12 National Guard Removed from Inauguration Duty for Links to Right Wing Extremism

[Elliewaves]

That's good. I'm glad they were vetted and 12 were removed especially if they were single alphabet letter devotees or spouted any of that stuff.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Make sense. Who can honestly say people with links to the far right are stable: what with all the insurrectionism enthusiasm they seem to have.

Let's turn that on its head: Who can honestly say people with links to the far left are stable: what with all the insurrectionism enthusiasm they seem to have......think blm and antifa.....

Who knows how many back doors they might open for a mentalist right wing death cultist bent on killing the rightful POTUS.

Is that just wishful thinking on your part?

 

[civilwarbuff]

Good; it's their job to protect and serve the commander in chief. In light of Jan. 6th , it's the right move. Out of all the National Guard that are there,only 12 were removed. I highly doubt all conservative men and women were removed. Those that had extreme views that could harm the president? yes, remove them from this assignment.

And those extreme views were......what?

 

[Elliewaves]

It was probably Q crap. The article said some things posted on social media were concerning the inauguration.

 

[civilwarbuff]

The Inauguration is outlined in the Constitution

Could you quote that section for us?

If trump were getting a gun salute send off, maybe they might vet those participating to make sure there are no extreme leftists hell bent on taking him out.

Or maybe they might just issue blanks?.....just a suggestion......

 

[Elliewaves]

It's the 20th amendment.- the recitation of the presidential oath.

 

[civilwarbuff]

the National Guard will have a different task during the inauguration.

What was it....2000? were sworn in as Federal Marshals?.....doesn't sound like a 'different task' to me.

 

[civilwarbuff]

It was probably Q crap. The article said some things posted on social media were concerning the inauguration.

What 'things'?

 

[Elliewaves]

Did you read the article in the OP?

 

[civilwarbuff]

Did you read the article in the OP?

See #30

 

[Nithavela]

I've never read anything more crazy, or more frightening. It's hard to have faith in any government that demands party loyalty over constitutional loyalty.

I'm sorry, but those in power are a bunch of crazy extremists, and we should all be VERY concerned about this kind of rhetoric if we believe in our constitutional freedoms.

Don't worry, the people in power are switched out for other people tomorrow.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Let's turn that on its head: Who can honestly say people with links to the far left are stable: what with all the insurrectionism enthusiasm they seem to have......think blm and antifa.....

I'll make a deal with you. The next time a fascist is inaugurated, you may remove any antifa from policing the event.

 

[Belk]

They also neglected to say what led them to be considered threats other than espousing views the new regime doesn't like and having ties to "groups"...

Those in positions of power also said all conservatives should be treated like we treat al-Qaeda and that "white males" are an extremist threat.

I'm sorry, but this is the left gone mad!

They have ties to groups that stormed the capital. That is not crazy, it is a sensible precaution. We don't allow people with ties to extremist left groups to hold security clearances for the same reason.

Our soldiers are to be faithful to our constitution, not a party,

Why do you equate extremist views with a political party? Unless you are trying to make the case that we should treat all republican as if they believe democrats eat pizza made with the blood of children?

and this little war everyone on the left wants to start against any with opposing political views is nothing short of insanity....

Mighty broad brush for someone complaining of being maligned.

And it makes me and much of America frightened of our own government - in a supposedly free country. They have turned that into a joke at this point...

This is insanity. Sheer insanity!

I'm sorry you are afraid but it is nothing to do with me. I, and most of the left, do not hold these views you try to assign to us.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I'll make a deal with you. The next time a fascist is inaugurated, you may remove any antifa from policing the event.

I can't remove anyone from policing an event; can you? What standards do you apply? Whose standards do you apply?

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

A government that doesn't trust it's soldiers is a seriously vulnerable one...

 

[variant]

This insinuation is an insult to anyone who wears or has worn the uniform. Those that have not could not possibly understand the reasoning behind my statement.

It's not an insult it's a precaution. To think that there would be no such consequences, of questioning loyalties and the designation of security risks, from a large, organized, right wing effort to delegitimize the election of the president and then a subsequent attack on the capitol with some of the police joining in is amazing.

 

[variant]

A government that doesn't trust it's soldiers is a seriously vulnerable one...

In this case they simply don't trust some soldiers, and they are entirely correct to worry.

Sure, we could sugar coat the whole thing, but if a large portion of the public believe conspiracy theories about a stolen election that delegitimizes the president and won't be talked out of it no matter what, then we have to simply start evaluating them as a security risk.

12 out of 25,000 isn't that much. They were removed for inappropriate comments they made about the incoming president that they are supposed to be guarding.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I can't remove anyone from policing an event; can you? What standards do you apply? Whose standards do you apply?

The Pentagon applies the Pentagon's standards.

"As is normal for military support to large security events, the Department will vet National Guardsmen who are in Washington, DC. While we have no intelligence indicating an insider threat, we are leaving no stone unturned in securing the capital," [Trump's Acting Defense Secretary] Miller wrote. "This type of vetting often takes place by law enforcement for significant security events. However, in this case the scope of military participation is unique."

They performed the same vetting procedures 4 years ago.

Like certifying state elections, or counting electoral votes, some people are going bananas about ordinary procedures.

 

[keith99]

Reasonable precautions are just that, reasonable.

It was a reasonable precaution to have the 442nd fight in Europe and not the Pacific. It would be rather stupid to say that meant that the men in the 442nd were not trustworthy.

 

[Sparagmos]

It's hard to have faith in any government that demands party loyalty over constitutional loyalty.

12 out of 25,000. Low estimate 12,000 of the 25,000 are republican. Yet you claim the twelve were removed because they aren’t loyal to the party? What about the other 11,988 who aren’t loyal to the Democratic Party, why weren’t they removed?