Vermont has no National Guard choppers to help with cleanup from Hurricane Irene because they are all in Iraq

Well at least Iraq gets new infrastructure. I'm sure it was worth it somehow.

My husband was in Senegal (French West Africa) on business recently. He noticed some American military men and started talking to them. He asked what unit they're with and was told the Coast Guard. He asked just WHOSE coast are they guarding? WHO is guarding our coast! They shrugged and shook their heads with disgust and said, "Indeed. We've been wondering the same thing!!!"
What is the possible justification for this? Senegal is not at war with anyone nor are they even being threatened. With all the foreign aid we give them, why don't they form their own darn coast guard and let our guys come home and guard OUR coast!!!

There is already long-standing law against the deployment of the National Guard for overseas "service. Read on:

DICK ACT of 1902... CAN'T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) - Protection Against Tyrannical Government
Submitted by Jonathan on Sun, 03/29/2009 - 2:04pm.

The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.

** SPREAD THIS TO EVERYONE **

The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army. The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.

The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.

The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion). These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard.

Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, "the Organized Militia (the National Guard) can not be employed for offensive warfare outside the limits of the United States."

The Honorable William Gordon, in a speech to the House on Thursday, October 4, 1917, proved that the action of President Wilson in ordering the Organized Militia (the National Guard) to fight a war in Europe was so blatantly unconstitutional that he felt Wilson ought to have been impeached.

During the war with England an attempt was made by Congress to pass a bill authorizing the president to draft 100,000 men between the ages of 18 and 45 to invade enemy territory, Canada. The bill was defeated in the House by Daniel Webster on the precise point that Congress had no such power over the militia as to authorize it to empower the President to draft them into the regular army and send them out of the country.

The fact is that the President has no constitutional right, under any circumstances, to draft men from the militia to fight outside the borders of the USA, and not even beyond the borders of their respective states. Today, we have a constitutional LAW which still stands in waiting for the legislators to obey the Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold.

Charles Hughes of the American Bar Association (ABA) made a speech which is contained in the Appendix to Congressional Record, House, September 10, 1917, pages 6836-6840 which states: "The militia, within the meaning of these provisions of the Constitution is distinct from the Army of the United States." In these pages we also find a statement made by Daniel Webster, "that the great principle of the Constitution on that subject is that the militia is the militia of the States and of the General Government; and thus being the militia of the States, there is no part of the Constitution worded with greater care and with more scrupulous jealousy than that which grants and limits the power of Congress over it."

"This limitation upon the power to raise and support armies clearly establishes the intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution to limit the power to raise and maintain a standing army to voluntary enlistment, because if the unlimited power to draft and conscript was intended to be conferred, it would have been a useless and puerile thing to limit the use of money for that purpose. Conscripted armies can be paid, but they are not required to be, and if it had been intended to confer the extraordinary power to draft the bodies of citizens and send them out of the country in direct conflict with the limitation upon the use of the militia imposed by the same section and article, certainly some restriction or limitation would have been imposed to restrain the unlimited use of such power."

The Honorable William Gordon

Congressional Record, House, Page 640 - 1917

The Army's National Guard is a division of the Army. Many people wrongly believe it is a State institution or the State Militia. This confusion comes from US Code Title 10 sec.311 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sec_10_00000311----000... This law is unconstitutional on many points. First, there is no such thing as "the militia of the United States" The Constitution refers to the "Militia of the several States" Art.II sec.2 Second, as stated the National Guard is a division of the Army and Third,"the unorganized militia" is no Militia at all. All Colonial and State Militia from the 1600's until 1903 Dick Act were always very well organized (regulated). Amendment II "A well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State..." I spoke to our champion of the Constitution about this very problem and he told me he could summit a bill to correct these unconstitutional Acts. Please let him know you support him in correcting this vital issue.

Say what??? Vermont has no National Guard choppers to help with cleanup from Hurricane Irene!

"Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful!"
- Henry Kissinger in an address to the Bilderberger organization meeting at Evian, France, on May 21, 1991.

And here we are, 20 years later. It is "tomorrow" and you do sound as if you would be grateful (to have the National Guard in Vermont to help with cleanup from Hurricane Irene).

What about all the flap about State Sovereinty I've seen around here??? Now, you are calling for help from the National Guard ? Can you not see the irony here???

That's why I have to agree with this suggestion from another poster:
"The easiest solution is to dissolve the National Guard on paper and reconstitute it under some state emergency unit or an arm of the state police. Then you still have a National Guard per se, just not one subject to call up by the president."
At least, that way you can all continue to call for "State Sovereignty" - if that's what you really want, without speaking out of both sides of your mouths. How can you advocate for Ron Paul by calling for State Sovereignty out of one side of your mouths, while calling for help from the National Guard out of the other side of your mouths? How can anyone trust a politician, knowing they're speaking out of both sides of their mouths?

Ouch! That's a major slap in the face for the pro-war pro-FEMA crowd.

Truth is in most disaster situations, the National Guard, which is primarily an arm of states, is the most effective, and they can coordinate interstate efforts rather well without any federal involvement whatsoever.

Most of the time when there's a disaster, the National Guards have a great plan underway to deal with it, then FEMA struts in and takes over and screws everything up royally.