A move from Congress I finally like......

Tagged:  

I'm glad Congress is stepping into this situation. This town's city council is out of line and needs to understand consequences. I hope they feel the repercussions. In fact, I surprised the Fed's can only find $2 mil to withhold. For every action there is a reaction.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/07/berkeley.protests/index.html

No votes yet

This is an example of the clearly ignorant.

Their protests are an attempt to derail Marine Corps recruiting efforts because of the war AND because the protestors are anti-military. They could just as easily protest outside of a federal building or courthouse. They do not do this because it doesn't meet their anti-military goals.

Their protests cheapen the anti-war protests of those who are pro-military yet anti-war.

The founder of Code Pink said "We are the defenders of democracy, the upholders of the Constitution. If it weren't for people like the people in Berkeley, standing up for what they believe, we'd be living under Hitler." according to this commentary by Michelle Malkin.http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/political_commentary/commentary_by_michelle_malkin/berkeley_vs_america_again

They are unaware that the Marines take an oath to support and defend not the President's policies, not the country, but the constitution. And the Marines have been the true defenders of democracy going so far as to put their life and safety on the line.

The only reason we're not living under Hitler is because of the Marines and others like them.

MikeyA

MikeyA

SEMPER FI BROTHER!

"All evil and unhappiness in this world comes from the I-concept."

"All evil and unhappiness in this world comes from the I-concept."

until some of their money was threatened. Disgusting that people without any ethical structure are entrusted to shape the minds of the future of America.

They hate the Marines, but like the French when the Germans marched in, they'd holler for help as loud as anybody and the US military would be their friend in no time if they were attacked. (Or their money as they've shown),

If you're here to tell me it's my fault - you're right. I meant to do it. It was alot of fun. That's why I have this happy smile on my face.

Based on the above comments, I would surmise that you all would then encourage Congress to remove all funding from Toledo as well. Berkeley is only protesting military recruiters, but Carty actually kicked out the marines.

As for ethical structure, like Congress is displaying its true un-American stripes by threatening to remove money for things like roads, education, etc. because a city proclaims that the military recruitment post is not welcome there anymore. An unpopular position for sure, but don't they have a right to do so? Holding needed funding for civil projects based on this? That seems unethical.

Does Berkely's city council position make any difference to you?

Yes

If Toledo is unwilling or unable to comprehend how we keep a well trained military and causes interference in the training as it stands, this creates extraneous and unnecessary expenses and yes - it would be fair to withhold funds and give them to the branch of the service that is seeing those unnecessary expenses.

You can't have it both ways. You're either in the game or you aren't. Surely it is simple enough to understand that if the military has to find new urban training centers and incur extra travel expenses that money has to come from some place.

And I've seen the footage of what the civilians in Iraq are living with. I damn sure want our military to be well versed in urban combat. The terrorists certainly are.

The story that is linked about does not say anything about pulling "money for things like roads, education, etc". Did that come from another story?

If you're here to tell me it's my fault - you're right. I meant to do it. It was alot of fun. That's why I have this happy smile on my face.

Kate what wombat doesn't know is that it's not the job of congress to create roads, pay for education, or anything else. It is the job of congress to provide the services needed for the safety of our country (see my post below).

In fact all of the things wombat mentioned are the responsibility of local and state governments. The federal government doing it is the federal government extending beyond their obligations.

MikeyA

MikeyA

Actually, I believe the roads DO fall under the jurisdiction of Congress.

Here's a link below to another that outlines what is proposed to be removed in earmarks. Thank you for your thoughtful comments, as well, katie...

I am pissed as heck that Congress has acted in this manner, though. In America, people have a right to speak their political views, without the government holding funding over their heads to ensure compliance. They didn't vote to force the USMC to leave town, just to draft language to let them know that they aren't welcome. Stupid, but their right. Congress is acting like a bunch of spoiled babies who disagree, and want to punish them for exercising their Constitutional rights. The very same rights our military men and women have fought wars to maintain. I think Congress' proposal shames that sacrifice more than any small town could ever do.

From:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,329866,00.html

DeMint's office provided a preliminary list of items that would be subject to his proposal:

— $975,000 for the University of California at Berkeley, for the Matsui Center for Politics and Public Service, which may include establishing an endowment, and for cataloguing the papers of Congressman Robert Matsui.

— $750,000 for the Berkeley/Albana ferry service.

— $243,000 for the Chez Panisse Foundation, for a school lunch initiative to integrate lessons about wellness, sustainability and nutrition into the academic curriculum.

— $94,000 for a Berkeley public safety interoperability program.

— $87,000 for the Berkeley Unified School District, nutrition education program.

You need to read your constitution.

While Congress can't stop them from asking the military to leave they can and should withhold funds if they kick out any form of the military.

The reason is it's Congresses job to
"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

That means if the organizing of the military is prevented it is Congresses OBLIGATION to prevent it.

And to answer your next question Congress should threaten to withhold federal aid to Toledo until Carty apologizes and compensates the Marines.

Maybe if you knew what the constitution said before you started citing "constitutional rights" we could take you more seriously.

MikeyA

MikeyA

"Maybe if I knew what the constitution said...take you more seriously". What an arrogant statement. Thought you were above that ~ *sigh* First I find out about Santa Claus, now this?!?!

I am pretty aware of this Constitution you refer to. I would like to see how Berkeley's passing of a VERBAL RESOLUTION constitutes interfering with the ability of the military to organize. That's a streeeeeeetch. The marine recruiters were not and will not be kicked out of town. Berkeley has a right to protest the military action, period, and the recruiter's station is a focus for that protest. It may be unpopular, it may stick in your craw, but their right to do this should be vigorously defended.

Before acting so smug, make sure you have a leg to stand on. My counter-advice that you could engage in, while I'm getting my Constitution refresher, is for you to actually act in SUPPORT of the Constitution, including these not-so-popular implications, instead of just quoting it.

Grouchiness episode complete.

"I would like to see how Berkeley's passing of a VERBAL RESOLUTION constitutes interfering with the ability of the military to organize."

They openly encouraged residents to "volunteer to impede, passively or actively, by nonviolent means, the work of any military recruiting office located in the City of Berkeley." that means they were encouraging a part of the constitution to be violated. It is my contention and others that since Congress is obligated by the constitution to provide and maintain a military then to likewise fund someone who is counter to that is against the constitution. Had they just encouraged protesters to speak their minds it'd be fine but they encouraged impeding the work of the federal government.

And for your information I totally support the constitution.... ALL PARTS OF IT. The military takes an oath to do it against all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC. Just saying "we support the constitution" during your protest doesn't exactly make it so.

MikeyA

MikeyA

It is my contention and others that since Congress is obligated by the constitution to provide and maintain a military then to likewise fund someone who is counter to that is against the constitution.

But what if the maintaining of the military is done is such a way to violate one of the basic tenants of our country, that all men are created equal, and thus be treated equally when pursuing life, liberty, and happiness. The feds may fund the military and militia (National Guard), but we fund the feds.

"But what if the maintaining of the military is done is such a way to violate one of the basic tenants of our country"

How did they violate any of those? It's not the Fed's responsibility to fund schools or roads. When it does so it does so of it's own will.

Plus taking away the funding does not mean anyone is unequal, nor does it deny them life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. If it makes the citizens of Berkeley happy to run out the Marines that's fine but they do so at the risk of losing federal funding. So the decision was theirs to decide which would make them happier. They chose the funding.

How does it make you feel to know they literally sold out?

MikeyA

MikeyA

Actually the roads do fall under the jurisdiction of the Feds. And I really don't care if Berkeley sells out or not.

But I don't see your point about Berkeley preventing the feds from carrying out their Constitutional duties. For example---it's also the duty of Congress to establish post offices. But you don't see mailmen, or mailwomen ;) setting up shop recruiting at campuses and such.

(Btw, disregard my post about treating people equally. It was rubbish, I confused the Berkeley case with something else)

I'll agree to that to an extent.

I believe the wording is Congress shall establish post roads. We could argue if establish means build or designation municipal roads.

I do find it interesting that most the roads the Fed overseas are not post roads but designed for interstate commerce. We could make a good case that the Fed is infringing on state's rights but I don't know of a state that would. Ok, maybe Ohio would.

MikeyA

MikeyA

Are considered OK, then? Can we protest what Congress does? Well, let's revoke funding for any group that disagrees with Congress. What about your City Council? Your police or firefighters?

Protesting by NONVIOLENT AND LEGAL means is fundamental to a healthy democracy. It is not only a right, but really the responsibility of every citizen to take an active role in the governance of our country. Taking out sanctions against groups that are exercising their rights, no matter how unpopular, is contrary to the very spirit of the document that the military fights to uphold.

And I do apologize for being snarky in my last posting, Mike. I was responding to what was a pretty big insult. I do appreciate your perspectives on issues, in particular your rich knowledge of history and politics.

Protesting is fine. If they were encouraging people to peaceably protest then there'd be no constitutional problem.

However they used the word impede. This meant they were trying to prevent a function of the federal government from doing it's lawfully binding duty.

I could protest an abortion clinic but I cannot impede them from going in or doing their job unless a law were inacted against abortion. Therefore protesting an abortion clinic is exercising free speech, chaining myself to the doors and not allowing anyone in is a crime.

Had they encouraged Code Pink to hand out literature to anyone going in about their view of the Marines this would be a non-issue.

Thank you for your apology wombat. I apologize if I have offended you as well. I take these issues personally because they can, have, and do affect me.

MikeyA

MikeyA

Truthfully wombat I think this group is greatly misguided because they'd be very shocked at the things the Marine Corps has consistently supported that they too would be in support of.

The Marines have consistently favored diminishing the role of the Sec of Defense in favor of more civilian oversight and military advice being given to the president. Advice from a group of military minds instead of one man.

The Marines do not support long term occupations of countries. The Commandant of the Marine Corps was in the news last month trying to get Sec Gates to pull the Marines out as they've run their usefulness and could better serve in a place like Afghanistan where the mission better suits the mission of the Marine Corps.

The Marines fought having Recon join Special Operations Command.

Plus the structure of the Marine Corps is designed to keep costs low and do as much as possible with as little as possible as fast as possible with as little impact on people as possible.

MikeyA

MikeyA

You can protest anything. That's one of the nice things about America. You can say anything you like...so long as you don't cry fire in a crowded theater when you know there's no fire.

You can't use the right to free speech to inflict harm upon others. Or to impede the right of the public to use public property. So (even though I don't like this) if you want to have a BIG gathering of people on city or government property you need to get a permit so that jurisdiction may make arrangements for the rest of the public to pass/safety.

Now to interfere with the military branch altogether is not free speech. When a municipality decides they are going to refuse to allow the military to perform in its legal capacity - that may be their option - but there are consequences.

I think what is sticking in the craw of some folks is that they think they have the right to say whatever they want and there should be no repercussions. That because it's what those select folks want to say, everybody HAS TO HEAR IT. uh - no. Your right to free speech in no way obligates me nor anyone else to listen to your crap. :-) Your right to speak is not a mandate that everyone must stop and listen. Or agree.

There are some that think that they get to control what other people are and are not allowed to do. Their opinion should be the controlling factor of the US military.

Actions and speech have consequences to them. Such as screwing around with the Federal government in some way can cost you Federal funds. It's a punitive action meant to punish.

That is how life works.

If you're here to tell me it's my fault - you're right. I meant to do it. It was alot of fun. That's why I have this happy smile on my face.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.