U.S. state National Guards to be stripped of combat Apache helicopters

National Guard

The National Guard of the United States are state militias — part of the reserve components of the U.S. Armed Forces. It is a reserve military force, composed of National Guard military members or units of each state and territory. All members of the National Guard of the United States are also members of the militia of the United States as defined by 10 U.S.C. § 31:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Being part of America’s “reserved military force” means that the National Guard must have combat capabilities.

But the Obama administration is stripping the National Guards of their combat capabilities by removing their Apache attack helicopters (and OH-58 Kiowa Warrior scout helicopters) and replacing them with UH-60 Blackhawk transport helicopters.

AH-64D_Apache

The Apaches will be given to the active duty Army, while the entire fleet of Kiowas, in use for nearly 50 years, will be phased out.

At the same time, three of 13 combat aviation brigades will be eliminated from the Army.

Ben Watson reports for Defense One that this is part of a broader restructuring of Army air assets after more than a decade of combat and steep budget cuts. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee at a hearing on April, 8, 2014 will save some $12 billion through fiscal year 2017.

The replacement of the National Guard’s attack Apaches with transport helicopters is presented as part of a broader question about what the Defense Department sees as the long-term role of the National Guard, after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

National Guard Chief Gen. Frank Grass, who also testified at the hearing, isn’t happy with the plan.

He said: None of us like what we’re having to do. My big concern right now is figuring out how I’m going to move, and how many states I’m going to have an impact on, and what’s the cost of facilities and to retrain pilots. I’ve got to tackle that because the decision’s been made. This is much larger than the Apache discussion. Especially as we look down the road. It’s brigades. It will affect just about every jurisdiction in the United States when we look at this to get down to the 315,000 number someday that we face.”

The “someday number” of 315,000 refers to cuts in National Guard personnel, should sequestration continue into FY2016.

Some argue the helicopter swap is needed because the Blackhawk transport helicopters are better suited for natural disaster recovery operations, which Guard units are tasked to do. Sen. Mark Udall (D-Co) said the Blackhawks were instrumental during recent flooding in his state. “In Colorado, we benefited greatly from having National Guard Blackhawks available to perform search and rescue missions, evacuate flood victims, drop water on wildfires, even deliver hay to cattle stranded by blizzards. Have Apaches ever been used for those purposes, and wouldn’t it make sense to have those utility aircraft available to governors for in-state missions?”

But Gen. Grass points out that “The main mission of those Apaches is to be the combat reserve of the Army.”

There are currently nine states where the National Guard flies Apaches.

Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC), a member of the House Armed Services Committee, has introduced a bill to block the Apache transfer. The bill is provisionally title “National Commission on the Structure of the Army Act of 2014” but does not yet have a number.

In a statement on his website, Congressman Wilson reminds Americans that our National Guards are not just for disaster relief; they also serve an important combat role: “There were times during Operation Iraqi Freedom when the Army National Guard represented 50 percent of the Army’s combat power.” Both Guard and Reserve troops have accounted for nearly a third of the nation’s more than 2.5 million service members who have deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001. Nearly 10,000 Guard or Reserve members have deployed more than five times, according to Defense Department data.

Wilson’s bill, which currently has the support of 41 Democrats and 111 Republicans, also calls for a commission to study the proposed changes—a measure Odierno says he sees no need for.

But there are those who see a more sinister purpose for stripping the National Guards of their Apache attack helicopters.

David Gibson of the economic and market trends site Wealthy Debates points out that the Apache, which began service in 1986, is armed with a 30 mm M230E1 Chain Gun (with 1,200 rounds), Hellfire anti-tank missiles, and 70 general-purpose 70 mm rockets. In short, it is capable of fending-off any enemy, foreign or domestic.

Gibson writes:

Obviously, these helicopters could pose a substantial obstacle to say, a tyrant drunk on his own power, with an army at his disposal.

With the recent, attempted seizure of the Bundy family ranch in Nevada by more than 200 armed federal officers, including many snipers, we know that the Obama administration is not afraid to use force against the American people.

Furthermore, considering the unprovoked attacks and murders of U.S. citizens on their own property by federal agents, such as the Ruby Ridge and Waco massacres, we also know that the federal government has no problem suspending due process and using lethal force on its own citizens. Couple that with the as yet, unexplained, massive arms buildup by the Department of Homeland Security, and the National Defense Authorization Act which allows the feds to arrest and detain any U.S. citizen indefinitely without charges, and even the most establishment-minded American should be able to see what is coming.

There are a few governors around the country who would not stand for martial-law being arbitrarily declared by this or any president, but without any teeth (i.e. Apache attack helicopters) what could they use to stop Obama’s tyranny?

~StMA

Advertisements

60 responses to “U.S. state National Guards to be stripped of combat Apache helicopters

  1. Reblogged this on Brittius.com and commented:
    Makes good sense if, the concern is of former aviators obtaining possession of the aircraft weapons system and that is the fear. A fear of some former aviator attacking federal military with these aircraft.

    Like

  2. Reblogged this on Fellowship of the Minds and commented:
    The National Guards are state militias and a bulwark against federal government tyranny. But Obama is neutering the National Guards by turning them into “disaster relief” units instead of the reserve MILITARY force that they are, via (1) taking away their Apache attack helicopters; and (2) cutting the number of guards to 315,000.

