NY Times article

Quote:

---

Mr. Stitt stressed that he supported President Trump's efforts to protect Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and ensure "law and order" in cities like Chicago and Portland, Ore. But he worried about the precedent that was being set by the guard deployment and how it could be used by a president from another party.

"Oklahomans would lose their mind if Pritzker in Illinois sent troops down to Oklahoma during the Biden administration."

---

Governor Stitt must want to be in the news in the worst way. State rights don't include allowing federal laws to be broken. The National Guard command and funding can be controlled at either the state or federal level, depending on how it is activated. When the mayor of a city (let's say Chicago) commands their police force to not assist national guard troops, The Insurrection Act must be invoked.

Democrats never restrain themselves when they're in power asking the question what precedent it sets. They just do it.

you don't worry how some Presidents might abuse it?

have you been under a rock most of the last decade or so?

Not really worried about it because the right doesn't really attempt to create Chaz's or chops or put federal facilities under siege, or riot for days on end

AggieZUUL said:

---

NY Times article

But he worried about the precedent that was being set by the guard deployment and how it could be used by a president from another party.

---

As opposed to deploying the 101st Airborne in a US state?

How about let's help the people under siege in the democrat controlled **** holes and deal with precedent and fallout later

The governor of Illinois cannot send troops to the state of Oklahoma! The president can but not the governor.

I'm sure President Trump would rather use the Illinois National Guard, but they are, apparently, unavailable.

Any of the Governors would be in a much better position if they actually tried to do something on their own before Trump decides to solve it himself.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Democrats never restrain themselves when they're in power asking the question what precedent it sets. They just do it.

---

Quote:

---

Not really worried about it because the right doesn't really attempt to create Chad's or chops or put federal facilities under siege, or riot for days on end

---

That would be great if all future Presidents are conservative! I have no such faith that will be the case.

Clearly this guy forgot about COVID.

sam callahan said:

---

you don't worry how some Presidents might abuse it?

have you been under a rock most of the last decade or so?

---

Not really. We aren't the types to run around committing violent crimes and shooting each other.

Are you suggesting this is some type of slippery slope to future Dems sending national guard out to our homes to round us up?

It is indeed interesting to read Oklahoma's governor believe that somehow the Democrat Party has any sense of ethical restraint as it relates to their treatment of Republicans and those who vote for them.

That party oozed out of Mordor a long time ago and does not believe anyone opposed to them has any Bill of Rights protections to speak out against them.

jt2hunt said:

---

The governor of Illinois cannot send troops to the state of Oklahoma! The president can but not the governor.

---

Okies can be simple.

I wish Republicans would reserve their criticisms for the left. There's so much to go after. No need to weigh in an criticize the president. This is the the one and only thing I admire about the left - they have balls and they don't go after their own.

"I don't believe Oklahoma boys should travel halfway around the country to do what Illinois boys should take care of"

- Gov Stitt

I don't like the precedent this sets - this could all be a setup to abuse this power Down the road - if they need to quietly send more protection to government facilities at that one facility , do it quietly and limit it only to the gov facility needing help- the entire world doesn't need to know about that. I was in Chicago for the ND game- I didn't see anything out to the ordinary and felt safe. If the ICE facility needs help then quietly send some help- end of story

The middle class snd wealthy urban democrats make sure the areas they like to be in, or that have high visibility are relatively lower crime. They just don't care about the poor suffering as they need a victim class to stay victims

Ike sent troops were sent to Little Rock to enforce civil rights legislation. I don't see how troops sending to enforce immigration legislation or to protect federal facilities is any different. Of course we probably will end up seeing some president try and cross the line eventually.

He has a legitimate point imo.

halfastros81 said:

---

He has a legitimate point imo.

---

Not really

Agree to disagree

I am not really worried about the precedent it sets because Democrats never restrain themselves when they are in power.

he's right, future president newsom is already drawing up plans to deploy the national guard for ATF gun control enforcement in texas and IRS tax enforcement in florida

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

sam callahan said:

---

you don't worry how some Presidents might abuse it?

have you been under a rock most of the last decade or so?

