Defend the Constitution?

[Craig_AR]

Oh, and the President has to ask the states to nationalize their national guard troops.

UH, sorry, but no, he does not. He has to ask if he wants a governor to put National Guard onto State Active Duty. However the President can call up to 200,000 Guard and Reserve members to active duty on his own. He does need Congress to act for a higher number.
Remember, in 1957 Governor Faubus put the National Guard on state active duty to maintain segregated school, then President Eisenhower ordered them all into federal active duty to enforce the integration of Central High School; there was no "asking" the governor. (My dad was one of those who served in both capacities that year.)

 

[Craig_AR]

Based on a July 2023 DoD Memorandum, Jason Beck works in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower& Reserve Affairs. Being named as a contact for the office in that memo indicates he has some level of influence in the area that deals with the National Guard. That positioning does not, of course, mean he understands the Constitution or the Federal system and relations with the states.

Watch the actual video and learn his specific job on O'Keefe's Instagram page.

 

[jstert]

Correct. It's pretty unlikely that Mr. Beck has sworn to defend the Constitution.

per 5usc2903 and 3331, a duly sworn sf61 will be in the file of all civilian employees of the federal executive branch. to assert otherwise is simply incorrect and unhelpful, or the employee isn’t lawfully one. an employee may have forgotten, or choose to violate, his/her oath, but it is there nonetheless.

we need to be better informed if we wish to make america great again. we don’t need more laws, controls, surveillance or anger. all we need do is to know, follow and respectfully/impartially enforce the laws that we had prior to 2001.

as for relevance to thr, our 2a is not a red-haired, illegitimate child of the constitution. our unalienable rkba is enumerated at the #2 slot. people who swear an oath of office need to fully take on board what they sign, or depart.

 

[JohnKSa]

Interesting. I learned something new today.

 

[tws3b2]

These people are Nothing and can do Nothing but what WE allow them to be and do. But WE are not WE THE PEOPLE any longer. WE have given it up for a hand full of whatever we can get today. WE have split at every turn. So, WE THE PEOPLE no longer exist. It is now ME for whatever I can get today.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

I don't know who this Jason Beck is, but he's an idiot.

The world is full of @#$%^&* and idiots, and no field of human effort is free of them.

For example, I've seen numerous commercials, articles, etc. where servicemembers take a stand against the AR-15 as a "weapon of war" that civilians have no business owning.

My response to any of these idiots, should I ever come across any in person and they spout that tripe to me, would be "OK, riddle me this, Batman: If the AR-15 is a 'weapon of war', name any military which is armed with the AR-15."

And they won't be able to do that because there ARE NO MILITARY ORGANIZATIONS armed with the AR-15. They're armed with some select-fire variation of the M-16 or M-4, but NOT with the AR-15.

People naturally give more weight to individuals in certain positions, based on the subject at hand. But that doesn't mean that any given individual in any given field is ACTUALLY a knowledgeable person on a subject and the nuances associated with that subject.

By and large, it's not too difficult to weed such idiots out from the crowd. That is, it's not too difficult if you're capable of thinking and evaluating tings out on your own, with the education, knowledge, and experience on is SUPPOSED to have at their finger tips having achieved adulthood.

Looking at the video and reading the article, I have no idea what Jason Beck's background really is, nor what aspect of the DoD he works in. Checking the GAL on my Flank Speed work email, I see 12 different Jason Becks listed. None on the NNPI network or SECNET. Though there are plenty of other networks I don't have access to. The article doesn't give me enough information to tell if any of those I do see listed are him.

Looking through other articles, however, it appears that he's subject to embellishing his self-importance.

Jason Beck works in Total Force Requirements & Sourcing Policy in the Office of @SecDef Lloyd Austin. This office oversees the @DeptofDefense
and acts as the principal defense policy maker and adviser to the President of the United States. Beck says he helps “writes answers for testimony” of “the department’s senior leadership – basically they go over to the Hill for hearings on the department’s posture.”

 

[Chief TC]

The man may not be important enough to be in the policy-making chain, but his statements might possibly reflect the DoD's culture which may contain the typical Democrats' casual dismissal of citizen rights.

I would not speculate too much about DoD culture. Especially containing Democrat dismissal of citizen rights. The DoD/culture is varied and complex depending on which units and organizations. And DoD/military organizations are a microcosm of society as well. You find people with all kinds of beliefs that might shock you that a DoD or military employee would hold and subscribe to defending the Constitution. This definitely includes the "Democrat dismissal of citizen rights" but also includes republican dismissal of citizen rights and every other mind boggling position. My personal opinion is that there are many DoD/military people that do not read or understand the Constitution just like how many regular citizens do not read it or understand it. People tend to follow narratives and groups and many of these are anti-Constitution or badly interpreting the Constitution when it comes to citizen rights and the allowance of illegal and bad behavior due to personal ideology.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

The man may not be important enough to be in the policy-making chain, but his statements might possibly reflect the DoD's culture which may contain the typical Democrats' casual dismissal of citizen rights.

Or, he may just be expressing his 1st Amendment opinions as a US citizen who doesn't like the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Kyle911]

Why should we think that some random "Department of Defense employee" speaks with any authority at all? At least I'd like to see some official job title.

This. Asking some random employee their views is low hanging fruit and isn't indicative of the government's position on anything. This person doesn't even have a title in the article. He could be an analyst, a security guard, a janitor, or just the run of the mill contractor. This is meaningless.

 

[Jim Watson]

Beck says he helps “writes answers for testimony” of “the department’s senior leadership – basically they go over to the Hill for hearings on the department’s posture.”

Sounds reasonable to me. The Big Brass is too busy keeping up their influential position, staffers do the thinking.

 

[shafter]

I'm gonna just go ahead and disagree a little here.

Not long ago, I read an interview with a respected, retired military analyst (can't remember the source, but it wasn't in some obscure, non-credible right-wing site), anyway, the guy's position was that military authority -- in terms of potential martial law -- was an illusion.

One point made:. The military research study done a few years back that projected conservatively, approximately 47% of active military units would likely not only refuse orders for action against citizens, but over 80% of those would most likely actively resist/defend against these types of actions. (Research among law enforcement personnel (not administrators or chiefs of police) reflects a higher percentage of over 65%.

Hundreds of times more small arms in the hands of the citizens than the military, and the military doesn't have near enough for small arms for 10% of its forces.

Oh, and the President has to ask the states to nationalize their national guard troops.

The government clearly has reason to be fearful of the populace which easily explains the continuing push to disarm the law-abiding citizens.

Oh, like we attained control, with all our resources, of the population of Afghanistan in 25 years? I've seen, over the years, credible estimates that the federal government might be able to gain "control" over only a handful of cities but probably couldn't maintain that control for long.

They already have control. We grumble and complain but at the end of the day we comply. When we aren't allowed to own certain weapons or accessories in certain states we comply, just like people have from the very beginning in the 30s when laws were passed.

We don't like taxes but we pay them. We don't like surveillance but we accept it. We don't like alot of things but we submit. The government won't need martial law. They'll just shut down communications between certain people, or perhaps only communications containing certain content and that will be that. The few who stick their necks out will be rounded up by carefully drafted warrants which make them appear to be dangerous lunatics.

I support the 2nd Amendment and believe in gun ownership but we don't live in a world anymore where one simply has to muster on the village green when the red coats come.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Sounds reasonable to me. The Big Brass is too busy keeping up their influential position, staffers do the thinking.

I won't even grace this guy with that much.

When the "Big Brass", "Head Honcho", "Senior Leadership", or "HMFWIC" goes in front of anybody in the government to "testify", these people generally know their stuff. They aren't parroting from some mysterious brief because they are living the life already in their day-to-day lives as part of their jobs.

In other words, they KNOW THEIR STUFF already. Staffers gather the minutia, put together bullet points, etc., but they aren't making or writing policy. They're assistants. Secretaries. That kind of thing.

And the way that guy looks and comports himself? He's not anywhere near the top of the totem pole of authority.

 

[aaaaa]

Or, he may just be expressing his 1st Amendment opinions as a US citizen who doesn't like the 2nd Amendment.

Then he should explicitly state that it is his opinion and has nothing to do with the Dept of Defense--or does it!

 

[Elkins45]

If these people really want the NG to disarm everyone they need to propose it in a 28th Amendment. Let’s see how that goes.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

If these people really want the NG to disarm everyone they need to propose it in a 28th Amendment. Let’s see how that goes.

Like everybody else who proposes such things, they want someone else to do the dirty work. Not themselves.

Funny how it quite frequently ends up being the government, on one form or another, that they want to do their dirty work. As if the government is some kind of entity all its own instead of being composed of people from all walks of life, including the very bad guys they think they're neutering by these actions.

 

[Robert]

The government is against private citizens owning firearm?! I'm shocked... If you think the government, either side, is here to help, then I can't help you.

In other news, the sky is blue.

This started on shaky ground and just went downhill from there.