    Call/write your Congress critters that you oppose this and that you support Rep. Joe Wilson’s (R-SC) bill, “National Commission on the Structure of the Army Act of 2014″!

    Like

  3. Are you sure about that?

    “…a bulwark against federal government tyranny”?? This may be wishful thinking on your part, since National Guard members swear in their oath of enlistment to obey the President’s orders. While the oath includes mention of the Governor of the state as well, I think it is safe to assume that the President’s orders supersede those of the Governor. Otherwise, Governor George Wallace would have been the one to call out the National Guard to keep those kids out of the University of Alabama back in 1963. Instead, it was the President who called out the Guard to get the kids INTO the U of Alabama.

    “I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of (STATE NAME) against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of (STATE NAME) and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to law and regulations. So help me God.”

    Like

    • “This may be wishful thinking on your part, since National Guard members swear in their oath of enlistment to obey the President’s orders.”

      Well, if Obama doesn’t think state militia armed with attack helicopters aren’t a threat, why is he turning the National Guard from a MILITARY force into disaster relief units? Speaking of disaster relief, don’t we have FEMA for that?

      Like

      • Obama is attempting to dismantle the US Armed Forces in all aspects. Taking aircraft from the National Guard is part of this. But the Army will not follow Obama into an attack on the National Guard. Obama’s agenda is to disengage the USA from international commitments so he can spend the money on his domestic programs, because you can get more votes by spending money on social programs than by defending Ukraine.

        Attacks on isolated groups of nutcases like Ruby Ridge, Waco and the Bundy family don’t require Apache helicopters Nor would National Guard units act to prevent them. You must remember that the majority of the so-called “militias” around the country are composed of anarchists, racists and other social misfits. Bundy, for example, has stated that he does not recognize any authority higher than the County government. He won’t pay for grazing rights to the Feds or to the State of Nevada.

        Some members of this group are in favour of dismantling most of the Federal Government and reverting to the terms of the Articles of Confederation which gave virtually no power to the Feds. But I don’t think many of them want to dismantle state governments in favour of putting all power in the hands of the counties and cities, which is what Bundy and the nutcases supporting him want.

        Like

        • James L Habermehl

          “Some members of this group are in favor of… reverting to the terms of the Articles of Confederation….”

          Name one.

          Putz.

          Like

          • Ditto.

            @ rthurs666: Your comment was a classless, entirely gratuitous swipe.

            Like

          • Got a mirror handy?

            Like

          • Ditto.

            @ rthurs666: Your comment was a classless, entirely gratuitous snipe

            Ah now we are getting back to ad hominem attacks instead of debating the issues. Jim and others are continuing supporting the concept that US States are sovereign entities which do not have to follow the laws of the Federal Government. Are you and Jim now claiming that counties are sovereign entities which do not have to follow state laws? That’s what Bundy and many of the militia groups are claiming. He says he will pay grazing fees to the county, but not to the state or federal government. IMNSHO that is an anarchist argument.

            Like

          • displacedjim

            Quote me. Failing to do so confirms you are a putz.

            Like

          • displacedjim

            From everything I’ve read, Cliven Bundy does not dispute the authority of Nevada over that land; rather, his argument is that in fact it is Nevada that has authority over that land. From everything I’ve read and seen, Bundy’s contention is that the federal government has no more direct authority over that land than it does over the land any of us live on. Sadly–like so many subjects related to the Constitution and government powers in America today–while he’s right lawfully-speaking, the current status of the situation legally-speaking puts him at the short end of the stick with respect to the full weight of the federal bureaucracy and police state machine.

            Like

          • In one of the articles quoted by StMA, Bundy stated that he would not pay grazing fees to the US government or to the state of Nevada, but he would pay fees to the county. He claims the land was part of the territory of Nevada and that title did not pass to either the State of Nevada or to the federal government when Nevada became a state. This argument has been rejected as being contrary to the Constitution of the State of Nevada and the agreement under which the Territory of Nevada became a state. As for the alleged Reid-PRC “conspiracy” theories, Bundy stopped paying his grazing fees in 1993, long before any solar power plant was proposed for the area.

            Like

          • rhurs666,

            To which article are you referring? Give us the URL.

            Bundy consistently has maintained he would pay grazing fees to the State of Nevada. The following is from Cliven Bundy’s blog of April 21, 2012:

            what Bundy’s position is: the State of Nevada owns the lands pursuant to their NRS 321.596 et al statutes (Nevada Public Lands Ownership Act) enacted by Nevada back in the late 1970’s. All the western public lands states adopted this law back when it was called the “Sagebrush Rebellion”. The main component of this law (Public Lands Ownership) has yet to be adjudicated by the courts or by the US Supreme Court. This matter came to the forefront once in the court process and the then Nevada Attorney General filed away this issue by stipulating that the feds owned the public lands in Nevada. The court basically said it had no other choice but to rule in favor of the Feds. (US vs. Nye County). Bundy is following Nevada Law and holds that the 18 year old adverse decision against him that the BLM et al is using does not apply to him because he is not grazing on federal property. The State of Nevada has an obligation to enforce its own law on this matter. Therefore Bundy is not in contempt of any court order since he is not operating on federal property.

