Obama confiscates National Guard helicopters from all 50 states

Martial law: Obama confiscates National Guard helicopters from all 50 states


By Dave Gibson
Virginia Beach Conservative Examiner
April 14, 2014

As if the Obama administration's purchase of more than 2 billion rounds of ammunition, and nearly 3,000 urban tanks, along with their unprecedented (and highly illegal) domestic spying program was not enough to convince you that the federal government is about to suspend the Constitution once and for all, the man who once vowed to run "the most transparent administration in history" has just rather inexplicably, ordered the U.S. Army to seize every Apache attack helicopter currently in use by the National Guard.

In all, the Defense Department will confiscate 192 Apaches from National Guard units around the country and give them to the active duty Army.

In exchange for the heavily armed and highly maneuverable choppers, Guard units will receive 111 UH-60 Blackhawk transport helicopters from the Army, Defense One reports.

Last week, U.S. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee, claiming that the measure will save taxpayers $12 billion, over the next three years.

Of course, when one considers that this 'cost saving' move comes from an administration which regularly runs trillion-dollar deficits and, to date, has proposed no less than 442 tax increases since taking office in January 2009, the idea of saving money for the American taxpayer is a bit hard to swallow.

So, what could be another, more reasonable explanation?

The Apache, which began service in 1986, is armed with a 30 mm M230E1 Chain Gun (with 1,200 rounds), Hellfire anti-tank missiles, and 70 general-purpose 70 mm rockets. In short, it is capable of fending-off any enemy, foreign or domestic.

Obviously, these helicopters could pose a substantial obstacle to say, a tyrant drunk on his own power, with an army at his disposal.

Source:
http://www.examiner.com/article/mar...national-guard-helicopters-from-all-50-states

Cost savings, or other reasons to take equipment from the National Guard? Since 9/11 the NG has been tasked with sending troops to Iraq and Afghanistan on a regular basis. Taking their equipment from them is similar to the disassembly of the NG prior to WWII. Why would this Obama regime seek to weaken out State government's readiness? Cost savings does not seem to be the true reason.

 

To better murder political dissenters.

 

I fail to see how these choppers being in control of the U.S. Army instead of the national guard means the government is about to go on a rampage.

What does the national guard even need attack choppers for?

 

Do you really believe that this Administration is going to draw a line between targeting Americans for assassination overseas and targeting Americans on U.S. soil? Do you honestly believe that?

 

I see no reason to believe otherwise because there is a gigantic difference between a U.S. citizen overseas involved in terrorist operations and a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil where it is much much easier to actually go and arrest them. In my honest opinion, if you're overseas somewhere, and especially in a non-extradition country and you're involved in terrorist operations, you deserve the tomahawk to the head you're going to get. I would not ask any man or woman to risk their lives going into hostile territory in what may well be a hostile nation just to arrest a person who is very likely working with people intent on killing people. If they're in the U.S., then yes you need to attempt an arrest. If you're in a country where we have an extradition treaty and we can rely somewhat on local and government law enforcement for help, then maybe an arrest attempt should be made as well. If you're going to engage in terrorist activity anywhere else, maybe you should make some better choices that don't endanger your life.

But I still fail to see how what you said has anything to do with the national guard giving up their attack choppers which no one has explained the need for them to possess in the first place.

 

This "what do you/they need it for" line is really annoying. I'm waiting for why the federal government needs to make sure the national guard doesn't have them.

 

But that's the same thing I just asked only from the opposite side. The spout may be on the opposite side of the handle but they are still both a part of the same teapot.

 

Wouldn't the more accurate summation be that the Army moved some helicopters form reserve duty to active duty?

 

When the U.S. government begins firing on American citizens (again) many of us won't be surprised. People like you will be shocked and horrified, but the lesson will be lost as it always is.

 

There's a huge chasm of difference. Underlying your q is the assumption that the federal government is right and that states/people need to justify themselves, whereas the feds so not. I didn't make any q of the feds, I just said that I am still waiting for you to justify the fed action. It's absurd to just accept federal action because it's federal and question the will of any state.

 

More paranoia and scaremongering from the right. A quick Google search reveals that the Blackhawk is an extremely versatile machine which is capable of mounting considerable firepower. So, one very lethal type of helicopter is being replaced with another very lethal type of helicopter, but this time with multi-role capability. You can always rely on the right for hysterical responses-especially when partisan issues are involved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._h...awk.2FHH-60_Jayhawk.2FHH-60.2FMH-60_Pave_Hawk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUrGYtCJH7I

 

That's all well and good but nothing you just said is a part of any type of point that actually pertains to what the thread is about.

