Natl' Guardsmen Learn Power Of Governor

[Psychoblues]

And they were all set for duty in Iraq!!!!!!!!!! Awwwwwww, shucks!!!!!!!!!



"Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger today ordered the California National Guard to help fight the wildfires scorching Northern California.

The National Guard is mobilizing at least 200 of its members from Northern and Southern California to help the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection as it fights hundreds of fires covering thousands of acres, the governor's office announced this morning.

Though fires are burning throughout California, National Guard efforts will focus on north state blazes.

"I can't say enough about the brave men and women working tirelessly, and with little rest, to battle the blazes across California," Schwarzenegger stated in a news release. "I am announcing a big shot in the arm to their efforts by ordering California National Guard soldiers to provide direct ground support on the fires."

The National Guard will provide hand crews, truck transportation support and command and control staff in coordination with Cal Fire and the state Office of Emergency Services. The Guard also will deploy eight bulldozers to assist in cutting fire lines, the release states.

The resources are in being added to complement the helicopters and other aviation support the Guard already has deployed as part of interagency firefighting efforts................

More: http://www.sacbee.com/1089/story/1052834.html

God Bless Them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[rppearso]

It seems the national guard have not been weekend warriors in quite some time, they ought to start getting active duty benifits for as much as they are relyed upon.

[gabosaurus]

The National Guard should protect this county. They should NOT be sent overseas to fight a bogus conflict.

[Hagbard Celine]

The National Guard should protect this county. They should NOT be sent overseas to fight a bogus conflict.

Hear, hear! Our priorities are way out of whack. No wonder conservatism is dead.

[DragonStryk72]

It seems the national guard have not been weekend warriors in quite some time, they ought to start getting active duty benifits for as much as they are relyed upon.

They do, actually, when they are called upon, they in fact also get hazard pay, such as with the wildfires.

[DragonStryk72]

And they were all set for duty in Iraq!!!!!!!!!! Awwwwwww, shucks!!!!!!!!!



"Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger today ordered the California National Guard to help fight the wildfires scorching Northern California.

The National Guard is mobilizing at least 200 of its members from Northern and Southern California to help the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection as it fights hundreds of fires covering thousands of acres, the governor's office announced this morning.

Though fires are burning throughout California, National Guard efforts will focus on north state blazes.

"I can't say enough about the brave men and women working tirelessly, and with little rest, to battle the blazes across California," Schwarzenegger stated in a news release. "I am announcing a big shot in the arm to their efforts by ordering California National Guard soldiers to provide direct ground support on the fires."

The National Guard will provide hand crews, truck transportation support and command and control staff in coordination with Cal Fire and the state Office of Emergency Services. The Guard also will deploy eight bulldozers to assist in cutting fire lines, the release states.

The resources are in being added to complement the helicopters and other aviation support the Guard already has deployed as part of interagency firefighting efforts................

More: http://www.sacbee.com/1089/story/1052834.html

God Bless Them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm just.... shocked. I mean, seriously, they're using the National Guard to.... Guard the Nation.

[5stringJeff]

The National Guard should protect this county. They should NOT be sent overseas to fight a bogus conflict.

I agree. The Active Army and Reserves are our expiditionary force. The National Guard should never deploy outside our borders.

[Yurt]

I agree. The Active Army and Reserves are our expiditionary force. The National Guard should never deploy outside our borders.

hmmm, the name mean anything? the guardsmen/women that are in iraq/afgan defending this national country are to be commended...with that said, i am sure in tiny print somewhere in the contract, being deployed overseas or out of this country was not what the "national" "guard" signed up for.

in time of great need, maybe. but i don't see iraq or afgan as being a great need to deploy national guardsmen overseas. it is no small wonder that people are pissed at president bush.

[rppearso]

They do, actually, when they are called upon, they in fact also get hazard pay, such as with the wildfires.

They actually dont, if they did they should be able to get full medical coverage when they return home. They have to pay active duty guys to sit around when they are not being used so why should guardsmen get jipped out of medical bennies when they come back from a deployment. Also the military should be making up the difference in pay between the guardsmans civilian job and there military pay, national guardsmen were never intended to be called upon this much so I can only imagine how much this is affecting peoples bottom line. I think its too little to late for guardsmen actually doing what they really signed up for (ie one weekend a month not going to lower east botswana for 24 months) to supplement other state departments in a crisis. The guard has been so tapped out during this war that there reaction to natural disasters is all show, they dont have the resources or man power to make a real difference anymore, they show them on the news driving around on 4 wheelers and walking around and maybe a black hawk here and there but no huge scale fire breaks with massive resources, if they responded to disasters like they get troops into theater this fire would have been contained in half the time (Im not sure if it is even fully contained yet). Its a state of reality that we are in and as long as the national guard units continue to allow themselves to be controled like robots by the "fine print in the contract" they will be totally hosed, thoes contracts are set up to benifit the national governments war machine and there is no alternative contract to sign so you simply suffer personel losses or lower your standards as low as you have to to meet numbers. The dotted line culture in the military has gotten way out of hand and it is going to bring the military down, which is really sad because this nation needs good defense it just does not need alot of the schmucks that are in its ranks right now. This nation was not founded on idiocy, and making decisions that affect your life and those around you simply because of a piece of paper in a file cabinet.

[AFbombloader]

This is kinda long, but it shows where the fine print is when it comes to the National Guard. It is in the Constitution. Alot of these articles and sections will make your points valid, that the guard is for national use and home defence. But a few of them, which I highlighted will show how the guard can be used for other military actions.

I am not defending the use of the guard overseas. IMHO they should not be used as much as they are. I would like to see the active forces built up to the point were thay don't need to be. But with the drawdowns of the 90's that is not an option.

http://www.arng.army.mil/constitution.aspx

The Army National Guard's charter is the Constitution of the United States. Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution contains a series of "militia clauses," vesting distinct authority and responsibilities in the federal government and the state governments. These clauses and follow-on legislation have sculpted the Guard as you see it today. Here are summaries that will help you understand how the Guard came to be what it is today.

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.

Article I, Section 8; Clause 16
Congress may "organize, arm and discipline" the militia; the States may "establish… appoint the officers of… and train the militia." Also, limits Congress' power during peacetime.

Clause 16 gives Congress the power "to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States." That same clause specifically reserves to the States the authority to establish a state-based militia, to appoint the officers and to train the militia according to the discipline prescribed by the Congress. As written, the clause seeks to limit federal power over State militias during peacetime.

The Armies Clause
"Congress may declare war, raise and support armies…"

The "armies clause" in Article I, Section 8, conferred on Congress the power to provide for the common defense of the United States, declare war, raise and support armies, and make rules for the "government and regulation of the land and naval forces." The Congress also was granted authority to make all laws "necessary and proper" for carrying out such powers. Under this provision, congressional power over the National Guard appears to be far-reaching.

Article I, Section 10
"No state may keep troops… without the consent of Congress."

Article I, Section 10 provides that no state, without the consent of the Congress, shall keep troops or ships of war in time of peace, or engage in war unless actually invaded. Be sure to see the Second Amendment for more about this.

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."

Article IV, Section 4
guarantees every State in the Union a republican form of government.

Article IV, Section 4 provides that the federal government " shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government," and shall protect each of the States against invasion. At State request, the federal government was to protect the States "against domestic violence." Through these provisions, the potential for both cooperative Federalism and for tension between the "militia" and the "army" clauses was built into the constitution.

Article II, Section 2
makes the president Commander-in-Chief of all forces, including the militia when federalized.

Article II, Section 2 places all forces, including the militia when in federal service, under the control of the executive branch by making the president Commander-in-Chief.

Article I, Section 8
gives Congress the ultimate control through its sole power to collect taxes to pay the military, to declare war and employ the militia for security.

Article I, Section 8 gave the ultimate control to the Congress, by granting it the sole power to collect taxes to pay for the military, to declare war and to employ the militia for common purposes of internal security. Existing State militias could be maintained, although troops could be called into national service. But the founding fathers moderated that authority by leaving the individual States with the explicit responsibility for appointing officers and for supervising peacetime training of the citizen-soldiers.