            Bundy paid grazing fees to the rightful Landlord (Clark County-NV) back in the ’90’s and then they returned that payment to Bundy. Bundy still has the county check and he never intended to steal anything and stands ready to pay the rightful Landlord today just like he did back in the ’90’s.

            Like

          • What I have gleaned from all the biased reporting (on both sides) is that Bundy allegedly sent a check for some amount to the County in lieu of his BLM grazing fees at one point. Clark County officials say they have no record of such a payment and would not accept it anyway because they consider it to be “fed land.” This is based on the Taylor Grazing act of 1934, which is 20 years before Bundy began gazing his cattle on the land. But the important thing is that neither the State of Nevada nor Clark County
            claim ownership of the land. Bundy has gone to state and federal court twice and has been rejected both times. Both the State of Nevada and Clark County say it is federal land.

            http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04/17/now-that-the-feds-have-backed-off-where-does-this-leave-the-nevada-rancher-in-his-battle-with-the-govt/

            In fact, it was the militia groups supporting Bundy who brought armed groups into the issue, which, of course, resulted in BLM bringing in armed guards to protect their people. At one point, Bundy demanded that the National Parks people engaged in removing his cattle surrender their weapons to him. But the BLM has now returned all or most of Bundy’s cattle and is pursuing the matter in court. But the militia stormtroopers are still there and still armed.

            Like

          • Martin Armstrong, in “Do the Feds really own the land in Nevada? Nope!,” explains that in 1864, despite being then a territory, and despite not having the requisite minimum population of 60,000, a political deal was made for Nevada to become a state to assure the passage of the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery, as well as a Lincoln victory in the presidential election. When Nevada was still a territory, the federal govt owned its land. Not so after Nevada became a state. Armstrong writes:

            “The Supreme Court actually addressed this issue in Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 212 (1845) when Alabama became a state in 1845.[…]

            The Pollard decision expressed a statement of constitutional law in dictum making it very clear that the Feds have no claim over the lands in Nevada. The Supreme Court states: ‘The United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama, or any of the new States, were formed, except for temporary purposes, and to execute the trusts created by the acts of the Virginia and Georgia legislatures, and the deeds of cession executed by them to the United States, and the trust created by the treaty of the 30th April, 1803, with the French Republic ceding Louisiana.’

            So in other words, once a territory becomes a state, the Fed must surrender all claims to the land as if it were still just a possession or territory.”

            Like

          • displacedjim

            And now you’ve done it yet again, albeit a bit more slyly this time: “Jim and others are continuing supporting the concept that US States are sovereign entities which do not have to follow the laws of the Federal Government.”
            As written, given the sense of absoluteness in that statement, I challenge you to quote me as *EVER* having said that in an absolute sense. Failure to do so confirms you are a conniving putz. Of course, if you acknowledge that “do not HAVE to” could be conditional upon some unstated particular determination, then it begins to be a true statement. If you modified that sentence by adding onto the end something like “when those laws are not pursuant to the U.S. Constitution” then it would be a true statement, and also utterly in agreement with the Founding Fathers as being the true meaning of the U.S. Constitution and absolutely being exactly how the American federalist system is ideally supposed to operate.

            Like

          • I did not intend that statement to be absolute and unconditional. Of course, we agree that the states have to defer to the federal government in some matters, such as coinage, maintenance of a Navy, the post office, patent law, foreign policy and a few other items specified by the Constitution. The difference between us is that you interpret the Tenth Amendment as being absolute, whereas I regard it as being subject to interpretation. Shipping raw milk across state lines, which has been cited as an example of federal government interference is clearly “interstate commerce.” As is shipping goods by mail, the phone system, the Internet and the operation of interstate highways, railroads and airlines. In fact, there is very little commerce of any kind in the USA that does not involve “interstate commerce.” And your arguments in favor of “state sovereignty” are basically the same as raised by Patrick Henry and others when the Constitution was proposed in the 1780’s. And the same arguments raised by the slave states prior to the Civil War.

            And, no, I am not suggesting that you are in favour of bringing back slavery, but your arguments are similar to those who opposed giving civil rights to people of colour in the period 1870-present.

            Like

          • Hate to get in the middle of the fun, but I did mention on The 18th further down the thread that the Bundy’s had no problem recognizing the State.
            OK, carry on the battle. Sorry for my intrusion.

            Like

          • displacedjim

            My comments are identical to those of our Founding Fathers, so even if they are also “similar to those who opposed giving civil rights to people of colour in the period 1870-present,” so what?

            Like

        • @rhurs666,

          Are you on acid?

          Like

      • FEMA is a coordinating agency. it has very few assets of its own. If it needs aircraft, trucks, manpower or anything else, it has to request them from the military, Guard, state governments, volunteer groups or private industry. During the Katrina crisis, idiots like Anderson Cooper went on the air asking, “Where are the FEMA helicopters.” Answer was that FEMA does not own helicopters, none, zip, nada.

