With our southern border under siege, expect our legislature to give life to a state military force. In the next legislative session, Jan. 8, Sen. Sylvia Allen will introduce a bill to organize a state guard to assist with border security.
Perhaps you remember, last year Gov. Jan Brewer signed SB1495, which would allow her to establish the guard. This next step handles the details of activation and funding.
This surely won't please those who wanted to cool legislative action in regards to illegal immigration. Some thought by recalling District 18 Senate President Russell Pearce, the Godfather of Arizona's controversial law SB1070, our border issues would take a siesta.
Pearce's replacement as Senate President is Yavapai County rancher Steve Pierce. He tells me he "has the same beliefs as Russell Pearce." We might wonder what Dr. Freud would say when one conservative Pearce is replaced by another. The gods do have a sense of humor, don't they? For ease in reading, take note, the new president's last name is spelled with an "i."
Yes, Pierce will approach Arizona's critical issues, his own way. However, he praises Pearce for his policies, especially his work with Arizona's economy, which of course included dealing with the burgeoning costs of illegal immigration.
The new senate president will continue developing a lean, state budget, putting forth a "Grape Nuts breakfast; doing more with less." His priority is jobs and a business friendly atmosphere.
As for the border issues, Pierce says, "I agree with Russell." However, Pierce did vote against five of the last bills Pearce introduced on immigration. "We don't need more bills," he told me. "We need to enforce what we have." Enforcement is a thorn in the side of Pearce's detractors. Pierce expects the courts to uphold SB1070.
He says illegal immigration is "a drain on our economy," and he concurs with others who warn "Arizona is in a state of emergency along the borders." Referring to the besieged land owners, Pierce says, "Those people need help." He supports the state's efforts to raise private money for a fence. "There needs to be a barrier," he says (buildtheborderfence.com). Further, he's a "strong supporter of organizing the guard and will do whatever he can to help Senator Allen in her efforts."
Those of us here in the southeast corner of Maricopa County have real reason to be alarmed. The sophisticated Mexican cartels are setting up shop, some reportedly infiltrated by terrorists. Multiple sources are witnesses, including Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu, a rising star in regard to fighting border violators.
Babeu supports Senators McCain and Kyl's 10-Point Border Security Plan which "calls for immediate deployment of 6,000 armed soldiers for a period of two years." During that time, he says the other issues of fence building and full enforcement of the law should proceed. Babeu also supports a state guard.
Again, with little help from the Feds, our safety falls to courageous Arizonans who, in the face of hostile criticism, keep moving forth. They need citizen support.
Learn for yourselves why legislators and law enforcement are concerned. Check out a two-and-a-half hour Arizona Senate hearing, April 13, 2010 (www.azleg.gov) filled with chilling testimony from border residents. Or go to Newsmax.com for a report earlier this year by Jim Meyers, "Mexico Drug War Spills Across Border" (June 14, 2011).
There are those who pooh-pooh the above, who claim it is hype. It's unfathomable that they choose to risk Arizona's sovereignty, families, homes and jobs.
As for our legislative leadership, kudos for teaming up with a courageous governor. Let's hope they force a border closure before cartels move in next door.
Doc Mills posted at 10:27 pm on Sat, Dec 17, 2011.
The Arizona State Defense Force will be a low cost, effective force multiplier to securing the border. It would primarily be made of former active duty, reserve, and national guard troops with real world experience in combat, natural disaster, and humanitarian missions. It will be largely self equipped on the individual level, and since it would be comprised of volunteers, highly motivated. Citizens defending their own country, state, and communities is legal, Constitutional, and an American tradition. Beyond that, it does not fall under the authority of the federal government, which doesn't want to really solve the problem, and therefore it will be far more effective.
Far Rider posted at 4:21 pm on Fri, Dec 16, 2011.
AZRanger, I am not wrong, I am quoting the federal statute. Anyone can look this up at the following link:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode32/usc_sec_32_00000109----000-.html
The statute says quite clearly: "A defense force established under this section may be used within the jurisdiction concerned, as its chief executive (or commanding general in the case of the District of Columbia) considers necessary, but it may not be called, ordered, or drafted into the armed forces."
That is from Title 32, Chapter 1, Paragraph 109, subparagraph (c) of the United States Code. If we are reading this wrong, please enlighten us.
The Arizona State Defense Force Foundation is not associated with JT Ready. In fact, Ready was asked to leave the Foundation meeting at the Gold Canyon Resort last June, because he had showed up uninvited. If you don't believe that, ask him.
There is nothing in the proposed bill that will go before our State Legislature that mentions the federal DHS. I, for one, would not be involved if it did. Please show us your documentation of that allegation.
You are likely confusing the proposed state bill with a federal bill that is still in Committee, HR 2025, the Border States Security Improvement Act, which would require the Secretary of Defense to fund State Defense Forces in the four southern border states:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.02025:#
Nothing about the federal DHS is in that bill, either.
The Constitution of Arizona does, in fact, authorize the militia and defines it very generally, but does not specify how it is to be called up to duty. That is left to the Arizona Revised Statutes. ARS 26-122, for example, defines the "components" of the militia:
A. The militia is divided into the national guard of Arizona, the state guard when organized, and the unorganized militia."
http://azleg.gov/ars/26/00122.htm
The group mentioned by AZRanger would be that third component, the "unorganized militia".
If the "unorganized militia" are ever going to get organized and trained by a state entity, then that is not going to be done by the Arizona National Guard. They are specifically prohibited from using their equipment to train state defense forces and militia, including the Arizona State Guard.
The State Guard could be established, but would not be allowed to utilize any equipment that had been issued to the National Guard by the federals. That is in National Guard Regulation 10-4.
Since the National Guard would not be permitted to conduct training of the "unorganized militia", then who do you suppose would be given that task?
While not specified under current state law, the general consensus is that it would have to be done by the State Guard. As a state-only entity, with no federal ties, it would be the only state military force allowed to do so. One more reason to establish it and get it funded.
There are sources for funding other than the state treasury. There are grants from private corporations, and donations from private individuals. Sheriff Paul Babeu's private non-profit Foundation raised enough money from these private sources to purchase 130 rifles and night vision devices for his Deputies. Nearly a quarter of a million has been raised by private donations to build the southern Arizona border fence. The funding for the State Guard does not have to all come out of the taxpayer's pocket.
Bottom line, though, is that most of the cost of the SDF soldier's uniforms and equipment will have to be paid for by the soldier himself. I am prepared to do just that as soon as the State Guard has been established. Just about every member of the Arizona State Defense Force Foundation is similarly prepared. We will pay our own way.
I would be a fairly typical example of the volunteer for the State Guard. I am 54 years of age, and I am medically and physically fit. I served for 13 years as a US Army officer, both Active and Reserve. I am a graduate of the US Army Infantry Officer's Course at Ft Benning, GA. I also graduated from Airborne School as a qualified Paratrooper.
During the course of my service, I had the honor to lead a Light Infantry Rifle Platoon, serve in Staff positions, and to be a Company Commander. I had the privilege of training alongside the Rangers, the Airborne, and some Special Forces.
I am technically and tactically sound in the principles of Land Warfare, and I was certified by the US Army Infantry School to train Infantry troops.
May we please know AZRanger's qualfications and credentials?
Other members of the Arizona State Defense Force Foundation have similar or better prior service qualifications than mine. These the fine Citizen soldiers that you have insulted by calling us "Fascist-leaning" .
Rudeness, by the way, is the weak man's substitute for strength.
The Arizona State Defense Force Foundation has not organized any armed toop units, nor do we intend to violate state laws by doing so. The fact that AZRanger claims that he has done so indicates that he is in violation of ARS 26-123:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
26-123. Maintenance of private troops prohibited; violation; classification
A. No person, partnership or corporation shall maintain troops under arms, but this section shall not be deemed to prohibit a business, plant or firm from maintaining armed guards for protection of their property from damage or loss, or formation of a state police or highway patrol, or the existence of county and municipal police forces and sheriff's posses.
B. Any person violating this section is guilty of a class 5 felony.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, unless AZRanger's "unit" falls within one of the above exemptions, his activities should be reported to the authorities as felonious organized crime .
Since what AZRanger has proposed would be a crime, I have a counter-challenge: $200 to the winner of an open debate in a public venue. I will choose the time and the place. Put up or shut up.
To be sure, there will someday be a place for organized miltia units in the state of Arizona. That day will come shortly after the Arizona State Guard has been formally established, and has been given the mission to organize and train those volunteers.
PUT UP YOUR GUARD!
http://www.azsdf.org
Far Rider posted at 6:03 pm on Thu, Dec 15, 2011.
The bill that Senator Allen will introduce on 8 January 2012 is not the same as the current law. The current law leaves it to the Governor to decide when to establish the State Guard via Executive authority. This new bill would simply go ahead and establish the State Guard legislatively, so that force development can begin.
Both current law and the proposed bill are completely lawful under Federal statutes. Title 32, Chapter 1, Paragraph 109, is what authorizes each state, and each Commonwealth, to establish their own State Defense Force:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode32/usc_sec_32_00000109----000-.html
21 states, plus the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, have already availed themselves of this power and established their own State Defense Forces. Of the four southern border states, Texas, California, and New Mexico have each already established an active State Defense Force. Arizona is the only southern border state that does not have an SDF.
Q. What is a “State Defense Force”?
A. As defined under Title 32 of the United State Code, each state is authorized to maintain an armed defense force, under the sole control of that state’s Governor, not the Pentagon, not the US Congress, and not the President of the United States.
Q. Isn’t a State Defense Force the same as the National Guard?
A. No. State Defense Forces are separate and apart from the National Guard. Like the National Guard, State Defense Forces are under the command of our Governor, but unlike the National Guard, State Defense Forces cannot be ordered into federal military service.
Q. Our state already has big budget problems. Wouldn’t establishing another state force cost the taxpayers plenty of money that we don’t have?
A. No. Unlike the fine soldiers of the National Guard, State Defense Force soldiers serve purely as volunteers, and do not get paid for their monthly drills, nor for their Annual Training. Some SDFs receive no funding at all from their respective states. State Defense Forces offer a low-cost, high-value way for states to augment their Homeland Security and Emergency Management capabilities.
For the straight facts about State Defense Forces in general, and the Arizona State Guard in particular, please visit http://www.azsdf.org.
The Arizona State Defense Force Foundation is an Arizona non-profit Corporation that is dedicated to educating the public about the above, as well as advocating for the establishment of the Arizona State Guard.
Please visit the above website and contact the Arizona State Defense Force Foundation directly if you have questions.
Ditat Deus
John Randolph posted at 9:24 pm on Sun, Dec 11, 2011.
American voters must be among the most ignorant voters in the world. They keep voting in Republicans or Democrats who are bank rolled by the same elite who have been tag-team raping them for years.
They can't see that the same 1% who rape them are the same 1% who rape the undocumented.
Failed immigration is created and designed by the elite who run both governments. This is no different than failed mortgages, failed health care, loss of jobs, and our failing economy. This insidious 1% causes these failures because they profit at the expense of both the US taxpayers and the Mexican undocumented.
Are American voters really so propagandized that they can't figure out why not one single U.S. politician criticizes the Mexican government for anything? The undocumented would not come or stay here if that filthy, corrupt co-trading partner of the American elite would take care of its own citizens. The majority of undocumented care deeply about their families and would stay at home if they could make a decent living wage working with their families.
Its about bi-national drug profits, trade, oil, remittances, the privatization of prisons, cheap labor, weapons profit, NAFTA, and a 40 year long political platform that only sways back and forth, and never forward.
I invite OWS to embrace the undocumented who are protesting. Shame on both these pitiful governments who fail to address the immigration nightmare that they profit from.
Accuracy posted at 8:20 pm on Sun, Dec 11, 2011.
“Feds won't do it so Arizona state guard may have to” . . . Or maybe now the U.S. Military?
Because the U.S. Senate just passed a bill, known as The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. S.1867 passed by a vote of 93-7.
It authorizes the use of U.S. armed forces for domestic law enforcement within the United States. And, for the first time, it allows the military to hold detainees in military facilities for indefinite periods, without charges, and without due process. But, the only problem is, with this new amendment it looks like the White House gets to make the calls.
Rich posted at 7:56 pm on Sun, Dec 11, 2011.
Take a Journalism class, Dave. It is at least unethical, and may even be illegal to"...find an adult with some semblance of intellectual capacity and some level of emotional maturity, not to mention some level of subject matter knowledge, to offer commentary."
Dale Whiting posted at 6:55 pm on Sun, Dec 11, 2011.
It becomes abundantly clear that few if any of the above commenters understand the problem of coordinating federal border enforcement with a parallel though not equal state force bent on border enforcment. So I'll state the problem simplistically. Too many cooks spoil the soup!
It is not just a matter of using radios to coordinate movements. It's deciding priorities and settling on approaches. One thing does become simplier. Where these state troops are not a part of the national guard, federal law prohibiting the use of the military to enforce law evaporates.