The Militia Act of 1792
clarified the role of the militia; required all able men to serve, be armed, and be equipped at their own expense; also, standardized unit structure.

The Militia Act of 1792 subsequently expanded federal policy and clarified the role of the militia. It required all able bodied men aged 18 to 45 to serve, to be armed, to be equipped at their own expense and to participate in annual musters. The 1792 act established the idea of organizing these militia forces into standard divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions and companies, as directed by the State legislatures.

The militia concept put to the test in the War of 1812

For the 111 years that the Militia Act of 1792 remained in effect, it defined the position of the militia in relation to the federal government. The War of 1812 tested this unique America defense establishment. To fight the War of 1812, the republic formed a small regular military and trained it to protect the frontiers and coastlines. Although it performed poorly in the offensive against Canada, the small force of regulars backed by a well-armed militia, accomplished its defensive mission well. Generals like Andrew Jackson proved, just as they had in the Revolution, that regulars and militia could be effective when employed as a team.

Posse Comitatus
Congress' suspension of southern states' right to organize a militia resulted in Posse Comitatus, a limiting of the president's use of military forces in peacetime.

In 1867, the Congress suspended the southern states' right to organize their militias until a state was firmly under the control of an acceptable government. The U.S. Army was used to enforce martial law in the South during Reconstruction. Expansion of the military's role in domestic life, however, did not occur without debate or response. Reaction to the use of the Army in suppressing labor unrest in the North and guarding polls in the South during the 1876 election led to congressional enactment of the Posse Comitatus Act in 1878. Designed to limit the president's use of military forces in peacetime, this statute provided that: "...it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States... for the purpose of executing the laws, except on such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by any act of Congress..."

The States revise the military codes - 1881 to 1892

Concern over the militia's new domestic role also led the States to reexamine their need for a well-equipped and trained militia, and between 1881 and 1892, every state revised the military code to provide for an organized force. Most changed the name of their militias to the National Guard, following New York's example.

The Dick Act, 1903
affirmed the National Guard as the primary organized reserve force.

Between 1903 and the 1920's, legislation was enacted that strengthened the Army National Guard as a component of the national defense force. The Dick Act of 1903 replaced the 1792 Militia Act and affirmed the National Guard as the Army's primary organized reserve.

The National Defense Act, 1916
guaranteed the State militias as the primary reserve force; gave the President the authority to mobilize the Guard during war or national emergency; made use of the term "National Guard" mandatory; authorized drill pay for the first time.

The National Defense Act of 1916 further expanded the Guard's role and guaranteed the State militias' status as the Army's primary reserve force. Furthermore, the law mandated use of the term "National Guard" for that force. Moreover, the President was given authority, in case of war or national emergency, to mobilize the National Guard for the duration of the emergency. The number of yearly drills increased from 24 to 48 and annual training from five to 15 days. Drill pay was authorized for the first time.

The National Defense Act Amendments, 1920
put the National Guard on the general staff; reorganized the divisions.

The National Defense Act Amendments of 1920 established that the chief of the Militia Bureau (later the National Guard Bureau) would be a National Guard officer, that National Guard officers would be assigned to the general staff and that the divisions, as used by the Guard in World War I, would be reorganized.

The National Guard Mobilization Act, 1933
made the National Guard a component of the Army.

The National Guard Mobilization Act of 1933 made the National Guard of the United States a component of the Army at all times, which could be ordered into active federal service by the President whenever Congress declared a national emergency.

The Total Force Policy, 1973
Requires all active and reserve military organizations be treated as a single integrated force; reinforced the original intent of the founding fathers (a small standing army complemented by citizen-soldiers.)

Following the experience of fighting an unpopular war in Vietnam, the 1973 Total Force Policy was designed to involve a large portion of the American public by mobilizing the National Guard from its thousands of locations throughout the United States when needed. The Total Force Policy required that all active and reserve military organizations of the United States be treated as a single integrated force. A related benefit of this approach is to permit elected officials to have a better sense of public support or opposition to any major military operation. This policy echoes the original intentions of the founding fathers for a small standing army complemented by citizen-soldiers.