        Has anybody on this list actually worked in the command structure during a natural disaster? I have. On one local flood event, we had a small town cut off by rising waters. We used Army helicopters to rescue stranded people, National Guard truck to haul in supplies and worked with the Red Cross, salvation Army, Boy Scouts, state and local police and a number of other agencies. A an example, Pepsi donated several truckloads of bottled water for the people of the isolated town, but their truck could not get through the high water. So we arranged for National Guard trucks, with their higher ground clearance, to reload the water containers and carry them through the high water to the town.

        FEMA’s biggest asset is its lists of lists. FEMA doesn’t own much in the way of assets, but the people there know who has what and who to call to get it. Most of the people who throw rocks at FEMA have no idea of what the agency is or how it operates.

        Like

        • rthus666:

          FEMA is an agency under the Dept of Homeland Security (DHS), and the DHS has purchased MILLIONS and MILLIONS rounds of ammo and armored trucks.

          Here’s retired Marine Col. Pete Martino on the weaponization of DHS. But then even though he, as Colonel (Ret.), outranks you, a Lt. Col. (Ret.), no doubt you’ll contemptuously dismiss him as a “nut case” as well.


          http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines/marine-commander-exposes-homeland-security-military-build-up-is-everybody-blind

          Like

          • I don’t disagree with anything that Col Martino said in that interview. Obama IS trying to build an army outside of the DOD and DHS is part of it. But the National Guard does not need attack helicopters for domestic disturbances. The Apache is basically designed to attack tanks, artillery and fortifications, not civilian mobs or pockets of anarchists. Black Hawks can be armed with weapons that are better for overcoming civil insurrections. I am also worried that DHS may become an armed force of its own, independent of the Pentagon, much as the SS was an armed force independent of the Wehrmacht.

            I am not as concerned about local and state police being equipped with military hardware. It’s a lot cheaper to take military gear and dye it blue than it is to design and manufacture gear for the police. The MA State Police and Boston Police are still under the control of the Governor and Mayor, respectively,
            . .

            Like

          • rthurs666,

            You don’t seem to understand. My concern about Obama stripping National Guards of Apaches is not about putting down “domestic disturbances.” It’s about the federal government itself.

            So what’s your prescription for a tyrannical federal government?

            No matter what you think of Cliven Bundy, the THOUSANDS of Americans who had traveled to support Bundy are simply exercising their First Amendment right of free speech and free assembly.

            Like

          • So is there some law of nature that says that teenage boys and middle aged women cannot be terrorists? I don’t have the details, beyond the article you cited, but I know that some of the “peaceful protesters” were armed and trying to block government vehicles. I’ll have to wait for real information before judging the justice of the arrests. Don’t rush to judgment based on one person’s initial report. it is an old military axiom that “first reports from the battlefield are always wrong.”

            Like

          • That report is a hoax, from a satirical website.

            As for armed protesters, you don’t seem to be bothered by the BLM agents who converged on Bundy’s ranch being heavily armed, with automatic weapons & sniper rifles.

            Like

          • Are you sure about that?

            Sure, there are despots and unscrupulous folks in the world who will do what you or I might think is unthinkable but which, clearly, to them are thinkable, even reasonable, actions to take. Could we wind-up with a despot/dictator willing and able to do things that are unthinkable to a majority of our culture? It’s hard for me to imagine.

            Notwithstanding trends like the increased politicization of the Supreme Court or the Fourth Estate’s shift from challenging institutional/governmental flaws and foibles to reporting scandal and inciting faux outrage, I feel *reasonably* comfortable that our checks and balances would work should Obama or some future president go off the rails. That having been said, I’m not concerned that Obama is evil or that his motivations are nefarious.

            Frankly, it seems to me most likely that the equipment changes which sparked this line of commentary were based simply on a statistical analysis of how best to spread the country’s defense budget based on the highest probability needs for certain types of helicopters, manpower, etc. sure there were political calculations, but what’s new about that? I’m just not ready to consider that the decisions are part of a plot to neuter the populace and subjugate us to a government that we did not elect. For me, that is too low-probability an outcome to lose sleep over.

            BTW, I’m not sure about anything really and, the longer I live, the more uncomfortable I am with people who are certain; especially when their certainty extends to things about which one literally can’t be certain or to things that scientific evidence definitively proves to be contrary to their belief. So, have I opened a new can of worms?

            Like

  4. Are you sure about that?

    I’m not sure I understood your response.

    (BTW, I think FEMA still depends on National Guard / military materiel and personnel for the “heavy lifting” during major disasters… )

    Like

  5. Thank you StMA for this excellent post. As to “Are you sure about that?” If the current president told you to gather up all of your family and neighbors for purposes of killing them, would you follow his order?

    Like

    • Are you sure about that?

      @joandarc: your point is an example of “reductio ad absurdum.” It so far outside the realm of reason to think that the current – or any future – President would do such a thing, that I can’t even dignify your question with an answer. I hope you don’t lose sleep over such an unlikely eventuality.

      Like

  6. Some BS politician leaders see the National Guard as a threat to U.S. government Security. Not as the people’s defence against internal and external enemies.

    The U.S. Military (with elements of government and Police Departments) are the real enemies, and will do all they can get away with to neutralise the people’s National Guard.

    Like

  7. Are you sure about that?

    @StMA – I had not heard of it, so thanks for sharing. Nonetheless, there are many bad things that have happened in our history which are unthinkable today because the relevant lessons have been learned.

    The Wikipedia article you cited provided seems to confirm my suspicion that the relevant lessons were *very* quickly learned: “Hoover sent the army, Roosevelt sent his wife”

    Like

    • If the relevant lessons have been learned, then it is most noteworthy that evil continues to exist throughout the world, demonstrated in word and deed. The “unthinkable” still exists today. You must live in a different world, AYSAT. It seems that you are “sure” about many things, in complete conflict with your name.

      My example is not far fetched at all. A tyrant can order inconceivable evils to occur. Read history and learn.

      Like

  8. Are you sure about that?

    @StMA: Regardless of where we may agree/disagree on other questions, I do agree that the (from my perspective) over-the-top militarization of Homeland Security and local police departments, along with the Patriot Act-related erosion of our rights are pretty scary.

    Do I really want my local PD to have an MRAP? (No more than I want my neighbor to have a fully automatic .50 cal machine gun!)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRAP#Law_enforcement

    Like

    • I see Bundy as similar to those anti-war activists who refused to pay their income taxes because they were against the war. Different end of the political spectrum, but a similar attitude. What Bundy wants to do is to make money by grazing cattle on land he does not own, but he doesn’t want to pay for the privilege. Thousands of ranchers graze cattle on federal, state and private lands all over the country, and they pay grazing fees to the land owners. My brother in-law raised beef cattle on his own land and grazed more on lands belonging to his neighbors, and he paid grazing fees to them as well.

      Bundy has said that he would pay grazing fees to the county, but not to the state or federal government. This is typical of the extremist wing of the militia movement. Unlike the State Sovereignty people, they refuse to recognize any government above the County level. The fact is that the States were once, in fact, sovereign at various times. But counties never were. Counties have always been regulated by state governments.

      Like

  9. A. James Gregor, Ph.D. & Professor

    Immediately identifying those who object to government imposture as defectives of one or another sort gives the authorities an advantage they do not need. They have all the power. Citizens, no matter how implausible their objections, deserve to be heard.

    it happens in the Bundy case–while his resistance may be predicated on a questionable premise (his refusal to pay fees for grazing his cattle on federal lands), his case involves much more: (1) the arbitrary, bureaucratic behavior of the (unelected) land management authorities; (2) federal exploitation of the defense of animals act in order to control the individual’s use of land; (3) the question of how the nature of the actual ownership of “federal” lands should be understood in law–with all its implications (4) including how that should affect eminent domain issues that are becoming more and more urgent.

    Bundy forces us to return to those issues–and even though his earlier appeals have been defeated in the lesser courts, he has the right to new appeals until the Supreme Court renders a final judgment on all the complex issues entangled in his case.

    Unless we are preternaturally certain that our judgment is correct, we should not be prepared to instinctively throw anti-government protestors under the bus; that gives far too much advantage to a doubtful power that surely does not need our assistance.

    Like

    • So now Bundy has shown his true colours. Like the “militias” who support him, he is a white supremacist and an anarchist. I am pretty damn sure that my “mongrel” grandchildren would not be “happier under slavery.” As far as I am concerned, the BLM can shoot all his cows and the storm troopers that are defending him. Once again the ugly side of the “patriot” movement shows its real face. As far as I am concerned, the militia groups are the modern equivalent of the Freikorps of 1918-25. These were armed groups of civilians (although many were WWI veterans) who roamed Germany in attempt to root out communists. They were not Nazis, per se, albeit a number of their members later joined right wing groups like the SA, the Stalhelm and other groups attached to various anti-communist parties.

      Now that the respectable elements of the conservative movement has rejected Bundy, we can move on to more important issues.

      Like

      • @RTHURS , I don’t know you,but apparently the others do. So from my seat I think you are a bloviating schmuck. Imagine what those who know you think? Go play on Huffpo where you would be more at home. Sheesh.

        Like

        • I am opposed to racism in any form. I am opposed to people taking advantage of the government for personal gain. Bundy is no better than the “welfare queens” cheating on welfare. No moral difference.

          If you think racism is OK, if you think that it is moral to make money off land you never owned and refuse to pay reasonable fees, then I guess we know where you are coming from.

          Like

          • @rthurs, one more thing. You see the reply button? If you have something to say to me, please respond to me. OK. No need to whine elsewhere. You want to debate facts? Lets have at it. Although you are spewing an agenda.

            Like

          • I was trying to reply to you. I am having problems with the CODA system. It’s not your fault or mine, but some kind of software glitch either in my system or the CODA system.

            Like

      • As usual, you’ve only seen what you want to see. Bundy was not being racist at all. I dare you to cite where he used the word “mongrel” which was exactly what you’re trying to imply: That he either said it or thinks it.

        Basically, now Dick has shown his true colors. Steve is right: [When it comes to domestic policy/politics,] you ARE a bloviating schmuck.

        Like

        • You’re wrong.

          Like

          • @rthurs “You’re wrong” is that the best you have? After you made this comment
            “As far as I am concerned, the BLM can shoot all his cows and the storm troopers that are defending him. ” It is then I determined you are not a very nice person. (Oh yes and a schmuck) That’s not yiddish, that’s NY for Idiot.
            I’ve watched you drop words Like
            Anarchist
            Terrorist
            Racist, all thru this thread. You have an agenda. Not once do you respond to new tape. Nope you go “Bloviating” right on about how ole Cliven has taken advantage of the Poor wittle Government.
            PS. Glad I’m not your Grandkid. Hate to be known as a mongrel. I’d just want to be loved.
            Steve

            Like

          • Yes, I have an agenda. I believe in freedom and responsibility. I am a lifelong Republican who sees the militia movement as a racist, anarchist bunch of wannabee terrorists. I use the term “anarchist” as opposed to the ignorant liberals who describe them as “fascist” or “neo-Nazi.” Fascists believe in a strong nationalist federal government. The militia types don’t like government at all. So I call them “anarchists.” The distinction is important.

            As for Bundy, he has been living off what amounts to welfare from the Federal Government for 20+ years. He made an agreement to pay the BLM for the right to graze cattle on BLM land. In 1993, he stopped paying his grazing fees. What happens when you stop paying your rent? The owner of the property evicts you. It’s as simple as that. Bundy has been to court and lost. Both the State of Nevada and Clark County agree that the land belongs to the Federal Government. So do the courts. QED.

            As to the word “mongrel” it is used by the hate groups to describe Obama who has a black father and a white mother – like my grandchildren. As a Republican, I get this crap by email all the time from people who assume that a Republican is a racist. I very much dislike Obama, but it is because of his policies, or lack thereof, not because of his parentage.

            When the militia movement publically renounces the racist elements in their movement, I will consider whether or not they have a point of view worth considering. Until then, I will continue to regard them as a bunch of redneck hillbillies who marry their cousins and drop out of the 6th grade.

            Like

          • James L Habermehl

            Steve, while you are not wrong in the points you make, to be fair his specific choice of wording was an inside “joke” between him and me.

            Like

          • @rthurs, you make my head hurt. Did you even bother to watch Jim’s vid he posted showing the complete quote from Bundy, and not just the edited one? If so do you still consider him racist? Know what it doesn’t matter because last time I looked it was not against the law to be racist.
            Also he may be a “Welfare Queen” or may have a legitimate States rights issue here.Truthfully I do not know. But last time I looked it was not an executable offence. Which brings me full circle.
            Please answer my damn question. You said.
            “As far as I am concerned, the BLM can shoot all his cows and the storm troopers that are defending him. ”
            You answered everything but. Do you believe it is OK for the Gov. to go in there and shoot 100-1000 people because of grazing fees and maybe racism?
            If you do I could easily see you “just following orders” in a German uniform
            You Sir frighten me!

            PS As I said my Yiddish is from NY and this is how we use it.

            Schmuck or shmuck in American English is a pejorative meaning one who is stupid or foolish; or an obnoxious, contemptible or detestable person.

            putz
            Literally, vulgar slang for penis, not to be used lightly. More offensive than the schmuck,

            Like

          • My comment about shooting the cattle was obviously an exaggeration. But BLM should have sold off the cattle and applied the proceeds to Bundy’s delinquent grazing fees. This is standard practice when a debtor has assets which can be confiscated.

            And what do you call it when somebody occupies a piece of land and refuses to pay rent to the lawful owner? I call it theft.

            And, yes, I did watch the whole video. You are right in assessing Bundy as a silly old fool. Which makes me wonder why the anarchists are making him out to be a hero. And why the States Rights people are doing the same, when he does not believe in state sovereignty either.

            As for my Yiddish, It’s been 50 years since I lived in NY and the common usage may have changed. But in my day “schmuck” was considered more offensive than “putz.”

            Like

      • James L Habermehl

        This short video contains some footage directly before and after the part where Bundy mentions slavery, and helps put his words in context. It’s obvious that he’s drawing a clumsy comparison between conditions then and now, and isn’t trying in the slightest to say anything is the fault of blacks or hispanics themselves, but rather of liberal government policies.

        Like

        • James, Thanks for posting the whole Video. To me Cliven is not a racist. Just a clumsy old fool. What makes me infuriated is this was a set up by the NY Times with Media Matters. Classic lib play and the country fell for it.
          This is textbook Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals rule #12

          “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)”

          This is still a States rights issue. Problem is as usual people cut and ran when called a “Racist.” Well not those on the ground, or blogosphere.
          Mainly the coward big name media types. Beck, Hannity.

          Like

          • You’re wrong, Steve. This is not a “states rights” issue. Bundy does not recognize the State of Nevada or the Federal Government’s rights to the land. He claims that he will pay fees to the County, but not to the state or Feds. And the State of Nevada and Clark County have both firmly stated that the land in question is Federal land, not state or county land. This is a common attitude among militia groups which often do not accept any government higher than that of the County Sheriff. The distinction is important. There is an argument to be made in favour of State Sovereignty. (I don’t agree but there is a basis for it. Some states were at one time sovereign.) But not even Jim tries to pretend the individual counties are sovereign. That’s why I call militia groups “anarchists” as opposed to the States Rights groups, which typically see the USA as a confederation – like Switzerland, rather than a Federal Republic as I see it.

            Like

          • displacedjim

            Dick, you were wrogn the first time you said this a week ago, and you’re wrong again even after being corrected on it. Another example of how it is worthless to engage you: Your old dog brain can’t learn new facts. The Bundys certainly *do* recognize that land as being part of the State of Nevada and certainly *do* recognize Nevada’s authority over it.

            Also, as you have been educated about repeatedly and in great detail, *ALL* states were and *STILL ARE* sovereign, and you know or else have utterly no excuse for not knowing EXACTLY what I and millions of other Americans mean by using that word. Therefore, don’t dare to respond by claiming states aren’t totally independent in all ways, as if that is the correct definition of sovereignty in this context. Do so, and it will be the end of any actual attempt at conversation between us. Of course, if you’d prefer that, then here’s your opportunity to achieve that status at last.

            Like

          • The arguments that I have seen Bundy and his supporters make is that the land belongs to Clark County. He allegedly sent a check to Clark County to pay grazing fees on the land. When the State of Nevada was founded, the lands previously belonging to the Territory of Nevada were transferred to the Federal Government, not to the State of Nevada.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Nevada
            This is the relevant paragraph of the Nevada Constitution:

            “Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States; and that lands belonging to citizens of the United States, residing without the said state, shall never be taxed higher than the land belonging to the residents thereof; and that no taxes shall be imposed by said state on lands or property therein belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by, the United States, unless otherwise provided by the congress of the United States.”

            That seems pretty clear to me. And both the State of Nevada and Clark County have declared the lands to be federal property. So what are the “states rights” people claiming as the governing law in this regard? Nothing but bluster. And you saying “you’re wrong” doesn’t make me wrong unless you have facts and law to cite. If the lawfully elected government of a state or county declines ownership of a piece of land, where does “states rights” come into it? The only time “sovereignty” enters into the equation is when a state wants to do something the federal government doesn’t approve of or when the federal government tries to overturn a state law. Examples would be state laws on marijuana, abortion or gay marriage.

            So if I am wrong, cite an appropriate law or an opinion by a lawfully constituted court at the state or federal level. or admit that I am right.
            Do you really believe that counties are sovereign as the militia groups claim?

            Like

        • @rthurs, OK, so it was an over statement about “shooting Cattle” I’ll assume you meant people too. You say he’s an old fool. Just can’t bring yourself to say maybe not a racist. It doesn’t matter.
          I added my definition of schmuck and putz so you know I was just using a slang as in NY (Jerk) The lesser of the two.

          Like

          • @rthurs I have been blogging for over 5 yrs. I have found the difference between Conservatives and Liberals is when a conservative is presented with new facts or info generally they are willing to change their mind/position. Whereas as Lib will never change their mind. Damn the facts. I say this out of countless times I have engaged in debate on the blog. It’s just a fact.
            So you have stated you are a Repub, but I am sorry to say you debate like a lib. It’s impossible to debate you.
            My first post was 4-18 and I said then that I saw the wife say
            “they would pay the State”
            Yet you keep claiming they only recognize the County. Wrong.

            I also said in a post above.
            “Also he may be a “Welfare Queen” or may have a legitimate States rights issue here.Truthfully I do not know.” And truthfully that’s not why I got involved.
            As I said I don’t know. I only became involved here when the NY Times in cahoots with Media Matters Set Bundy up and got him to put his foot in his mouth. They ran an edited quote which painted him as a racist. I bet had they ran the unedited version there would have been no story. Yet they did.
            And you sir took it and ran with it and painted with a very, very, wide brush.
            Steve

            Like

  10. anchorageknight

    This is technically incorrect – although a popular theory.

    The National Guard is a late 19th Century evolution which substantially
    replaced state militias as auxiliary troops for the US Army. Controlled by
    state governors in peacetime, they are 97% Federally funded, and can
    be ordered to the colors by the President for any reason at any time.
    Governors may also stand them to for state reasons. They are in effect
    already national troops under local control with minimal local funding that
    can be taken up for national service when required.

    The state militias remain as they always were – in theory – and in fact
    in at least 26 states. These are FORBIDDEN to use Federal funding or
    assets – except where necessity prevails (a digression and only rarely
    a matter of practice). They may NEVER be called up by the President,
    but in theory a governor can order them into US service – until after the
    Civil War that was the way most of the US Army was raised in a crisis.
    Since it has almost never happened. The only instance I know of in this
    century is during a terrorist attack on a Joint Base – when the USAF
    asked the US Army for more MPs – but there were no more – so the Army
    asked the state. NG has no MPs in this state, so the governor sent the
    ENTIRE state militia MP battalion – which since the base being defended was
    a Federal military reservation – put them under Federal command. In the
    event, state and local police and the state militia MPs handled the “outer
    layer” just outside the base fences (augmented by some airmen doing
    traffic control at parking lots – the public was forced to park at schools
    and bus onto the base for the airshow in USAF busses) – and the Navy,
    Air Force and Army MPs handled on base security. Intelligence was
    integrated with patrols and standing guards in a remarkably effective way
    and the enemy was captured before they could launch their tiny man
    pack missiles. The state militia – now legally called “state defense forces”
    and the use of the term militia is – if legally still in the statutes – forbidden
    to be used by verbal order (as “militia” has become politically incorrect –
    associated with non-government controlled movements); the state militia
    is trained to police standards on the theory it will almost always run into
    people who are civilians with civil rights, not in time of war, and needs to
    proceed such that legal proceedings are possible, and no political embarassments happen. In this they are far more effective than the NG has been historically.
    NG trains to fight in a war zone, and generally has no MPs at all, and generally
    is not trained in riot control even – and is not outfitted with police band radios
    or computers able to access police databases. Once we stood to NG infantry (when
    we still had infantry – no more) in a “urban fire” situation – and they were ineffective. A smaller number of state MPs were effective without ruffling feathers – we can tell if you live near here from your licence plate before we stop your truck – so the stuff in the back is probably yours if you do – and you are probably looting if you do not.
    We also are trained to be polite, a very wise police tactic, as you get more cooperation and information if you are – even surprisingly from actual bad guys.
    [Some people have never been called “sir” or “gentleman” – and if you model calm, rational speech, there is an invisible compulsion to respond in kind.] If you explain the situation, people often understand why this road is closed, or why that route is safer, or whatever you need them to understand: better to explain than to order.
    You can always resort to orders if justified and necessary if explanation isn’t working.

    Nevertheless, it remains a popular theory that the NG is the state militia – particularly among those who do not know there even are state militia’s any more. You will read ill informed acacemics and journalists saying the NG replaced the militia’s. Yet this is only true in the sense that it replaced them as the major source of wartime troops for the Army. [Two states – that I know of – also have state naval militia’s – New York and Alaska. The Alaska naval militia was partially mobilized to clean up the Exxon Valdez oil spill – in a remote area- it set up communications and camps for cleanup workers along the seacoast where there are no roads or any other kind of communications lines.]

    State militias are forbidden to use Federal “assets” – but in an emergency -for example – we can fly on a C-130 – to save lives. But we cannot PRACTICE using the same C-130! State militias are substantially SELF financed – militia traditionally provide and use personal weapons and uniforms – and some have tax exempt foundations to raise money. States traditionally pay for the wages of the soldiers when on a “real” operation – and soldiers are NOT paid for training at all. They donate their time, their uniforms and equipment and their weapons in almost all cases – but state armories can issue rifles and other gear in an emergency if numbers show up needing arms. Only one state militia stands to “for real” multiple times every year – because of the vast and unpopulated area of Alaska. It is not unusual to have fires, floods, earthquakes or volcanic eruptions – and in theory we might have a plane crash (usually handled by the Civil Air Patrol, USAF, USARNG – but if big enough – they would rope in the militia – which trains for it. Plane crash training is the very worst –
    it is nasty stuff – learning to cut off thumbs to ID bodies – etc. Nothing else is really as bad.) My experience is that militia are the precise opposite of the military perception of them: regarded as the lowest tier of military forces, in fact they are nearly all older, experienced veterans who ALSO have a stake in the LOCAL community – and are LESS likely to do things than federal troops are which would be a local scandal. At Gettysburg, a Maine militia battalion – its contract up – was given to a Maine regiment – as diserters. Told he could shoot them, the colonel knew he couldn’t go back to Maine if he did – and he got them all to volunteer at a critical moment – winning the battle of Little Round Top and, arguably, the war because he treated them well. Militia’s are much more in tune with state politics than Federali’s are (using the Mexican term for Federal) – and more than twice as old and not nearly as likely to panic under pressure (see Kent State for NG under pressure, or the Detroit Riots of 1967). It also helps to train to deal with civil problems instead of mainly or only to fight enemy armies on battlefields.

    Like

  11. The National Guard has been used since its inception as a peacetime disaster relief organization. National Guard units also have combat and combat support missions when they are called to active duty with the Federal Government. This has happened frequently in the Iraq/Afghanistan wars since the Active Army has been stripped to the bone during the Clinton and Obama administrations. There are also Army and Air Force reserve organizations which do not report to state governors and who can be called to active duty during wartime and peacetime emergencies.

    In my 20+ years as an emergency serive coordinator I have worked with Army , Air Force, Navy and Coast guard units, active and reserve as well as National Guard forces and federal, state and local government agencies. In Washington and in many other states, there are formal and informal agreements among dozens of agencies to establish joint command groups and ensure that stuff gets done by the group best equipped and trained to do it.

    This system broke down in Louisiana during the Katrina disaster because of corrupt and incompetent leadership at the state and local level. This, by the way is a long established condition in Louisiana. It was only when LTG Honore and the Army arrived on scene that the city of New Orleans was able to get back into some sort of functional order.

    Like

  12. As the owner of the Consortium of Defense Analysts, I’m closing this thread to all new comments. Why? Because the bickering about whether Cliven Bundy is a racist or not, whether members of the United States’ constitutional state militias are “white supremacists” or not — both of which were initiated by rthurs666 — HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS POST, which is about the Obama administration removing all attack helicopters from the state National Guards.

    Since WordPress is not enabling me to close this thread to comments, henceforth all off-topic comments will be deleted.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s