I know you are trying desperately to weasel your way out of this, F. Lee, but nothing you've cited here is inconsistent with my prior statement: 

While your analysis of Perpich is correct, the Court in its ruling did, in fact, permit state governors to refuse federal deployments under certain conditions.  In light of that fact, your prior statement that "Governor Rell has little to say about it" is not valid.

The circumstance to which the Court was referring in that instance had nothing to do with training, but rather emergency readiness:

"Indeed, if the federal training mission were to interfere with the State Guard's capacity to respond to local emergencies, the Montgomery Amendment would permit the Governor to veto the proposed mission."

Perpich, et al., 496 U.S. at 351 (emphasis mine).

Now, when you're ready to apologize and admit that you've been "out-lawyered" by a rank amateur, I'm willing to listen.