We have reported on this, we have published an Exclusive interview with Melanie Morgan, we have had our own Veterans speak out about this and today Move America Forward and patriots from across the world, stand up for our Marines, in Berkeley…

Is that really a sound basis for the business of lawful funding? The whim of man?

LimeyGeek on February 12, 2008 at 3:27 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?

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.

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?

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.

Heh – you make it sound like Code Pink is just weeding out the rejects so you don’t have to.

James on February 12, 2008 at 2:00 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 ;)

If a private community, through their local elected representatives, wishes to exclude the military, then they are at liberty to do so.
LimeyGeek on February 12, 2008 at 12:22 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.

First a fun little video. The Berkeley City Council in its own seditious words: And Harry Reid rides to the rescue…….

Knuckledragger on February 12, 2008 at 1:18 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.

BillH on February 12, 2008 at 1:11 PM

‘Strange bedfellows’, as they say

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.

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…

If a private community, through their local elected representatives, wishes to exclude the military, then they are at liberty to do so.
LimeyGeek on February 12, 2008 at 12:22 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?

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?

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. ;)

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

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.

srhoades on February 12, 2008 at 12:42 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 12:37 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

do

have to go.

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.

Bottom line, you take government money for your city (or university), then you allow recruiters.

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 12:22 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.

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

I’d be sorely tempted to drive by with a liquid manure spreader. Code Brown may start to lose their enthusiasm ;)

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.

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 12:16 PM

PS. I am shoulder-to-shoulder with you regarding gutting federal spending ;) Gubmint spending at all levels, actually.