Berkeley Update: Dingy Harry blocks the DeMint defunding
posted at 9:17 am on February 12, 2008 by Bryan
Harry Reid is trying to keep Democrats from having to choose between hippies and the Marines. He used a sneaky maneuver to block a vote on the Semper Fi Act Monday. That’s the bill that would strip Berkeley of this year’s earmarks.
Instead of adjourning at the end of a day as usual, the Senate “recessed” twice, a move that, under Senate rules, slows the process of adding new bills to the calendar. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) did not adjourn until last Friday, effectively pushing back floor consideration on the GOP bill until Tuesday — the same day that the city council is likely to tone down its call for Marine Corps recruiters to leave town.
“The only reason to recess is to block something, and the thing that got blocked by Reid’s stall tactic was the Semper Fi Act,” said spokesman Wesley Denton, referring to the bill introduced by his boss, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.).
“Democrats have chosen not to defend the Marine Corps, but to pander to anti-war protesters and Berkeley officials that are actively trying to impede military recruitment.”
We should review what the city of Berkeley has actually done. It’s not a “scolding” as the Hill article characterizes it. The Berkeley city council voted to regulate the USMC recruiting office as it regulates adult businesses, circumscribing its operations. It also called the Marines “unwelcome intruders,” called for them to leave town, and gave Code Pink a special parking place to facilitate its protests against the Marines. Those protests have taken the standard Code Pink form of smearing the troops as monsters and war criminals. Dingy Harry is preserving with his parliamentary move, and keeping Democrats in Congress from having to vote on whether a city can run the US military out of town. There is a serious and somewhat dangerous precedent at stake here, and Reid is coming down on the wrong side.
Michelle has more, including the Berkeley city council’s agenda for today. They’re considering measures that would dial down their show of open hostility to the Marines. Move America Forward is in Berkeley today to protest the city’s troop hate.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Shameful
Wade on February 12, 2008 at 9:19 AM
I wonder if anybody in the MSM will ask Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama a simple question: “Do you think earmarks should be removed from Berkeley, California as a consequence of the city trying to force a US marine office to close?”. It is a very simple question but one that the Clintons and Obama never have to answer. I have been waiting for Wolf Blitzer to ask Hillary one probing question and so far Mr. Blitzer has not come with anything more probing than “How proud are you of being the first candidate to offer universal health care?”
Larraby on February 12, 2008 at 9:23 AM
with the new vote coming tonight there are big crowds gathering there already and the sun isnt even up yet :(
trailortrash on February 12, 2008 at 9:24 AM
That’s pathetic. Every time the Senate “recesses”, Bush should appoint a new slate of people they’ve refused to confirm.
CP on February 12, 2008 at 9:24 AM
Che Guevera was in the military, they should love the military….well I guess it has to be a communist military only
jp on February 12, 2008 at 9:28 AM
Hmm, looks like he got wind of the “Chicken Doves” piece as well. What a scumbag.
WisCon on February 12, 2008 at 9:30 AM
5 Feb, 2008 National Intelligence Estimate
dissent is good
sedition is bad
There is a difference…well, to everyone right of Harry Reid at least
scottm on February 12, 2008 at 9:30 AM
Democrats wish for the day they can publicly spit on military personnel again.
Rode Werk on February 12, 2008 at 9:31 AM
Elections have consequences
bnelson44 on February 12, 2008 at 9:32 AM
Yes but not for the Dems….
appst38 on February 12, 2008 at 9:35 AM
When is he up for re-election?
Geronimo on February 12, 2008 at 9:38 AM
Elections do have consequences.
Those of you considering to sit out the next election and not voting for MCCain had better reconsider that move.
Winebabe on February 12, 2008 at 9:39 AM
Harry Reid is a joke and a disgrace to this nation. No one and I mean NO ONE Dem or GOP should be even remotely in favor of the motions the Berkley city council proposed.
It should be a national outcry but the utter lack of coverage on mainstream media has left it to a whimper.
