National Guard or mercenaries?

The commander of the state guard is a permanent employee of the state and paid by the state with some assistance from the federal government. The guard, unless federalized take their orders from the commander.

 

And the funding the commander is using is coming from an outside source. Do you think they offer such things without any strings attached?

The commander has to keep those giving the money happy or the money stops.

 

Did they not take an oath to defend the country? Why, yes they did.

South Dakota and Texas are both in the same country.

 

Or, as may be the case, there's a cause that is set up and the funders know ahead of time what will be done with their money, and decide to contribute.

 

Ohhhh....maybe we could start getting corporate sponsors for units in combat zones. Something like "The 82nd Airborne brought to you by ATT" or "31st Marine Expeditionary Unit sponsored by Coke".

 

Maybe folks in DC should do their damned job?

 

And if that is not done, they want their money back. So the funders need to be kept happy

 

Do we know what the terms are for contributing in this case? If not, this is just a guessing match.

 

come on !

 

Yes it is. And is not really about this one time. It is about the precedent that is set.

 

OK. Lets take this just a step further. The commander in chief of the state guard is the governor. He is paid by the state. He has a staff member who is the defacto commander of the state guard. He is also paid for by the state. If he is receiving an additional salary from a private concern, it is a conflict of interest and is against the law.

If the guards going to the border are being funded and controlled by a private concern, they are not performing that duty as national guard. They are private employees and would not be allowed to wear the uniform or use military equipment.

 

They are being funded by a private concern, so you agree they should not be wearing the uniform?

 

It’s in everyone’s best interest without question.

 

I think that Gov. Noem. is an elected official, elected to be uncharged of the NG, by private citizens. The people that elected her can bitch if they want.

 

You are making stuff up. I did not say that.

If they are being controlled by the private organization, they are not under the control of the state and should not be be wearing the uniform. The key word is "controlled", not "funded".

 

I think it is a publicity stunt. I would be surprised if it is even legal and lawyers will have a field day if someone actually got hurt. I wonder who would be receiving back handers if it actually did go ahead.............

 

We do have a border crisis and Texas has called for aid from other states. The National Guard and a border wall is the best way to fight the immigrant surge.

These soldiers are still under the leadership of South Dakota. Kristi just got help from like minded citizens wanting to secure our border and keep this illegal criminals out.

 

The state must be deploying the troops on a promise to pay or at least that’s the only way I believe it could be done. Something the people need to monitor on the back side. Strange.

 

In this case only to the point they can turn off the funding whenever they want and the governor can try to find other funding.

 

Seems like the funding was made directly to the state of South Dakota.

There's no evidence the donor will control any aspect of the deployment of "up to 50" troops, so this concern is weak sauce.

 

Why must it be that way if the money's already been donated?

 

DC/Capitol can have the national guard from other states, a wall/fence and that's ok but we try and do it on our southern border regardless where the money comes from and people freak out.

We need to secure our southern border and end this illegal immigrant crisis that the Democrats created.

 

Liberals like to protect themselves from the people, but not the people from invaders. Figures.

 

If you listen to the words of Smedley Butler USMC in the last century, you know that the military has been working for US Corporations for at least a century. You know that even a century ago, war is a racket.

So what Noem (I like her) proposes is not really anything new under the sun. Considering the immigration situation on the southern border, and how it effects states like hers far from that border, it's not a bad idea.

 

Not necessarily. Lets look at it a bit differently.

Suppose a private concern decides to fund the repair of a bridge. They specify their funding can only be used to fund the bridge. They cannot use that money for any other purpose such as child care. The bridge repairs still have to meet all the specifications. The metal and concrete and procedures all have to be up to spec even though someone else funded it.