Skip to content

TGIF – April 6, 2018.

April 6, 2018

Whose National Guard is it?

The various state National Guard (essentially a state militia) units have a dual chain of command. In peacetime they are controlled by the governors of the states, while in times of war, disaster or insurrection they are under the command of the sitting President as commander in chief of the military.

Under that duality, among other Democrat governors, Oregon governor Kate Brown announced on Twitter yesterday that if asked, she will not allow her National Guard members to be deployed to the southern border, apparently believing that unless we declare war on Mexico, President Trump cannot assume command of the Oregon Guard.

In other words, like another governor named Brown, she is apparently quite OK with not defending the sovereignty of the nation’s borders.

She may be in for a rude awakening, although politically, it might be better to just let her rattle along.

It is useful to know that there are codified exceptions to the “posse comitatus” restrictions, under which the President could assume control of her Guard members.

One of the statutory exceptions is that under Title 32 authority, the President may deploy the militia, as follows:

Use of Militia and Armed Forces to Enforce Federal Authority. Whenever thePresident considers that unlawful obstructions, assemblages, or rebellion makeit impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State orTerritory, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State.

This is another statutory exception to Posse Comitatus.”

Source : National Guard Fact Sheet Army National Guard (FY2005), pub. 3 May 2006.(pdf)

Certainly the sanctuary movement could easily qualify as both an unlawful obstruction and a rebellion against the Federal government.

Frankly, there are enough states that support securing the border that Oregon’s unit probably would not be needed.

Still, it’s nice to know who is on our country’s side and who is not.

Can Facebook save Zuckerberg?

In the grand scheme of things, the fact that Facebook provides free hosting services in exchange for harvesting user data to sell to advertisers and maybe a few Russians might not rank up there with the Rosenberg executions.

As Musings has noted before, if you haven’t figured out by now that everyone on Facebook is a product, you are a little slow on the uptake. Privacy and your Facebook pages aren’t exactly synonymous.

The fact that it copies and retains your private Messenger phone interactions, where you do have an expectation of privacy, is quite something else. In fact in most states recording a private phone conversation requires a warrant.

Will that result in any criminal charges against Mark Zuckerberg, or perhaps even worse for him, a removal at the behest of shareholders from the company he started?

We don’t know yet, but rest assured, there will be a scapegoat found for the sale of at least 87 million user’s data to a company that then sold that information to Cambridge Analytica to be used for political purposes in the 2016 elections.

Apple fired Steve Jobs, so we hope Mr. Zuckerberg has an exit strategy that doesn’t involve a cell…the kind with walls, not a screen.

Déjà-vu

Once again, we have a shooter who should have been stopped. Of course it’s a she, not a he, and she wasn’t a Christian of  Anglo-Saxon origin, but there’s no doubt she, like the Parkland shooter,  was also a few bricks shy of a full load.

And once again, someone saw something and said something and still, Nasim Aghdam never was put on anyone’s capture and control list.

The media is reporting that Aghdam’s father reported her as a missing person and when she was contacted by police near Mountain View, they called him to tell him she appeared to be all right and they had just let her go on her way.

Supposedly about an hour after that call, the father called them back and told them that she might be on her way to YouTube to do some sort of mischief. He maintains he didn’t know she had a weapon, but thought that she might “start a fire or something.”

In this case the person sounding the alarm was the woman’s own father according to news reports, which you would think would have given his call more credence.

So, twelve hours before she shot up YouTube, she was contacted by police, not because she was known to be a public menace, but because she had been reported as a missing person.

Admittedly, this wasn’t as clear cut as the Parkland shooter’s numerous contacts with the law, but you wonder if anyone even looked at her social media presence after the father’s warning.

At the very least, you have to wonder if the father’s concern might not have at least warranted a cautionary call to the YouTube security department.

Maybe we need to tell a cable news or opinion commentator or a DJ on the radio.  There’s a lot better chance that they would at least broadcast the contact where the intended targets might hear about it.

 

From → op-ed

Leave a Comment

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

w

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: