Sign Idaho Banking Job Offer Fast

Industry sign banking idaho job offer fast

madam chair members of the committee thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today on house bill 2211 which is commonly referred to as the defend the guard legislation uh you're going to hear a lot of ancillary noise about this bill a lot of emotions both in support and opposition you're going to hear a statement of statements of patriotism funding jobs national pride duty and honor all words that we hold dear to our heart but i encourage you to remain focused on the purpose of the bill which is to strengthen the constitutional principles regarding the ability to take our nation and by extension our national guard from a state of peace to a state of war again my name is dan mcknight i served in the military for 13 years i was in the united states marine corps the active duty army and then the idaho army national guard where i deployed afghanistan in 2005 through 2007 and uh came home injured and was forced to end my career since that time in the last 24 months i've started a veterans organization called bring our troops home and we have a membership in our organization that ranges from world war ii all the way through the current day veterans that have served in every conflict since our organization is typically focused on right of center veterans those that we might call today deplorables there's other organizations of veterans that are extremely on the other side of the spectrum they've been taking this position for years and over time conservative veterans the deplorables i speak of have realized that we've been going to war the wrong way and that's what this bill is here to address but i'm not here as an activist today i'm here as a citizen as a veteran i think it's important to bring that distinction the national defense act of 1916 brought the state's militia under more federal control and federal funding and gave the president of the united states the authority in case of war or national emergency to mobilize the national guard and since that time the terms militia and national guard have been used same the national guard is part of the militia but the militia is the national guard article 1 section 8 clause 15 of the united states constitution is the militia clause and it states the militia may be called into federal active service for three purposes to repel an invasion to put down an insurrection and to enforce the laws of the union and it's that last part there that enforce the laws and union that we're here to talk about today in 1946 1941 which was the last time that congress did their job and declared war our nation has been in a perpetual and endless state of war article 1 section 8 clause 11 of the united states constitution states in the enumerated powers that congress and congress only may change the state of our nation from peace to war but congress hasn't done their job and the executive a single person has continually put us into war over and over and over again congress doesn't want to have to go home to their home districts and answer for a warp up they don't want to look their constituents in the eye and explain why they've committed our sons and daughters and our treasure to go fight in some foreign land that's far away from our own the national guard has become an auxiliary and reserve component of the active duty military it's a proper role for the national guard they should be part of the active duty military footprint if it's time to go to war we should declare it and the national guard should go and win our nation's wars and then return home there's two ways the national guard can be called into federal service and it's important to make this distinction title 32 is when the national guard can be called into federal service for domestic or civil defense or national emergency these are the things that we commonly think of when we think of the national guard flood control fire control aiding a pandemic things like that it's typically state controlled but federally funded um some examples of that were with the idaho national guard this last calendar year they were mobilized and activated to assist in food banks district health centers local hospitals healthcare facilities medical centers copen 19 testing centers and also partnering partnering with the lighthouse rescue mission and the good samaritan in the shoshone bannock tribes california national guard called up annually to fight forest fires in texas we watched it last week where the texas national guard had to be activated to battle the effects of the arctic blast those are titled 32 missions the other way the national guard is called into federal service is title 10. title 10 is primarily used to call the national guard to participate in an armed conflict war humanitarian relief or training outside of the united states of america part of title 10 has already been addressed by the supreme court there's an amendment to the title 10 called the montgomery amendment which states that governors cannot withhold their national guard from being called into federal service because they object to the location or the place of the training that the president wants to send this came about because in the 80s governor perch of minnesota governor dukakis and massachusetts and a few others hated ronald reagan they hated everything about him they hated the central america foreign policy they hated the reason that dutch was to me president reagan was sending national guard troops to honduras to build roads engineer units from seven or eight different states were sent there to build roads and the democratic governors said that those roads would be used for a united states military invasion of central america it just wasn't true and so the montgomery amendment passed and governor perkins sued the department of defense over it saying that he should be able to withhold his national guard troops and the supreme court in their decision said that is not true the president may call for the national guard to serve and overseas missions for the purpose of trading without any approval from the government and in their decision they said the word training over and over and over and over again but they did not address active duty combat and there's a reason our supreme court is very good at not stepping on things that are not brought before them and the purpose of deploying the national guard for war and combat is already addressed in our constitution article 1 section 8 clause 15 it states when the national guard may be called into federal service the law of the land a declaration of war becomes the law of the union when congress appropriately debates war and votes to take our nation from a state of peace to a state of war it becomes the law of the union and at that point the national guard could should and will go and fight our nation's battles and return home with honor and distinction and victory uh defend the guard as a way for states for the people for us to reclaim the power from the federal government we are a federalist nation our founding fathers had it right the powers that are given to the federal government come from us and our rights come from god in 2001 congress advocated their responsibility we were attacked they advocated their responsibility and they signed a blank check an authorization of use of military force which is referred to as an aumf which gave the president the right and the ability to send now our entire military anywhere in the world for any amount of time for any purpose that the executives saw fit and what the result is that we've been in worn out for 20 years the most disgusting part about the aomf is that 85 of the vote the people that voted in favor of the amf are no longer in congress it's never been revisited our representatives from idaho did not vote on that aumf that's the problem with not declaring war it becomes open-ended there's no oversight and there's no way to end it congress does have the ability to raise armies we're not arguing that at all the aomf we've completed everything inside of it it asks us to kill or capture everybody that attacked us on 911 it asks us to kill or capture anybody that aided or better than that attack and it asked us to disrupt the terror training camps that was all done by february of 2002 we should have come home but we didn't we took our eye for the prize and another aumf was passed setting us into another war in iraq yemen syria all across the african continent we're now fighting in 27 nations around the world 27 without a declaration of war we took our eye off the prize and we're now building an empire across the middle east and the african continent we us we've allowed this runaway federal government and allowed one person one man or one woman the executive to commit us to war the national guard is now serving afghanistan where it's supporting warlords for supporting village elders we're supporting people that were once our enemy and now our ally and they're doing things like propping up the opium trade where afghanistan used to produce 20 of the world's opium now it's producing 90 i'm going to close with just a couple more thoughts the idaho army national guard has my complete aberration of respect other than marrying my smoking hot wife serving in the national guard is my biggest source of pride applying to afghanistan and serving over there is something i wear is a badge of honor and courage and the national guard has my ultimate respect of the marine corps the army and the national guard the three branches i served in the national guard was the best trained the best equipped and the most professional soldiers i served with they completed their mission with honor they called this bill radical they're going to say this is a radical attempt at the states to take away power from the federal government i ask you this which is more radical the oregon national guard fighting fires in their home state last year in the worst firefighting season of their state history with helicopters chinooks and blackhawks or is it more radical that they took those chinooks and black ops off the fires and sent them to afghanistan to ferry supplies and diplomats around the country which they weren't even able to do because when they got there they quarantined him in a tent which is more radical the south carolina national guard leaving their home state where they were needed on hurricane relief or deploying them to syria to sit in their armored vehicles and guard oil wells which is more radical in 2005 i drove a convoy of trucks from idaho to louisiana in support of hurricane katrina we took supplies and fuel down there 56 other national guards states and territories national guard units participated it was a great title 32 mission it was proper it was well executed it was beautiful as the way it was supposed to be done we went there because the louisiana national guard who was an engineer brigade that specializes in building roads bridges levees and dams was in iraq building roads levees bridges and dams which is more radical in closing a great 21st century philosopher trent resner said when you bow down before the one you serve you're going to get what you deserve right well unlike the swamp in washington dc i don't bow down to the gods that they worship the gods of endless war the gods of war profiteering the gods of military industrial complex my god inspired the founding fathers to create the constitution which protects our god-given rights and the people have granted certain rights and powers of the federal government committing american lives and treasury war is a power that is so sacred that was granted to a body of representatives of the people defend the guard legislation brings that balance of power back to where it should be i encourage you to focus on the intent and the purpose of the bill which is a constitutional request answer to a problem that has been uh long-standing madam chair i requested after presentation and open and debate and questions that this uh measure is taking on a roll call vote for the record that it's recorded in the history records of the state and for clarity i stand for questions um the first um part is subsection c where it states that um the other national guard and any member thereof must not be released from the state unless there's been an official action taken um i'm am i too just just for clarification purposes this means that the governor could not just volunteer the national guard without that exclusive declaration of war from the um from the that's the first part of the question and in the second part of the question i would like you to speak to um the definitions in subsection 46 1-14 a it's talking about participation in an armed conflict or hazardous service and i would like to have you speak to the definitions of what those would look like and who gets to decide those definitions for the purposes of calling up the guard thank you madam chair representative thank you for the question first question about the governor the language is very clear musk is a definitive word the governor could not voluntarily offer the national guard to go serve in a undeclared war the purpose of this bill is to force congress to declare war before any member of the national guard our assets or our personnel could participate the second question the definitions an armed conflict i would refer to the united states supreme court in their definition of pornography they said i can't define it but you know it when you see it that is an armed conflict as a veteran i would say if someone is shooting at me and i'm returning fire that's an armed conflict if the potential of receiving indirect fire or direct fire is there and i have the potential of me returning that fire i would say that is an armed conflict performance of hazardous service relating to an armed conflict in a foreign state i think follows the same definition that if we are serving in a hazardous zone where there is an act of combat active combat whether we're involved in it or not if we're there aiding and assisting instead of playing cute word games which uh which justice gorsuch would not like in the supreme court i think that the definition would refer back to uh section one subsection one of that same paragraph and then finally the performance of a duty through an instrumentality war is probably the most general question on that in that section an instrumentality of war is anything that serves the purpose of war and that could be by providing equipment training supplies support or any of the above with the united states personnel committed that was your follow-up absolutely i want you to all to remember that you have a hard stop at one point mr mcknight um just a quick follow-up on that would that include um protests from uh local soils not for not foreign but domestic protests against um the capital for instance madam chair representative no title that would be a title 32 mission nothing in this bill would restrict a title through review participation um i'm sympathetic to your general cause and especially with the single power to declare war but i do have a question if you know off the top of your head or have that information what is our military strength without the national guard that's a big question madam chair representative thank you that's a great question current figures i believe 45 of the active duty military footprint the active army is national guard and as of 2011 over 45 percent of the people that had served in the global war on terror were guardsmen madam chairman of this one quick question oftentimes um money uh or the loss of money can be used to scare folks i think you address it in here but the limited amount of time i had to review this could you address um adjectival or shouts comments about the fear of loss of federal funding absolutely i appreciate that um representative um it's it's a it's a valid concern you always have the way the consequences economic and social this is a constitutional question um if the constitution is so important us and we hold it so dear to our heart that it's the foundation of our country we should rule on the constitutionality of it and allow the dollars to be sorted out by other mechanisms i don't believe that any president would ever allow states to uh to receive less of their share of m ney for two reasons political blowback from the congressional delegation of the voters and number two military readiness i don't think the president would ever allow the idaho national guard or any state that passes this legislation legislation to not have what they needed to be prepared for real declared emergencies my question is um and um i guess would be section d i don't know nothing in this section from consensus to the deployment of the iowa national guard number and title 32 defensive support for civil authority missions within the united states united states territories and in the letter from the general it's the third paragraph it's the second paragraph it says that this bill would in fact make it for the governor could not allow that because that just seems like a um i don't know it just seems like a um two different things like it's not addressing the bill that bill is saying from this letter does that make sense as my question makes sense yes it does thank you i think the general was making the argument in his letter that um we would lose funding in general if we passed this bill and that the loss of funding in general would keep us participate in title 32 orders but i bring it back to the same point on the midline of this discussion is the constitutionality of going to war the importance of taking our state from a state of our nation from a state of peace to a state of war we specifically state that nothing in this bill would restrict title 32 because that's the most important and critical role of the gov of the national guard to repel an invasion put down in insurrection and to enforce the laws of the union okay and follow-up questions sure um in regard is this bill being heard is this bill um supported on the house and this on his side i'm chair representative which i haven't met yet has not taken up this bill but this bill is is in various stages of introduction in 31 states around the country and we just testified on monday in south dakota in front of their legislature for the same we bill finished with questions at this point thank you all right so we will take a vote on the motion we're out of time and i apologize for our actual time yes representative britton aye representative yeah representative davidson aye representative debaur aye representative feller aye representative martinez strong eye representative mckinley aye representative peterson representative red slat i representative hearn aye representative smirns nay representative tomlin aye representative no representative oil all right so the motion passes it's 18 to 1 and the bill will go to the floor and i want to thank you all for being here