 

I can understand why the U.S. military would need attack choppers. They use them in combat situations. In all honesty, I didn't even know the National Guard even possessed them and I still don't understand why they would even need them in the first place.

So in order for me to find something wrong with this situation, I have to understand what that wrong thing is and nobody is telling me. All I'm getting are prolific statements about government tyranny. Explain the principle behind the outrage about this. I'm not playing dumb or trolling, I really don't know.

 

I'm suspicious of this administration in general (well, any administration, but this one at a higher level), but I think this is a good idea. I want the NG to have helicopters that can be used for rescues, which the Apache's can't.

 

Its just more conservative hysterics; they are desperately trying to drum up as much paranoia as possible amongst the American people. Fortunately most American's see past their thinly veiled claims.

 

Correct.

 

They have medication for little voices in our heads.

 

It appears you have no idea what this thread is about. The OP connected the mass purchase of ammunition and the nationalizing of attack helicopters. Never learned to read between the lines, huh?

 

Look, if you're going to ignore the points made and dodge, don't be shocked that you won't get answers.

 

the sky is falling... the sky is falling... says chicken little.... run for the hills....


.

 

There have been no points made. There has only been talk of the Federal government being up to some kind of shady business. WHAT SHADY BUSINESS IS IT?

If you're going to say this is bad and then not really explain why, all you're doing is getting your opinion on record so that others here can see it and slap a like on your post.

 

I've learned not to let my imagination get the better of my rational mind.

So once again, would you care to explain how the U.S. Army swapping helicopters, ones that make more sense for the National Guard to have in the first place since they play a larger domestic search and rescue role than the U.S. Army does, is somehow part of this scary doom and gloom scenario?

 

Why are the actual original sources ignored for nutty conspiracy theories.....oh yeah

http://www.defenseone.com/politics/...pache-helicopters/82150/#.U0WTuxrdkXs.twitter

The Army National Guard is pushing back against a plan to send all of its 192 Apache attack helicopters to the active duty Army. In exchange, the Guard and Reserve components would receive 111 UH-60 Blackhawk transport and utility helicopters from the Army in a broader aviation restructuring after more than a decade of combat and steep budget cuts.

The restructuring would also eliminate three of 13 combat aviation brigades from the Army, while the Guard would phase out its entire fleet of OH-58 Kiowa Warrior scout helicopters, which have been in use for nearly five decades.


This shakeup of Army air assets amounts to some $12 billion in cost-saving measures through fiscal year 2017, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee at a hearing Tuesday.

But National Guard Chief Gen. Frank Grass, who also testified at the hearing, isn’t happy with the plan. “None of us like what we’re having to do,” he said. “My big concern right now is figuring out how I’m going to move, and how many states I’m going to have an impact on, and what’s the cost of facilities and to retrain pilots. I’ve got to tackle that because the decision’s been made.”

The swap is part of a broader question about what the Defense Department sees as the long-term role of the National Guard, after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“This is much larger than the Apache discussion,” Grass said. “Especially as we look down the road. It’s brigades. It will affect just about every jurisdiction in the United States when we look at this to get down to the 315,000 number someday that we face.” The “someday number” refers to cuts in Guard personnel, should sequestration continue into FY2016.

Some argue the helicopter swap is needed because the Blackhawk is better suited for natural disaster recovery operations, which Guard units are tasked to do. Sen. Mark Udall, D-Co., said the Blackhawks were instrumental during recent flooding in his state. “In Colorado, we benefited greatly from having National Guard Blackhawks available to perform search and rescue missions, evacuate flood victims, drop water on wildfires, even deliver hay to cattle stranded by blizzards. Have Apaches ever been used for those purposes, and wouldn’t it make sense to have those utility aircraft available to governors for in-state missions?”

“The main mission of those Apaches,” Grass said, “is to be the combat reserve of the Army.”

There are currently nine states where the National Guard flies Apaches.

 

They are just optimizing their resources. Obama has to cut the military expenditure down, so it's normal he takes away weapons where they do not need them and put them where they ( could ) need them much more. Anyway you are not fighting off the gov with just 192 apaches so why even bother?

 

Turf protection at its finest...