Simply and unabashed embarrassment and a blight on our nation’s honor.
MannyT-vA on February 12, 2008 at 9:41 AM
Not totally off topic:
funky chicken on February 12, 2008 at 9:41 AM
Surely Code Pink’s dissent is being crushed under the iron fist of Bushitler fascism, right?
Grafted on February 12, 2008 at 9:41 AM
Dingy’s not up until 2012.
Romney could do a great thing for the country and run against John F’n Kerry in 2010. He would have a shot at taking that seat for the GOP.
funky chicken on February 12, 2008 at 9:41 AM
I can’t believe Harry Reid even got elected. After all, he’s a MORMON, right? ::gasp::
;-)
cannonball on February 12, 2008 at 9:47 AM
Re-borkify ‘em.
whitetop on February 12, 2008 at 9:48 AM
Why don’t you go up in headlines and read about the McCain-Soros connection? Then get back to us.
a capella on February 12, 2008 at 9:49 AM
Indeed. Which is why I expect an 80/20 split in the veteran and military vote for McCain against any dem, if McCain (even with all his problems) outpolled other GOP candidates:
funky chicken on February 12, 2008 at 9:49 AM
Damn good idea! Stick it to Dirty Harry every chance you get.
pistolero on February 12, 2008 at 9:49 AM
But don’t question their patriotism…
I’m going to be sick to my stomach.
Darksean on February 12, 2008 at 9:50 AM
This is a typical scorched earth tactic used by the Democrats. They have clearly lost the war debate, they were hobbled in their attempts to block funding for the troops, and Gitmo remains open for business. They can’t win the war, much less the battles, so they retreat, burning everything in their wake.
Makes sense in my head anyway. It is before 0700, though.
fourstringfuror on February 12, 2008 at 9:52 AM
Thanks for your service, now piss off.
This is very sad. Federal funds should be withheld. How do these people think the nation is defended?
DMeNTe on February 12, 2008 at 9:53 AM
That’s the dichotomy here; for weeks all we’ve heard about Romney is how conservative he is and how Mormons are socially very conservative, and that they are devoted to their country. What happened to Reid to make him such a disgruntled, bitter curmudgeon?
fourstringfuror on February 12, 2008 at 9:55 AM
Here’s Captain Ed Morrissey himself:
CPAC Straw Poll, And Final Thoughts
funky chicken on February 12, 2008 at 9:56 AM
CP, I liked your idea so much I called the White House to suggest it really be done. Wouldn’t that be great? I can hear that little wimp howling like a scalded cat if Bush used one of his sneaky recesses against him.
pistolero on February 12, 2008 at 9:56 AM
I can only hope he decides soon to be more like his father.
TroubledMonkey on February 12, 2008 at 9:58 AM
Ref Recess appointments: Even if legal, it would be a political ‘death sentence’ to the appointee’s should the Dems get in power.
Bob67 on February 12, 2008 at 9:59 AM
Typical liberalism. I hope that this action gets huge national attention and the candidates are going have to come up with an answer to the question why Democrats supported Berkley over the USMC.
highhopes on February 12, 2008 at 10:00 AM
I realize that, but it’s definitely the right thumb in the eye at the right time. I’m so sick of these people that any time you have a chance to kick them in the nuts you should take it.
pistolero on February 12, 2008 at 10:03 AM
How many judicial appointments could Dubya stuff into those BS recesses?
Kid from Brooklyn on February 12, 2008 at 10:03 AM
Balls.
Kid from Brooklyn on February 12, 2008 at 10:03 AM
A true wiener of a man. Reid is the personification of the word “snivel.”
whitetop on February 12, 2008 at 10:07 AM
Actauly brings up a better question…
Why do FEDERAL funds to to ANY city?
But then again, I am a Federalist.
Romeo13 on February 12, 2008 at 10:10 AM
Reid is a Mormon, but he is also a Moron. That’s how he differs from Romney.
