Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gov. Rick Perry to deploy 1,000 National Guard troops to RGV
The Monitor ^ | Sunday, July 20, 2014 9:30 pm | Jacob Fischler

Posted on 07/20/2014 9:06:01 PM PDT by bd476

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 281-292 next last
To: bd476

Good Going Mr. Perry. Thank you. Better late than never.

Ok Ms. Brewer you’re up next!

And Ms. Martinez you too!


121 posted on 07/21/2014 4:18:37 AM PDT by Qwackertoo (Worst 8 years ever, First Affirmative Action President, I hope those who did this to us SUFFER MOST!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bd476

Has he committed to when??????


122 posted on 07/21/2014 4:21:50 AM PDT by dalebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bd476

Gates been open way to long and the horse is way down the road.

Better luck next time America


123 posted on 07/21/2014 4:27:48 AM PDT by eartick (Been to the line in the sand and liked it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #124 Removed by Moderator

To: bd476

Depending on what their assignments are and how soon they are stationed and for how long, this smacks of the same kind of posturing GW Bush did when he 'ordered 6,000 NG on the border'.

GW's 6,000 were gradually assigned, for a few weeks at a time, in groups, over a period of months, so there was never a full complement of 6,000 at the border at one time. It was a political ploy to appease the anti-amnesty/secure-the-border voices.

Additionally, GW's 6,000 were assigned to filing paperwork, filling out forms, washing vehicles, etc. They were not even allowed to carry weapons.


Regrettably, Hinojosa may be right, since Perry is making sounds of wanting to run for the presidency again.


125 posted on 07/21/2014 4:39:32 AM PDT by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bd476

Oh boy. Now you’ve gone and done it. Prepare to be flamed by the Anti-Perry crew. ;)


126 posted on 07/21/2014 4:47:15 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

For a 1200 mile border it isn’t much, but 2000 troops would cost Texas about a half billion a year when everything got rolling.

My sense is that Perry wants to use them in an extremely vulnerable location. What he might want, I think, is for Obama to call seize Federal control of them and then change their mission to something that doesn’t help the border invasion.


127 posted on 07/21/2014 4:59:30 AM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: LUV W

Well, well. About time.


128 posted on 07/21/2014 5:04:04 AM PDT by Arrowhead1952 (The Second Amendment is NOT about the right to hunt. It IS a right to shoot tyrants.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jocon307
Good. I was reading that he was asking Obama to do this and I didn’t understand why as I thought the National Guard was under control of the governors.

The respective state National Guards are authorized by the Constitution of the United States. As originally drafted, the Constitution recognized the existing state militias, and gave them vital roles to fill: "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasion." (Article I, Section 8, Clause 15). The Constitution distinguished "militias," which were state entities, from "Troops", which were unlawful for states to maintain without Congressional approval. (Article I, Section 10, Clause 3). Under current law, the respective state National Guards and the State Defense Forces are authorized by Congress to the states and are referred to as "troops." 32 U.S.C. § 109.

Yet the President of the United States is the commander-in-chief of the state militias "when called into the actual Service of the United States." (Article II, Section 2).

The traditional state militias were redefined and recreated as the "organized militia"—the National Guard, via the Militia Act of 1903. They were now subject to an increasing amount of federal control, including having arms and accouterments supplied by the central government, federal funding, and numerous closer ties to the Regular Army. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_States#Constitutional_basis

129 posted on 07/21/2014 5:07:12 AM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: bd476
Hinojosa said the National Guard was not equipped to aid immigrants crossing the Rio Grande. “They (cartels) are taking advantage of the situation,” he said. “But our local law enforcement from the sheriff’s offices of the different counties to the different police departments are taking care of the situation. This is a civil matter, not a military matter. What we need is more resources to hire more deputies, hire more Border Patrol.

“These are young people, just families coming across. They're not armed. They're not carrying weapons.”

just families coming across illegally.....fixed it.

130 posted on 07/21/2014 5:08:23 AM PDT by ealgeone (obama, borderof)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: selfdefense

A fence alone will not work. Anyone who’s been to the border knows it.


131 posted on 07/21/2014 5:08:57 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212

But..... the NG can be deputized as law enforcement and be under the direct control of the governor.