Let the Feds do their job. And if the Feds think that they need militia, let them either deploy active duty troops or call up our Arizona NG. And if you loose faith in the Feds, then vote next November for some candidate who promises to do better. Just don't hold your breath!
Now for the analogy. Any of you ever been to the circus? Remember watching the clowns climb in and out of their car? That will be Jan's new militia!
davidflucier posted at 3:52 pm on Sun, Dec 11, 2011.
Linda T-H shows once again that she has the emotional and intellectual capacity of a high school sophomore...even the title of her piece is fallacious.
The East Valley Trib would do well to try to find an adult with some semblance of intellectual capacity and some level of emotional maturity, not to mention some level of subject matter knowledge, to offer commentary.
Arizona Willie posted at 12:58 pm on Sun, Dec 11, 2011.
The Federal Government doesn't want Arizona to deport illegal aliens to Mexico or other countries south of our border.
Okay.
Fine.
Nothing to stop Sheriff Joe from putting them on buses bound for Salt Lake City so they can show everyone how well their sanctuary policy works. Ohio loves illegals too and is another place that is begging for illegals to come get on their welfare rolls.
Perhaps Washington D.C. would enjoy a couple hundred busses / planes full of illegals being shipped to them also.
The Feds can't stop us from deporting illegals out of our state.
Yep, come to think of it .... Washington D.C. would be a fine deportation destination.
samkat posted at 10:54 am on Sun, Dec 11, 2011.
wd: The modern day national guard is the spin off from the state militias. If the state decides to create an auxiliary to say the Department of Public Safety, it is a civilian organization and as such is not subject to being federalized.
Now, with that said, I will say it again, civilian law enforcement communications with the border patrol is not a problem and happens daily. Some people will go out of their way to discredit anything that they disagree with.
The purpose of open forums is to exchange ideas and comments - continually bash each other.
Linda has her opinions, I have mine and every other blogger has theirs. I may disagree with my fellow bloggers but the amount of uncivil statements may be reaching the point of outright insults.
Cerulean posted at 7:30 am on Sun, Dec 11, 2011.
Mike McClellan wrote a blog for the Republic in which he ponders the fact that Arizona has a $416 million budget surplus. He provides a list that describes how he would use the money and for what reason. His priorities include the Rainy Day Fund, Education and some to reimburse counties and cities. I thought your ideas were worth reading, Mike. ( The blog can be read here: http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/Mike1633/150437)
Today, Mrs. Hansen boasts that Sen. Allen believes we need a private militia. New Senate President Pierce thinks a border fence is the way to go. Both are foolish, both ideas will cost the state far more than the surplus Mike writes about, and far more than a few poor men and women in a well clinic can justify; neither will resolve immigration.
Linda, you speciously tie immigration to the drug war thereby implicating ALL Mexican nationals as pushers (look up racism). There is another fact that you fail to mention, that is that we here in the U.S. buy the drugs. The smuggling trade is not just drugs coming into the U.S., it’s also loads of cash (via Africa, Europe and the Middle East) going south to Mexico. That’s right, it is demand for drugs from citizens right here in this beautiful, well groomed east valley that allow cartels to flourish. In 2006 Gov. Napolitano and Attorney General Goddard recognized that this war involves law enforcement and the community; drug agents and a commitment to drug treatment and prevention. Does our current batch of elected leaders acknowledge that we are part of the problem? Not that I can tell. And one more point, If one thinks it is possible to stop drugs or people from entering Arizona with a private militia, or a piece of a well-built wall – you are a fool.
That said, our Fed. and State Gov. ought to do everything and MORE, to stop the flow of heroin, methamphetamine and other dangerous drugs from entering our country. These drugs are highly addictive and destructive to our young people.
wdgnas posted at 7:05 am on Sun, Dec 11, 2011.
samkat::the 2nd amendment 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 2, section 2 of the us constitution states:The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the
several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;
Dale Whiting posted at 1:41 am on Sun, Dec 11, 2011.
Ok, now I see. The news is that "Jan. 8, Sen. Sylvia Allen will introduce a bill to organize a state guard to assist with border security."
Organize = money, money we don't have. The whole reason behind a National Guard is to receive federal assistance [i.e. $$$] for a state militia, one which can be federalized if needed. For most conflicts units of the NG are federalized and sent into battle. Now AZ will have units [which it must supply with hook, line and sinker] to potentially patrol the border. Can't you just see having a federalized AZ NG patrolling the state guard to make sure that they don't mess with ICE and Border Patrol?
Lunacy, absolute lunacy. It goes without saying that the high ups in the NG will be keeping their lips sealed. They know where the money comes from and that money talks.
We need to remove by recall those members of the Senate who have sponsored this lunacy. It's worse than anything Russell Pearce ever dreamed up!
Dale Whiting posted at 1:31 am on Sun, Dec 11, 2011.
Ok Gang, The bill is practically a one liner. It was signed months ago. This is not news! Here it is!
Section 1. Section 26-174, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:
26-174. Arizona state guard; establishment; purpose; appropriations
A. If the national guard of Arizona or a major portion thereof is called into active federal service, or if the national guard or a major portion thereof is alerted for federal service or for any other reason the governor considers to be necessary, the governor may establish an armed force for the safety and protection of the lives and property of the citizens of the state which shall be known as the Arizona state guard.
[My comments in brackets - Brewer may establish a back-up Guard. However, when the Guard is federalized, it can be Federalized hook, line and sinker, all personel - officer and enlisted - and all equipment. We start from scratch. This is totally non-sensical. They'd have no personnel to meet and no place for even volunteers to meet! ]
B. The Arizona state guard shall insofar as practicable be governed by and subject to the laws of the state pertaining to the national guard. The governor shall issue or cause to be issued rules and regulations to govern administration and organization of the state guard.
[This is not done over night! Idiotic, lunacy. Brewer and our legislature strike again.]
C. Appropriations made to the national guard shall be deemed appropriated to both the national guard and the Arizona state guard, if and when the latter organization is established, and any funds which that are unexpended from appropriations to the national guard may be used for establishment and maintenance of the Arizona state guard.
[When Federalized, the former NG is paid by the Feds. So we have money at some low level for week-end drills, but noone to act as paymaster, noone trained that is. Idiots!!!!!!]
No, Linda Turley-Hansen, this bill is not something wise, something which can take over for the feds who you believe are not doing what is needed. Is Arizona the only state to have such an idiotic piece of legislation on its books?
Rich posted at 10:28 pm on Sat, Dec 10, 2011.
"A state militia does not have to be the Guard so the feds cannot federalize them as Rich stated. "
And they have the right to do so themselves. As a freeman could carry a sword from the twelfth century. It's not without precedent in law, society or tradition. Only nutballs seem to think you need a law to do it. We only got a country out of the fact they didn't know they needed a law to do it.
As to 'illegal' immigration, all history proves the greatest armies ever assembled can't stop it. The 'best' society gets it, and the societies that accept it and learn to integrrate it, after 6000 years are the world's second largest economy after 6000 years. "Men are one thing. In the way of Wu Wei are only one. Only one piece in the infinite way of forever. The world turns, and you cannot stop it by pushing against an oak tree." Lao Tsu.
CSalafia posted at 10:19 pm on Sat, Dec 10, 2011.
Linda's screed starts off with a falsehood for a title and only gets worse from there.
Newsmax? Seriously? That bastion of yellow journalism that looked to blame Bill Clinton for 9/11 before the bodies were even cold? (Their first hit piece was published within 12 hours of the attacks)
Deportations are up, border crossings are down, and, despite the paranoia by Turley and the sycophants who believe as she does, crime rates are down along the border. El Paso was recently named the US's safest city.
Facts are nothing to be afraid of.... unless you're a rightie.
samkat posted at 10:01 pm on Sat, Dec 10, 2011.
Mike: You are so liberal, there is no way you could ever come to any consensus on eliminating illegal immigration. Your approach to illegal immigration would probably be amnesty. Then, you would begin your planning for the next wave that would invade our country.
Rich: What militia are you referring to? I was in the military for 20 plus years and was relieved from the retired reserves after 30 years. While I am for all practical purposes still subject to recall, I would have no problem volunteering in case of a national emergency. There is no such thing as a federal militia or even state militia that requires me to report for duty. Even the selective service system only holds young men available from ages 18 to 26. By the way, even illegals are required by law to sign up with the Selective Service if they are in the country between 18 and 26. Would you want to take a guess as to how many actually do so?
Bob, the only one with a case of xenophobia is you. Now, I do have contempt for people who ignore our immigration laws regardless of where they are from; and those who support the ones breaking our laws. If you have a problem with that, perhaps you should push to have all laws abolished from the books. Good luck on that thought. By the way, you seem to be in the minority in thinking our state has been disgraced for attempting to do what the feds will not do to protect its citizens.
Dale: As usual, if you disagree with someone, they are automatically categorized as bad or a neo-con. Linda simply expressed her views as you also entitled to do. Now, as to interfacing with the feds on the border, it would be no more different than it is today with our law enforcement officials. They have radios and cell phones just as our LEOs do. Face to face communications would be established probably before and during day to day operations.
I have no doubt that if such a militia is established, they would be required to undergo a background check and submit to a training program. The detractors and critics will always try to devise ways to downplay anything they disagree with.
A state militia does not have to be the Guard so the feds cannot federalize them as Rich stated. If they are civilians under the control of the state and financed by the state, they remain under the control of the governor just as the DPS would be. In fact, there have been proposals to place such a group under the DPS if it should be created.
Rich posted at 7:20 pm on Sat, Dec 10, 2011.
Mike,
Do you think Snoop Dog could do it? Two years ago tried to talk Richard Cheese into trying, he said he'd think about it. I sort of thought a 'lounge' version would be fall on floor funny. Though I'd love to hear Snoop try.
Mike McClellan posted at 6:51 pm on Sat, Dec 10, 2011.
Yeah, those two rappers . . . Gilbert and Sulilvan. In the house!
Masterrogue666 posted at 4:02 pm on Sat, Dec 10, 2011.
It's pleases me to no end to see so many Pro ILLEGAL ALIEN supporters so up in arms about what Linda has written. Pearce was recalled, congrats. The war goes on. That goodness THE MAJORITY wants actions taken against MILLIONS of criminals. We may in be in time to save our state, and our country........
Dale Whiting posted at 2:35 pm on Sat, Dec 10, 2011.
Not a single commenter nor Linda focus on the problem of interfacing Federal ICE and border patrol in with the AZ Guard. And if ICE and border patrol complain about what the AZ guard is doing, the Administration merely needs to federalize it and send it packing back home!
Get real Linda. You and Governor Brewer are about to look worse that Russell Pearce ever could have looked.
Rich posted at 1:26 pm on Sat, Dec 10, 2011.
Glad this isn't a face to face discussion, in that I realized, after posting what I should have said because it provides a rare opportunity to allude to the same GS song twice in one week. Does this bill make Gov. Brewer the "very model of a modern Major General"? (For the kiddies, it's a rap song, in fact I always wanted to hear a rap singer attempt it)
bobunf posted at 1:02 pm on Sat, Dec 10, 2011.
Linda, Pierce (the new) has a funny way of supporting disgraced former State Senator Pearce's approach to immigration: Opposing all five of Russell's most cherished anti-Latino bills when the disgraced former Senator was riding high. Another explanation, as opposed to the wishful thinking you express, is that Pierce (the new) was just following the folk wisdom: Do not speak ill of the dead.
Pierce's opposition to Russell took not only common sense and decency, but political courage. We can all hope and pray that Arizona is well on its way to recovery from the hysterical xenophobia from which the state suffered under the disgraced former Senator.
For which purpose, we definitely do not need to waste money on an absurd private army for our not-to-bright Governor. Did I hear the word "Kook?"
Rich posted at 12:03 pm on Sat, Dec 10, 2011.
We have an army already. All of us over eighteen are already in the militia. So aside from what the Governor can already ask for or do, what is the point? I assume that 'calling up the militia' would only result in a group of nutballs running around in fatigues making horse's behinds of themselves, which they can do and in fact do from time to time. There is no provision for training, discipline, or a chain of command south of Governor Jan's scotch bottle, so it might even be illegal, as what is being proposed is hardly "A well regulated militia,..."
Mike McClellan posted at 9:18 am on Sat, Dec 10, 2011.
SB 1495, the bill that Ms. Turley-Hansen approves, is so anti-conservative as to be ludicrous.
Here's what it does (you can read the legislative summary of it here -- http://www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/50leg/1r/summary/h.sb1495_04-20-11_astransmittedtogovernor.doc.htm&Session_ID=102):
It gives the Governor sole authority over declaring "for any reason necessary" the creation of a state militia.
And it gives the Governor sole authority over that force.
And it requires no training of that force.
Now, I guess some of the anti-conservative conservatives like Ms. Turley-Hansen don't see the danger of one person wielding so much power, but I wonder if she'd be so supportive if this were a Democrat idea supported by a Democratic governor?
And I wonder if the anti-conservative conservative Ms. Turley-Hansen really supports giving that kind of power to the Executive?