[Psychoblues]

Thanks for the support, afbl. I wonder haw many others here agree or even read your post?

[retiredman]

hmmm, the name mean anything? the guardsmen/women that are in iraq/afgan defending this national country are to be commended...with that said, i am sure in tiny print somewhere in the contract, being deployed overseas or out of this country was not what the "national" "guard" signed up for.

in time of great need, maybe. but i don't see iraq or afgan as being a great need to deploy national guardsmen overseas. it is no small wonder that people are pissed at president bush.
I concur

[Psychoblues]

Does this agreement indicate that nothing is wrong in Iraq?



I concur

If so, I STRONGLY disagree.

[retiredman]

Does this agreement indicate that nothing is wrong in Iraq?




If so, I STRONGLY disagree.


nothing that our cowboy president has done in Iraq is worthy of sending national guardsmen to try to unfuck.

[Psychoblues]

Dig it, mfm.



nothing that our cowboy president has done in Iraq is worthy of sending national guardsmen to try to unfuck.

Fuck him, the prez that is. :cheers2:

Have you been to the Lounge? Come on in and have a drink with me!!!!!!!

[Yurt]

I concur

http://home.maine.rr.com/mctest/HellFrozenOver.jpg

:coffee:

[Psychoblues]

Cute


http://home.maine.rr.com/mctest/HellFrozenOver.jpg

:coffee:

[actsnoblemartin]

how did you find my picture :laugh2:


http://home.maine.rr.com/mctest/HellFrozenOver.jpg

:coffee:

[Psychoblues]

Just a regular cartoon, marteen. Did you fantasize anything differently?

[actsnoblemartin]

nope, did you wish i did :laugh2:


Just a regular cartoon, marteen. Did you fantasize anything differently?

[rppearso]

This is kinda long, but it shows where the fine print is when it comes to the National Guard. It is in the Constitution. Alot of these articles and sections will make your points valid, that the guard is for national use and home defence. But a few of them, which I highlighted will show how the guard can be used for other military actions.

I am not defending the use of the guard overseas. IMHO they should not be used as much as they are. I would like to see the active forces built up to the point were thay don't need to be. But with the drawdowns of the 90's that is not an option.

http://www.arng.army.mil/constitution.aspx

The Army National Guard's charter is the Constitution of the United States. Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution contains a series of "militia clauses," vesting distinct authority and responsibilities in the federal government and the state governments. These clauses and follow-on legislation have sculpted the Guard as you see it today. Here are summaries that will help you understand how the Guard came to be what it is today.

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.

Article I, Section 8; Clause 16
Congress may "organize, arm and discipline" the militia; the States may "establish… appoint the officers of… and train the militia." Also, limits Congress' power during peacetime.

Clause 16 gives Congress the power "to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States." That same clause specifically reserves to the States the authority to establish a state-based militia, to appoint the officers and to train the militia according to the discipline prescribed by the Congress. As written, the clause seeks to limit federal power over State militias during peacetime.

The Armies Clause
"Congress may declare war, raise and support armies…"

The "armies clause" in Article I, Section 8, conferred on Congress the power to provide for the common defense of the United States, declare war, raise and support armies, and make rules for the "government and regulation of the land and naval forces." The Congress also was granted authority to make all laws "necessary and proper" for carrying out such powers. Under this provision, congressional power over the National Guard appears to be far-reaching.

Article I, Section 10
"No state may keep troops… without the consent of Congress."

Article I, Section 10 provides that no state, without the consent of the Congress, shall keep troops or ships of war in time of peace, or engage in war unless actually invaded. Be sure to see the Second Amendment for more about this.

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."

Article IV, Section 4
guarantees every State in the Union a republican form of government.

Article IV, Section 4 provides that the federal government " shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government," and shall protect each of the States against invasion. At State request, the federal government was to protect the States "against domestic violence." Through these provisions, the potential for both cooperative Federalism and for tension between the "militia" and the "army" clauses was built into the constitution.

Article II, Section 2
makes the president Commander-in-Chief of all forces, including the militia when federalized.

Article II, Section 2 places all forces, including the militia when in federal service, under the control of the executive branch by making the president Commander-in-Chief.

Article I, Section 8
gives Congress the ultimate control through its sole power to collect taxes to pay the military, to declare war and employ the militia for security.

Article I, Section 8 gave the ultimate control to the Congress, by granting it the sole power to collect taxes to pay for the military, to declare war and to employ the militia for common purposes of internal security. Existing State militias could be maintained, although troops could be called into national service. But the founding fathers moderated that authority by leaving the individual States with the explicit responsibility for appointing officers and for supervising peacetime training of the citizen-soldiers.

The Militia Act of 1792
clarified the role of the militia; required all able men to serve, be armed, and be equipped at their own expense; also, standardized unit structure.

The Militia Act of 1792 subsequently expanded federal policy and clarified the role of the militia. It required all able bodied men aged 18 to 45 to serve, to be armed, to be equipped at their own expense and to participate in annual musters. The 1792 act established the idea of organizing these militia forces into standard divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions and companies, as directed by the State legislatures.

The militia concept put to the test in the War of 1812

For the 111 years that the Militia Act of 1792 remained in effect, it defined the position of the militia in relation to the federal government. The War of 1812 tested this unique America defense establishment. To fight the War of 1812, the republic formed a small regular military and trained it to protect the frontiers and coastlines. Although it performed poorly in the offensive against Canada, the small force of regulars backed by a well-armed militia, accomplished its defensive mission well. Generals like Andrew Jackson proved, just as they had in the Revolution, that regulars and militia could be effective when employed as a team.

Posse Comitatus
Congress' suspension of southern states' right to organize a militia resulted in Posse Comitatus, a limiting of the president's use of military forces in peacetime.

In 1867, the Congress suspended the southern states' right to organize their militias until a state was firmly under the control of an acceptable government. The U.S. Army was used to enforce martial law in the South during Reconstruction. Expansion of the military's role in domestic life, however, did not occur without debate or response. Reaction to the use of the Army in suppressing labor unrest in the North and guarding polls in the South during the 1876 election led to congressional enactment of the Posse Comitatus Act in 1878. Designed to limit the president's use of military forces in peacetime, this statute provided that: "...it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States... for the purpose of executing the laws, except on such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by any act of Congress..."

The States revise the military codes - 1881 to 1892

Concern over the militia's new domestic role also led the States to reexamine their need for a well-equipped and trained militia, and between 1881 and 1892, every state revised the military code to provide for an organized force. Most changed the name of their militias to the National Guard, following New York's example.

The Dick Act, 1903
affirmed the National Guard as the primary organized reserve force.

Between 1903 and the 1920's, legislation was enacted that strengthened the Army National Guard as a component of the national defense force. The Dick Act of 1903 replaced the 1792 Militia Act and affirmed the National Guard as the Army's primary organized reserve.

The National Defense Act, 1916
guaranteed the State militias as the primary reserve force; gave the President the authority to mobilize the Guard during war or national emergency; made use of the term "National Guard" mandatory; authorized drill pay for the first time.

The National Defense Act of 1916 further expanded the Guard's role and guaranteed the State militias' status as the Army's primary reserve force. Furthermore, the law mandated use of the term "National Guard" for that force. Moreover, the President was given authority, in case of war or national emergency, to mobilize the National Guard for the duration of the emergency. The number of yearly drills increased from 24 to 48 and annual training from five to 15 days. Drill pay was authorized for the first time.

The National Defense Act Amendments, 1920
put the National Guard on the general staff; reorganized the divisions.

The National Defense Act Amendments of 1920 established that the chief of the Militia Bureau (later the National Guard Bureau) would be a National Guard officer, that National Guard officers would be assigned to the general staff and that the divisions, as used by the Guard in World War I, would be reorganized.

The National Guard Mobilization Act, 1933
made the National Guard a component of the Army.

The National Guard Mobilization Act of 1933 made the National Guard of the United States a component of the Army at all times, which could be ordered into active federal service by the President whenever Congress declared a national emergency.

The Total Force Policy, 1973
Requires all active and reserve military organizations be treated as a single integrated force; reinforced the original intent of the founding fathers (a small standing army complemented by citizen-soldiers.)