The military hats come off and Law enforcement hats go on


132 posted on 07/21/2014 5:10:07 AM PDT by bert ((K.E.; N.P.; GOPc.;+12 ..... Obama is public enemy #1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: bd476

Smart move by Perry. He’s showing real leadership in a crisis. Where’s Hillary?

So for only $12 million a month we can have real border security in the south. That’s $144 million a year, toss in the fence as already paid for and just finish it. It’s got to cost America way more than $144 million a year to take care of all the illegals here.


133 posted on 07/21/2014 5:11:16 AM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RedMDer
Hinojosa sounds like a typical treasonous rat.

You saw his solution didn't you..."we just need to hire more border patrol." that is we need to increase government more.

134 posted on 07/21/2014 5:11:33 AM PDT by ealgeone (obama, borderof)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: itssme

State Defense Forces

Many states also maintain their own state defense forces. Although not federal entities like the National Guard of the United States, these forces are components of the state militias like the individual state National Guards.

These forces were created by Congress in 1917 as a result of the state National Guards’ being deployed and were known as Home Guards. In 1940, with the onset of World War II and as a result of its federalizing the National Guard, Congress amended the National Defense Act of 1916, and authorized the states to maintain “military forces other than National Guard.”[13] This law authorized the War Department to train and arm the new military forces that would come to be known as State Guards. In 1950, with the outbreak of the Korean War and at the urging of the National Guard, Congress reauthorized the separate state military forces for a time period of two years. These state military forces were authorized military training at federal expense, as well as “arms, ammunition, clothing, and equipment,” as deemed necessary by the Secretary of the Army.[14] In 1956, Congress finally revised the law and authorized “State defense forces” permanently under Title 32, Section 109, of the United States Code.[15]
Naval Militias

Although there are no Naval or Marine Corps components of the National Guard of the United States, there is a Naval Militia authorized under federal law.10 U.S.C. § 7851. Like the soldiers and airmen in the National Guard of the United States, members of the Naval Militia are authorized federal appointments or enlistments at the discretion of the Secretary of the Navy.10 U.S.C. § 7852. To receive federal funding and equipment, a state naval militia must be composed of at least 95% Marine or Naval reservists. As such, some states maintain such units. Some states also maintain naval components of their State Defense Force. Recently, Alaska, California, New Jersey, New York, South Carolina, Texas and Ohio have had or currently maintain naval militias. Other states have laws authorizing them but do not currently have them organized. To receive federal funding, just like with the National Guard, a state must meet specific requirements such as having a set percentage of its members in the federal reserves.10 U.S.C. § 7851.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_States#Other_Organizations


135 posted on 07/21/2014 5:13:16 AM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf

Correct and it should be done. Push the failure into the face of Obama. Sue the Feds for the funding.


136 posted on 07/21/2014 5:14:02 AM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: bd476

“...Hinojosa said the National Guard was not equipped to aid immigrants crossing the Rio Grande. ...”

Somebody should publicly and loudly inform this smacked-arse Hinojosa that the Nat Guard isn’t going there to AID the Illegal Aliens in crossing.

They’re going there to STOP them from crossing.


137 posted on 07/21/2014 5:16:07 AM PDT by NFHale (The Second Amendment - By Any Means Necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #138 Removed by Moderator

To: BuckeyeTexan; stevie_d_64

The concept of a fence in Texas is ludicrous.

The border is the center of a meandering river. A fence can’t be built in a river. If the fence is constructed on the Texas bank, the river is effectively ceded to mexico. Then there is the matter of the law. If the Latrinos reach the center of the unprotected river they become subject to US law and granted a deportation trial. The fence in effect guarantees all who cross the river instant asylum.

The concept of a fence is a joke, a pie in the sky irrational nothingness.


139 posted on 07/21/2014 5:19:18 AM PDT by bert ((K.E.; N.P.; GOPc.;+12 ..... Obama is public enemy #1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: bd476

will they get desk jobs and fake bullets like last time someone sent them down to the boarder?


140 posted on 07/21/2014 5:23:53 AM PDT by cableguymn (It's time for a second political party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 281-292 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson