Kansas (National) Guard heading to Egypt

AP: Kansas Guard heading to Egypt

I know this a Podunk local paper, but it's originally sourced from AP, and that's nowhere NEAR the point.

The Guard unit has reorganized from a maintenance company to one more suited for modern warfare and combat.

I would like to know why they are taking my brother's and sisters from my neighborhood, my state, or ANY state militia, 'reorganizing' them into combat companies and sending them off to some foreign land and setting them up to be killed.


Here is a link to the Charter of the National Guard

Article I, Section 8; Clause 15 tells what the grounds are for calling up the Guard. Clause 15 provides that the Congress has three constitutional grounds for calling up the militia -- "to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrection and repel invasions." All three standards appear to be applicable only to the Territory of the United States.

That reads pretty plainly to me. It is my opinion that this is yet another effort to limit any potential resistence from troops loyal to their hometowns and neighbors.

The Second Amendment "… a well-regulated militia [is] necessary to the security of a free State," and "…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The Second Amendment qualified Article I, Section 10 by ensuring that the federal government could not disarm the state militias. One part of the Bill of Rights, insisted on by the anti-federalists, states, "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

So, if we can't insure that the state's militias will enforce the will of the federal government, we will just send them off to someplace like Egypt and otherwise make sure they are far enough away that they cannot come to the aid of their neighbors.

This disgusts me to no end. When did the state's National Guards become fodder for the incessant appetite of the fed? Do you think that they are taking them out of the picture for some more sinister purpose?

Yeah what the hell? They're not called the National Guard for no reason.

They signed up to serve America, to guard America, not some foreign country or get called up overseas under the guise of 'serving America' When they're supposed to serve America... At home.

You're right, it's not in the best interests of the PTB to have soldiers who are loyal to their own people serving at home lest it bite back at them (The PTB) if it is ever decided that it is time to conquer America.

Egypt is a deployment?

How the hell do I get there?


You act as if they are going back to Iraq. They are going to play in the sand while getting deployment pay.

Relax.

reply to post by KSPigpen

I would like to know why they are taking my brother's and sisters from my neighborhood, my state, or ANY state militia, 'reorganizing' them into combat companies and sending them off to some foreign land and setting them up to be killed.

Because America is an Empire, and this is the sort of things that Empires do.

That reads pretty plainly to me. It is my opinion that this is yet another effort to limit any potential resistence from troops loyal to their hometowns and neighbors.

Probably not. In fact, anybody who mistrusts the government and its imperial agenda should hope and pray there is never any kind of local insurrection, especially involving National Guard units. That would be an even better excuse than 9/11 was to institute draconian laws, loyalty oaths, purge the military and do all sorts of other unpleasant things. I know, I know, "Loyal Americans with their guns and their freedom and their canned goods would take to the woods and attack the Evil Empire while yelling 'Wolverines!' " but, seriously. Any kind of "grassroots rebellion" would be squashed like a cockroach.

Oh, bonus. Any successful "revolution" would require funding and who would be able to fund such a revolution? Other Elites, displeased with the way the Elites currently in power are running things.

This disgusts me to no end. When did the state's National Guards become fodder for the incessant appetite of the fed? Do you think that they are taking them out of the picture for some more sinister purpose?

The article mentions that the last time the unit was called to active duty was in/around Baghdad several years ago. Out of curiosity, were you this upset back then, too? Maybe you were, maybe you weren't. Maybe you have good reasons. I'm just always curious to learn how much a person's political leanings in the illusory Right/Left divide of American politics colors how they react to stories like this.

Kansas needs to refuse this deployment. It is within the Governor's power to refuse to send National Guard out of the state. If they do not refuse up front, they cannot recall them home later.

There is one state that refused to send any Guard to Iraq. There is another state that is trying to get their Guard home from Iraq now, but they are losing!

I wish I had the other two stories handy. I think MA was one of the states.

Egypt is a training ground.

I went there myself on Op Brightstar.

Nothing to worry about.

Take care.

Regards
Lee

Yeah, any deployment of our guard, reservists, or even active duty military to anywhere is upsetting. I have a right to get upset, whether it's the intelligent thing to do or not, and it usually isn't.

I've done a little more research and found that it really doesn't matter what we call them. They are ALL just the military. They can all get called up any time someone decides to throw a little crap at a fan somewhere.

Although I thought the National Guard was the equivalent of the Militia, it's not. Apparently is just a different way of serving in the army. They could no more 'refuse' the deployment than any other active duty unit could. They would probably face charges of treason.

Here's a link I found with a pretty simple explanation.

Even if, just for the sake of argument, the Second Amendment protected only the right of the militia to keep and bear arms, then the National Guard surely wouldn’t qualify as the “militia,” insofar as the Second Amendment is concerned: Firstly, the National Guard was created in 1903 by an act of congress - over 100 years after the Second Amendment to the constitution was ratified. The founders of our country could not have envisioned the National Guard, and surely didn’t mean for such a then-non-existent organization to be the “militia” that they referred to in the constitution. Secondly, the National Guard uses Federal equipment, exists on Federal property, and “federalizes” guard soldiers when they are called up for duty. As such, it is effectively an arm of the Federal government. As the Air National Guard website makes clear, the guard is structured so that each member of the guard holds ” . . membership in the National Guard of his or her state and in the National Guard of the United States.” That same web page points out that “most of the laws [concerning the guard] may be found in Title 10 of the U.S. Code,” further showing the federal nature of the guard. Given the goal of the founders of this country to allow the population to be armed, so as to avoid tyranny at the hands of the federal government, it defies logic to think that an armed force created and controlled by that same federal government would count as the militia which is intended to resist tyranny.

I've got a close friend that has been to Saudi Arabia three times in the last ten years. Each time for over a year.

I'm glad to hear that Egypt is just a training area. I hope we're not getting ready to get mired up in anything over there too.

God speed with them
And let them come back quick..

Mabe they will have a chance to check out the pyrimids?

you will find that this is happening all over the world.

Resident police forces are being replaced by foreign police forces.
In the UK there is a large 'swap' taking place with police of other countries at present.....all on the quiet.

Can't say how I know this...just do.

It would appear that the 'Elites' learnt during the Vietnam war that people will not fire on and kill their 'own' and so, in preparation of what is to come, they are swapping the police forces around so that they are more willing to mistreat and possibly kill people who are of another nation and not of their own.

reply to post by KSPigpen

Over objections from all 50 governors, Congress in October tweaked the 200-year-old Insurrection Act to empower the hand of the president in future stateside emergencies. In a letter to Congress, the governors called the change "a dramatic expansion of federal authority during natural disasters that could cause confusion in the command-and-control of the National Guard and interfere with states' ability to respond to natural disasters within their borders."

www.stateline.org...

It appears you may be right!

www.bringtheguardhome.org...

There are a lot of state movements regarding this issue!

reply to post by getreadyalready


Wow! Thank you for those links. I really appreciate your input on this thread.

Originally posted by Elliot
you will find that this is happening all over the world.

Resident police forces are being replaced by foreign police forces.
In the UK there is a large 'swap' taking place with police of other countries at present.....all on the quiet.

Can't say how I know this...just do.

It would appear that the 'Elites' learnt during the Vietnam war that people will not fire on and kill their 'own' and so, in preparation of what is to come, they are swapping the police forces around so that they are more willing to mistreat and possibly kill people who are of another nation and not of their own.

In my opinion your statement hold's some truth but not so much weight.

It is common practice to swap and change as you say but it's done on a very small scale.

Too small to back up your theory.

Take care.

Regards
Lee





[edit on 8-7-2009 by h3akalee]

Originally posted by Redpillblues
God speed with them
And let them come back quick..

Mabe they will have a chance to check out the pyrimids?

I recall some of the guys in my old Air Force Combat Comm unit talked about seeing the sights so it may be possible. I got sent to Saudi instead for Southern Watch.

the way i see it. we signed up to serve our country, state and cities. i dont see you going and enlisting volenterly to defend our freedom. every day our lives are on the line for everyone in the us. if you dont like it you can go and stand infront of our troops and tell the enemy they are wrong and see if they will put down there arms for you. more than likly you will get a bullet in the head or put on the talaban tv while they cut your head off. then maby you would have respet for your country, and the men and women who serve to keep the peace in the states.

I've been in the Army for 7 years now, with a couple of them being in the National Guard. There are obviously some misconceptions about the Guard around here....

The Guard is the Army when we need them. They go to DoD training and get their gear from DoD funds. Its really no different than the Reserves, other than the fact that they can be called to active duty by both the Governor of their respective state or the President. They can be called to Federal active duty during times of war or national emergency when declared by Congress or to supplement the regular armed forces (this is why Guard units deploy to OIF/OEF and support zones, and they can be federalized for this reason by either the President or the SecDef). As quaint as a state militia may sound, its been a while since we've had to defend against hostile natives or marauding Canadians. All the Guard is really good for as a state force is to fill sandbags and institute martial law, and there are still plenty of Guardsmen around at any given time to do either one.

As for the Governor refusing a federalization of his Guard- the Montgomery Amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (1987) states that a state Governor "cannot withhold consent with regard to active duty outside the United States because of any objection to the location, purpose, type, or schedule of such duty." This law was challenged in the Supreme Court in 1990 and upheld.

The "reorganization to something more suited to modern warfare and combat" is a PA gimmick. The regular army reorganized to modular brigades a few years ago. This primarily effects maintenence and logistics units in the way they support the combat units. So it is likely that this maintenence company is being restructured to be able to work with its active duty counterparts. Everyone wants to sound like a killer, but look at the facts- they're a part time maintenence company with little combat training and they're deploying to an area that has no combat nor need for "combat troops" sitting around.

Maybe its true..government ios sending the national guards overseas, so when martail law is called in..wer e left to fend for ourselves? rather, the militar will occupy the streets, and use the excuse the antional guard was sent overseas/

reply to post by ziggy1706


If martial law is declared it will be the National Guard in the streets. They're trained for it, and its one of the few reasons the whole "state militia" concept is allowed to continue to exist (and that pesky Constitution). Deployments or not, there are still plenty of Guardsmen to institute martial law.

The checkpoint and riot control training that I thought was normal in the Guard seems strange now that I'm active duty and never do that anymore.

The only reason they would pull regular army troops into large scale martial law ops is if the National Guard and Reserve (and likely UN, foreign military, and security contractor) troops can't handle it. And as much as I would like to think that America is a nation of patriots and activists who would exercise their Constitutional right to overthrow rogue governments, well, its been more my experience that we're more a nation of lazy fatasses and complacent cowards who would be more than happy to roll over under pretty much any circumstance.

I think that if an unreasonable martial law were declared, the largest opposition force would come from dissenters within the ranks of the military (just like most everyone I know has stated their intent to defect and join the army of the Republic of Texas if they outlaw guns).

But all this is opinion and a bit off the original topic.

Back to the regular scheduled program.

i have to agree with WhiteOneActual. even if the state was deployed the state would issue orders for anyone in the reserves or guard who was interested in orders for short term ados temp tech or other orders to go defend or declare martial law. the guard is like the army, when kansas guard deploys 4 of my buds from diffrent states will be going with them because they volintarly want to go. not because they were ordered. people really need to learn to do research why spicific things are done and just a note. anyone in the armed forces can deny or refuse any order if they feel it is unjust or unlawful under UCMJ. and a side note off that. when they deploy it is a training mission and a tour session. i know what they are doing while deployed and how long and were they will be but at the same time i can not say due to there safty and so thy come back they way they left.