Texas is ‘Prepared’ If Biden Federalizes State National Guard: Gov. Abbott

NTD.com ^ | 1/27/2024 | Naveen Athrappully

[SaxxonWoods]

“Well, first, I’d be shocked. That would be a boneheaded move on his part—total disaster,” Governor Abbott said. “ ... “Whatever we’ve been building, the Biden administration is now trying to attack us because of it, and we will continue to do exactly what we’re doing to expand our denial of illegal entry into the state of Texas.”

Gov. Abbott pointed out that state forces were already operating at the border and that he expects more forces to come to Texas from other state National Guards.

“There’ve been about ten [states] so far that have sent National Guard or other law enforcement … They now are joined together with us. This is a fight for the future of America, and they all know it. And so I believe that they will all be in on this effort.”

[exDemMom]

“The National Border Patrol Council (NBPC), which represents around 18,000 Border Patrol (BP) agents and support personnel assigned to the U.S. Border Patrol, extended support to Texas’ measures as well.

If you road trip on I-10 through El Paso, you will have to go through a border security station. The first time we did this, in 2010, the border agent asked us a ton of questions. The most recent time, in December, the agent just waved us through.

[exDemMom]

The National Guard and the regular military are controlled by different sets of laws. I do not think the president can take over a National Guard like that. They belong to the state, not the federal government.

Also, since Biden is purposely violating the terms of his oath of office by opening the borders and using the federal government to increase illegal entry, isn’t that a legitimate cause for impeachment?

[SaxxonWoods]

I think you are right on your first point. Yes, it’s a cause for impeachment but I’ll be shocked in Republicans do anything. They’d never get a 2/3 vote for conviction so maybe they are right to ignore it.

[redgolum]

Wars have been started for less.

[redgolum]

Or.. Texas is going to Join BRICS

[usconservative]

That it’s not go time already concerns me. We are slammed and smeared daily, they provoke us.

I keep my powder dry, my weapons ready and oiled. Magazines full, ready to go anytime.

Been that way 30+ years. And Laz, you know me: I don’t joke when I say if not now, when? If not us, who?

I’m old, long in the tooth, everything hurts, and I don’t want to leave this fight to my sons or grandchildren.

By Almighty God, we owe it to them to clean this mess up before we meet our maker. I have enough to confess in front of my Lord. I don’t want to have to add leaving this mess to my children and grandchildren also.

[BigEdLB]

In these times, in this circumstance please define,”lawful”…

[Hurst Mama]

I’m a 67 year old Army vet with a permit to carry a firearm and if I didn’t have an arthritic hip I would be looking to sign up too. Of course my totally liberal daughter and son in law would probably never speak to me again.

[Fury]

“In these times, in this circumstance please define,”lawful”…”

I found a couple of reference, need to dig deeper:

“(the essential attributes of a lawful order that sustain the presumption of lawfulness include:
(1) issuance by competent authority – a person authorized by applicable law to give such an order;
(2) communication of words that express a specific mandate to do or not do a specific act; and
(3) relationship of the mandate to a military duty; in light of the presumption of lawfulness, long-standing principles of military justice place the burden of rebutting this presumption on the accused).”

- see https://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/digest/IIIA16.htm

and:

“(the dictates of a person’s conscience, religion, or personal philosophy cannot justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order).

(an order is presumed to be lawful, and the accused bears the burden of rebutting the presumption).

(to be lawful, an order must
(1) have a valid military purpose, and
(2) be clear, specific, and narrowly drawn; in addition, the order must not conflict with the statutory or constitutional rights of the person receiving the order). “

- see https://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/digest/IIIA15.htm#:~:text=(to%20be%20lawful%2C%20an%20order,the%20person%20receiving%20the%20order).