AZCoyote on February 12, 2008 at 10:27 AM
Reid makes me ashamed to live in a country where people like him can actually get elected. He is a spineless worm.
scalleywag on February 12, 2008 at 10:27 AM
What an EFFING PRICK he is!
That really boils my blood.
4shoes on February 12, 2008 at 10:33 AM
As a group Mormons are both conservative and patriotic. Reid just goes to show that in any large group their are always a percentage of complete idiots.
duff65 on February 12, 2008 at 10:37 AM
As shameful as Berkeley is, are they required – legally or constitutionally – to endorse and support the military?
As repellent as I find their behaviour, I have some serious doubts that DeMints bill is legitimate.
LimeyGeek on February 12, 2008 at 10:50 AM
Blocking the military in a time of war is legally considered sedition afaik. So there’s that.
Bryan on February 12, 2008 at 10:53 AM
When the funding for a border fence can be removed or redirected, why do you doubt the earmarks can be removed?
News2Use on February 12, 2008 at 10:57 AM
Sedition? Really? So the military has carte blanche to go wherever it wants and if anyone objects they are potentially at risk of arrest, imprisonment – maybe execution?
Sounds a tad harsh for a community voicing its conscience.
As dumb as that conscience may be.
LimeyGeek on February 12, 2008 at 11:01 AM
I have no doubt that we can find all kinds of justifications for removing all sorts of funding.
Doesn’t necessarily make it right though.
LimeyGeek on February 12, 2008 at 11:02 AM
Dude, rather than coming after me why don’t you go look up the law on sedition first. I’m sure it’s online. The issue here is recruitment and whether it’s lawful to block the military from doing so in a time of war. Now hop to it.
Bryan on February 12, 2008 at 11:03 AM
Sorry if it seemed that way. Not my intent. I’m just a tad shocked that we can consider employing the term “sedition” so readily.
LimeyGeek on February 12, 2008 at 11:06 AM
Well, Dingy remains true to form. He’s always, ALWAYS on the wrong side of every issue.
countywolf on February 12, 2008 at 11:16 AM
Alien & Sedition Acts – the Alien Enemies Act remains, other parts being found unconstitutional.
Sedition – as a legal term. With more specific relevance to us.
Yes, I know people gripe about wikipedia, but it’s either right or wrong and I have no time to dig into the annals of history. I find it to be a good starting point most of the time. Not so much for contentious issues, admittedly.
Simple definition – is this really what Berkeley are doing?
From what I have read, the Berkeley actions do not even begin to approach the standard of sedition. I would have been extremely alarmed if our USA-definition of sedition was so loose as to encompass such objections to the military.
LimeyGeek on February 12, 2008 at 11:16 AM
Oh, but Senator Harry Reid is Senator John McCain’s friend!
Vote Huckabee.
ITookTheRedPill on February 12, 2008 at 11:23 AM
I wish someone would ask McCain about this bill.
kongzilla on February 12, 2008 at 11:25 AM
This is somewhat interesting, given all this talk of sedition. I wonder what has happened to this case?
LimeyGeek on February 12, 2008 at 11:26 AM
Seems like it fizzled out, which doesn’t (thankfully) surprise me.
LimeyGeek on February 12, 2008 at 11:30 AM
So, if we can accept that Berkeley have done nothing legally or constitutionally wrong, how can we condone such ‘economic bullying’ tactics?
I am beginning to cement my opposition to DeMint’s bill. Please correct me if necessary.
LimeyGeek on February 12, 2008 at 11:32 AM
LimeyGeek, let’s get back to the topic. Whether or not sedition is being practiced, we can certainly look at the facts of the case.
1. The U.S. is at war.
2. Berkeley voted to restrain the Marine Corps from recruiting in its environs.
3. That is going in direct contravention to the U.S. interests in time of war.
4. The U.S. government gives the city of Berkeley funding for certain aspects of its governing.
5. Federal funding is a grant, not a right.
6. Removing the grant is not punishment. It would be rescinding a grant.
7. Freedom of speech is for Berkely is preserved. The city council of Berkeley has every right to say whatever they want to.
8. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence.
9. Freedom of speech is also granted to the government, is it not?
10. The love of money may be the root of all evil, but the necessity for it can also work to cure it (evil).
Tennman on February 12, 2008 at 11:43 AM
No, you can accept that they have done nothing wrong. I look on them as much of a threat to this country as the murderers our men and women in uniform fighting.
thekingtut on February 12, 2008 at 11:50 AM
How in the world did a city, in which every elected official and resident is in desperate need of lithium, ever manage to come into being? It boggles the mind!
srhoades on February 12, 2008 at 11:51 AM
No no no. You guys are seriously misreading me. I am not suggesting that they have done nothing wrong, but only that they have not violated any law or aspect of the constitution.
For the record, I think their actions and words are disgusting.
My concern here is that we are considering using government force (by denial of otherwise legitimately allocated funds) to punish a community for their actions, outside the bounds of law or constitutionality. That smacks of ‘rule of man’ not ‘rule of law’.
LimeyGeek on February 12, 2008 at 11:57 AM
If a verbal insult and giving Code Pink a once-a-week parking space runs the US military out of town, our government has got problems that won’t be solved by de-funding organizations that have the misfortune of being within city limits.
By the way, it’s rather ironic that a leftist organization should want a parking space for a recruiting center located two blocks from downtown Berkeley’s major public transportation hub. Again, the proposed measures are simply symbolic and I really don’t see the Marines chickening out and leaving over them. What I do see is people like Rush Limbaugh getting a chance to strut around and cluck.
I don’t think the `economic bullying’ is legally or constitutionally wrong, either, so that argument won’t win anyone over. Besides, this was never about logic or law, as I’ve indicated above.
calbear on February 12, 2008 at 12:04 PM
Berzerkly is practicing a from of discrimination against a specific group. This coming from the people who pride themselves on being open and all things to everyone. But it seems Berzerkly prejudice against the Marines reveals a slice of a single party state where the only voice is the state.
I wonder if they have a Che Guevara flag in their office?
Kini on February 12, 2008 at 12:10 PM
That’s interesting. I view it as ‘wrong’ in the sense that it is a departure from lawful and/or constitutional protocol. In other words, that the process for crafting legislation to grant/deny funds does not include any measure that legitimises using ‘good graces’ or ‘personal favour’ or ‘distaste’ as a criteria – the criteria are, and always should be, “is the proposed funding constitutional?”. Whether or not we like the people receiving the funds has no constitutional weight.
LimeyGeek on February 12, 2008 at 12:10 PM
The Supreme Court recently held that the US government can with hold grants from colleges and universities that refuse to allow military recruiters on campus. This is no different. As several people have pointed out Berkley is not entitled to any federal money, therefore there is no “government force” or “punish(ment)” going on here.
This is the no different than my decision not to wear Levi’s jeans because of that company’s stance against the Boy Scouts. I am in no way saying that Levi-Strauss dosen’t have the right to be against the Boy Scouts, I’m merely saying that I am not going to support them finanially or otherwise.
The real question is, why is any city getting federal money? Cities collect taxes just like every other government, if they cannot operate with what they collect they need to either raise taxes, cut spending or cut taxes to improve growth. Why should the guy lving in West Plains, MO or Concord, NC (both small towns with low costs of living) pay for some dope smoker in Berkley’s monument to hemp shirts and carrot juice? I hope the bill passes and is the first step to ending all federal earmarks.
srhoades on February 12, 2008 at 12:16 PM
These would be public institutions, right? Not private ones? I can see how ‘equal access’ could be violated by public institutions if they refused to allow the military access, justifying some form of sanction. Berkeley U doesn’t refuse the military, does it?
Not sure how that translates into the private sector. The military have no right to be anywhere they please. If a private community, through their local elected representatives, wishes to exclude the military, then they are at liberty to do so. As pathetic and disgraceful as that is.
LimeyGeek on February 12, 2008 at 12:22 PM
PS. I am shoulder-to-shoulder with you regarding gutting federal spending ;) Gubmint spending at all levels, actually.
LimeyGeek on February 12, 2008 at 12:24 PM
If the protesters are given free reign they will disrupt the mission of the office. If the Marines cannot get recruits then the office will be closed and opened elsewhere, most likely another city. The Corps will by no means chicken out and leave, but if business is dispruted to the point that they get no recruits, it will no longer be worth the money and manpower to keep it open.
Speaking as a former Marine though, an incident like this would just drive the typical Marine recruit to go to the office earlier than planned, just so he can walk through the protesters.
srhoades on February 12, 2008 at 12:26 PM
I’d be sorely tempted to drive by with a liquid manure spreader. Code Brown may start to lose their enthusiasm ;)
LimeyGeek on February 12, 2008 at 12:30 PM
To my knowledge the ruling makes no distinction. Doesn’t matter if it is Duke, Prinston, Mizzou, or Liberty U. If they receive government money they have to allow recruiters. As a matter of fact, since public institutions are, by their mere existance, public I would venture that the ruling would go doubly for them.
By giving free parking and free noise permits to the protesters (and by refusing to stop the protesters from assaulting counter protesters if you read MM’s piece), then the city is denying equal access.
Bottom line, you take government money for your city (or university), then you allow recruiters.
srhoades on February 12, 2008 at 12:34 PM
I understand your point of view. I see a problem concerning ‘scope’ with applying the SCOTUS ruling to the Berkeley situation.
LimeyGeek on February 12, 2008 at 12:37 PM
I hope that someday Harry Reid will need the Military to come to his aid. I hope that his cry for help, goes unanswered!
kcd on February 12, 2008 at 12:41 PM
Let us not forget that the Marine Corps paid for the lease on the office, and got the requisite permits to operate so in essence the city and the protesters are preventing a legal buisness from operating and providing a legal service.
Isn’t the behavior of Code Pink the exact same behavior that pro-lifers are condemned for? (Not that that has anything to do with your point, Limey.)
Anyway, my lunch break is over.
srhoades on February 12, 2008 at 12:42 PM
It all comes down to money that you wouldn’t otherwise get. Grants to colleges and universities did not have any strings but since the military wasn’t getting a fair shake, the congress passed the Solomon Act. The Corps isn’t getting a fair shake from Berkley so enter the Semper Fi act. Same thing only to a city rather than a school.
Now, I
have to go.
srhoades on February 12, 2008 at 12:45 PM
Hope you had a good lunch ;)
Actually, you raise an interesting point. Perhaps the correct angle to attack this from is not funding, but property rights.
I presume the property the Marines lease/own is private, so perhaps this case opens the door to the possibility of challenging the constitutionality of all zoning and ‘special use permit’ laws?
LimeyGeek on February 12, 2008 at 12:52 PM
Fair enough.
Has McCain backed down on CFR? No.
Has McCain apologized for his 2005 lawsuit against the FEC to regulate the internet? No.
Has McCain stated that he will not appoint FEC Commissioners who will work on his behalf to regulate the internet? No.
So McCain is still (to the best of my knowledge) continuing his 7 year assault on the First Amendment and the Constitution, and looking to set a precedent for removing Constitutional freedoms by legislation.
You’re going to have to come up with a much worse “worst case scenario” for this to be palatable.
That or maybe I’m misunderstanding the phrase “shall not abridge”. Or perhaps I thought an oath to “defend and uphold the Constitution” should mean something.
But don’t worry, I’m not “sitting out”. I’m voting for the lesser of two evils; like I always have. That would be the candidate who hasn’t spent most of the last decade assaulting the Constitution.
I’m not sure who that’s going to be yet, but he or she will get my vote.
gekkobear on February 12, 2008 at 1:01 PM
Considering the type of permit Berkley wants the Marines to obtain, I can just see the Marines being joined in a lawsuit by Larry Flynt et al. ;)
BillH on February 12, 2008 at 1:11 PM
Forgive me for asking, but is that really the case? Can any US city legally hinder attempts by the military to recruit? And does any such city have the right to “regulate” a recruiting station as a business?
Knuckledragger on February 12, 2008 at 1:18 PM
Unfortunately, you make quite a salient point. This was why I refused Huckabee- after all, why would I want the Contitution rewritten merely because it didn’t say God often enough for his tastes- and this spells out one of the reasons I consider McCain so dishonest. Damn, I wish Hunter would’ve had better name recognition…
BillH on February 12, 2008 at 1:23 PM
‘Strange bedfellows’, as they say
LimeyGeek on February 12, 2008 at 1:23 PM
What I meant was that no private property owner, business or otherwise, is obligated to sell or lease property to the military.
If the legitimacy of these ‘permits’ is called into question, then the public officials lose their ‘back-door’ ability to exclude the military without directly passing an ordinance saying “military not allowed”.
It’s a filthy mess, and I’m feeling a tad queasy having to talk so much about those Berkeley a-holes.
My main point of contention was originally that the DeMint bill is illegitimate, that’s all.
LimeyGeek on February 12, 2008 at 1:29 PM
The terms ‘private’ and ‘community,’ while not necessarily mutually exclusive, hardly ever go together without ‘gated’ or ‘retirement’ sandwiched between them…the very essence of a community is that it is public. Each seat on the city council is a public office.
As for the legitimacy of the DeMint bill, the Feds are under no obligation to provide earmarks, and therefore are under no obligation to continue to provide earmarks if the city acts in a way that is counter to the national interest.
If this seems overly harsh to you, consider that they don’t have to tie the revokation of earmarks to ANY behavior at all because earmarks are gifts…they could just shut them off completely for no reason whatsoever, and there are lots of people who would cheer this no matter what city it affected.
James on February 12, 2008 at 2:00 PM
Quesion his patriotism? No, we`re beyond questioning, we know the answer.
ThePrez on February 12, 2008 at 3:01 PM
Yanking earmarks from a bill is one thing, revoking funding after the fact is another. Presumably there is funding already allocated to Berkeley. To revoke this, a bill must be offered (DeMint’s being a prime example) that defines what funding is to be revoked, and why.
I suppose there could be a grand confederacy of silence over the “why?” – but it would look a little odd.
Ultimately, the reason “why” will emerge. In this case, it appears to be not that Berkeley have violated any law, contract, or constitutional principle, but because a bunch of people don’t like what they say. Is that really a sound basis for the business of lawful funding? The whim of man?
Federal funding for roads, buildings etc has nothing to do with Berkeley’s nanny-state whinging about whether-or-not to grant a permit.
Attack the mechanism they are abusing to shoehorn their political preferences into society – the zoning/permitting system itself. Let these people know that they simply do not have the authority to meddle in the lawful business of establishing a military recruitment office.
It would bring some welcome fallout around the nation too ;)
LimeyGeek on February 12, 2008 at 3:27 PM
Heh – you make it sound like Code Pink is just weeding out the rejects so you don’t have to.
calbear on February 12, 2008 at 3:28 PM
Yes…the whim of man. Big deal…it was the whim of man that got earmarks inserted in the first place. Why must Congress be restricted from voting with its wallet the same as any other entity in a free, capitalist society?
But you could be right…calling out the National Guard to haul off these enemies of the state to the gulag sounds like much more fun. Think we’d get away with it?
James on February 12, 2008 at 4:29 PM
Reid takes the wrong side again. Why am I not surprised?
Dave Shay on February 12, 2008 at 4:57 PM
The last time I checked, Nevada was a RED state. I just Googled “recall nevada” and they have it. I can’t believe that there isn’t a raging petition drive going on to kick that MF out.
Kafir on February 12, 2008 at 5:07 PM
Hey hey! Ho ho! Harry Reid has got to go!
SoulGlo on February 12, 2008 at 7:20 PM