---

Not really. We aren't the types to run around committing violent crimes and shooting each other.

Are you suggesting this is some type of slippery slope to future Dems sending national guard out to our homes to round us up?

---

Bless your heart.

Those aren't violent crimes. If Chicago, white liberals in rich areas or BLM actually cared they would clean up south side. Just like every intercity area. There are people trying their best just to live and they are surrounded by thugs and making their life miserable. They want it clean and want their kids safe. Unfortunately liberals don't want blacks to stop killing others because they lie about the causes.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

sam callahan said:

---

you don't worry how some Presidents might abuse it?

have you been under a rock most of the last decade or so?

---

Not really. We aren't the types to run around committing violent crimes and shooting each other.

Are you suggesting this is some type of slippery slope to future Dems sending national guard out to our homes to round us up?

---

Bless your heart.

---

Classic GoAE post. Zero substance. Zero attempt at discussion or debate.

We are sending nat guard into insanely violent crime riddled democrat cesspools. Explain the slippery slope to me and why I should be scared of your democrats usinig it on me...I f'n DARE democrats to send nat guard into the peaceful suburbs and small towns to start arresting their political opposition next time they are in power.

If you're a student of history, you might recall all of the South supported federal troops putting down John Brown's insurrection (with Jeb Stuart leading the Cav!!); conversely, the South hated Lincoln for invading the South with federal troops to quell the Confederacy's 'insurrection.' (However, unless the National Guard is raping & pillaging the citizens & their property in these cities like the Yankees did to the South, such a comparison is factually flawed even if legally similar.)

Now I know there were different circumstances behind each; namely, John Brown took over Harpers Ferry to gain access to the arsenal so he could create a nationwide insurrection by arming slaves in an uprising against their white owners, whereas Lincoln viewed the South's secession as an 'insurrection' (instead of a 'divorce') that meant the loss of revenue for Yankee industrialists & financiers (because slavery was a 2 year after thought from when the bullets first started flying).

Still, the John Brown 'precedent' paved the way for Lincoln's actions; further, 33K federal troops were mobilized to protect ONE black student to attend a Little Rock school, & I remember the National Guard being sent to a lawless NOLA after Katrina.

Accordingly, the "precedent" that this Okie is worried about is well established; and his concern that a Democrat POTUS would abuse this "precedent" is pointless, as I'm CERTAIN that's what is in store for the states & citizenry that supported Trump!

But as a "Johnny Reb" through & through, I find the underlying irony absolutely amusing that these Yankee cities targeted by Trump are suddenly very adamant about 'States Rights'- LOL!!!!

If OK city was a **** hole he may change is mind. Oh Wait! ; )

The slippery slope argument is only valid when its not your people pushing things over the slippery slope.

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

sam callahan said:

---

you don't worry how some Presidents might abuse it?

have you been under a rock most of the last decade or so?

---

Not really. We aren't the types to run around committing violent crimes and shooting each other.

Are you suggesting this is some type of slippery slope to future Dems sending national guard out to our homes to round us up?

---

Bless your heart.

---

Classic GoAE post. Zero substance. Zero attempt at discussion or debate.

We are sending nat guard into insanely violent crime riddled democrat cesspools. Explain the slippery slope to me and why I should be scared of your democrats usinig it on me...I f'n DARE democrats to send nat guard into the peaceful suburbs and small towns to start arresting their political opposition next time they are in power.

---

First, why should conservatives give two ****s about the crime in Chicago and allow the federal government to intervene over local control? It was always my understanding that we believe in local control and allowing other states to regulate themselves.

Second, they won't be sending in troops to peaceful towns/cities/suburbs. They got cover for doing it on public safety pretenses.

Third, I voted for Trump you doofus but that doesn't mean his infallible or that we should toe the line for everything he says or does. This is not a good look for Federalism, which is what I thought we conservatives stood for.

Only about a 1,000 101st troops and about 10,000 Arksansas National Guardsmen were deployed to Little Rock and it was nine students.

National Guard is not TAKING over law enforcement.