, Unruh failed to disclose how WND sought to undermine the confidence members of the U.S. military would have in the command structure under Obama.
When Hegseth sought to appeal the ruling, Unruh wrote in a Feb. 25 article:
War Secretary Pete Hegseth through the Department of Justice has appealed a court ruling that protects Sen. Mark Kelly, an outspoken anti-Trump senator from Arizona who, along with a bunch of other Democrats, engaged in what has been described as “seditious” talk.
The Washington Examiner said the fight over the comments by Kelly and others suggesting President Donald Trump was issuing “illegal” orders now has been escalated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Kelly earlier had been protected by Judge Richard Leon, who issued a preliminary ruling that the plans for punishment possibly violated Kelly’s speech rights.
[…]The Pentagon had cited the scandalous video comments in which Kelly and the others urged members of the U.S. military to disobey “illegal” orders, without identifying any.
Unruh refused to opine whether his employer was being similarly seditious in promoting Lakin’s faulty and failed claims.