Following the experience of fighting an unpopular war in Vietnam, the 1973 Total Force Policy was designed to involve a large portion of the American public by mobilizing the National Guard from its thousands of locations throughout the United States when needed. The Total Force Policy required that all active and reserve military organizations of the United States be treated as a single integrated force. A related benefit of this approach is to permit elected officials to have a better sense of public support or opposition to any major military operation. This policy echoes the original intentions of the founding fathers for a small standing army complemented by citizen-soldiers.

That is really good information, it is unfortunate that the milita was converted into the national guard. A few questions, was the war in iraq ever declaired by congress?

Also I do not believe it was ever the founding father intent to fight wars thousands of miles away and to be deployed for such lengths of time. I could be wrong, how long were milita away from home during the war of 1812, it was my understanding that thoes wars were virtually fought from peoples homes to suppress invaders, being away from your wife for such lengths of time is really bad for moral, I also wonder what the social dynamic of the milita was back then, I would imagine there was much more cohesion and commrodary because your "units" were your friends and neighbors not some schmuck from the inner city or some NCO straight out of the nut house. You can get far more done when you can hand pick your unit as opposed to the way they run training now like basic training, the miliary is living a dilusion if they think they can "unite" everyone, there are different levels of cohesivness, there is right down to the squad and platoon level in which members should have very good working relationships with each other and not be randomly thrown together and then there is the matter of platoons working together which is done at the officer level in which there can be professional understandings to get the job done. Converting the milita to the national gaurd was a mistake because now it is not truely citizen soldiers, national gaurdsmen are contracted military personel subjected to deployment and other military aspects and are no longer the 2 farmers who work together and take up arms against an invasion. The idea of a small military supplemented by citizen soldiers is not to make the citizen soldiers contracted so you can "own" them, you will not have a problem with people taking up arms to defend this nation when defense is truly needed, its the sham political wars that you need contracted soldiers to force into war with fear of prosecution this was not the intent of the founding fathers.

[AFbombloader]

That is really good information, it is unfortunate that the milita was converted into the national guard. A few questions, was the war in iraq ever declaired by congress?

Also I do not believe it was ever the founding father intent to fight wars thousands of miles away and to be deployed for such lengths of time. I could be wrong, how long were milita away from home during the war of 1812, it was my understanding that thoes wars were virtually fought from peoples homes to suppress invaders, being away from your wife for such lengths of time is really bad for moral, I also wonder what the social dynamic of the milita was back then, I would imagine there was much more cohesion and commrodary because your "units" were your friends and neighbors not some schmuck from the inner city or some NCO straight out of the nut house. You can get far more done when you can hand pick your unit as opposed to the way they run training now like basic training, the miliary is living a dilusion if they think they can "unite" everyone, there are different levels of cohesivness, there is right down to the squad and platoon level in which members should have very good working relationships with each other and not be randomly thrown together and then there is the matter of platoons working together which is done at the officer level in which there can be professional understandings to get the job done. Converting the milita to the national gaurd was a mistake because now it is not truely citizen soldiers, national gaurdsmen are contracted military personel subjected to deployment and other military aspects and are no longer the 2 farmers who work together and take up arms against an invasion. The idea of a small military supplemented by citizen soldiers is not to make the citizen soldiers contracted so you can "own" them, you will not have a problem with people taking up arms to defend this nation when defense is truly needed, its the sham political wars that you need contracted soldiers to force into war with fear of prosecution this was not the intent of the founding fathers.

First, thank you for the complment. We usually go at it quite hard and I appreciate the complement.

It is very difficult to place today's world in the founding father's minds. There is no way to try and see how they would react to what is going on now. I also do not think they could comprehend sending troops thousand of miles away on a standard basis. But if they could, I think they would support the president, beause they put so much faith in the office. All you have to do is read their writings to see that. As far as the war of 1812, I would have to do more research. It is my understanding that the war was more about the British support for the indiand and slaves tan anyting else. But again, I would need to do more research. And currently I am reading about the Korean conflict. Maybe after I finish that. I believe the national Army did a lot of the fighting then, but I am at a loss as to the state militias.

AF:salute: