City of Berkeley, Calif., Votes to Boot Marines *updates*

[ProfJohn]

Last Update
City backs down
link

At their Tuesday council meeting, leaders will discuss scrapping a letter that might be perceived as targeting the center or the Marines.

The letter said that the recruiting center was not welcome on Shattuck Avenue and that the Marines were uninvited and unwelcome intruders.

"That letter will probably be pulled back and maybe more moderate language will be put in place which is appropriate I think," said Berkeley mayor Tom Bates.

"Subtly stated in the resolution is perhaps an impugning of the soldiers fighting for us in Iraq and other places," Berkeley City Councilman Laurie Capitelli. "And that was never the intention but that really needs to be cleared up. As I walked to my car that night I realized I regretted it and I had made a mistake."

What a mess. The city of Berkeley voted to tell the Marines to leave their Berkely recruiting station.

I agree with the congressman's move.

BTW you have to love the list of earmarks, just shows you how messed up the whole earmark thing has become. A million dollars for a center in honor of a local congressman, what the hell.

U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., says the City of Berkeley, Calif., no longer deserves federal money.

DeMint was angered after learning that the Berkeley City Council voted this week to tell the U.S. Marine Corps to remove its recruiting station from the city's downtown.

"This is a slap in the face to all brave service men and women and their families," DeMint said in a prepared statement. "The First Amendment gives the City of Berkeley the right to be idiotic, but from now on they should do it with their own money."

"If the city can?t show respect for the Marines that have fought, bled and died for their freedom, Berkeley should not be receiving special taxpayer-funded handouts," he added.

Sen. DeMint will appear Saturday on FOX News Channel ? on FOX Online With Jamie Colby ? between noon and 2 p.m. ET.

Click here to read Jamie Colby's blog, The Colby Files, and for more information about the show.

In the meantime, a senior Marine official tells FOX News that the Marine office in Berkeley isn't going anywhere.

"We understand things are different there, but some people just don't get it. This is a part of the military machine that gives them the right to do what they do, but what they are doing is extreme," the official said.

DeMint said he will draft legislation to rescind any earmarks dedicated for the City of Berkeley in the recently passed appropriations bill ? which his office tallied to value about $2.1 million. He said that any money taken back would be transferred to the Marines.

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.

The Marine official, speaking with FOX News on Friday, said Marine Commandant Gen. James Conway scoffed at the news, but there are no plans for to protest the City Council's decisions. There are definitely no plans to move the recruiting station either.

"To actually put something into law that encourages the disruption of a federal office is ridiculous. They are not going to kick a federal office out of its rightful place there, and this is not going to discourage those young patriots who want to be Marines," the official said.

The Berkeley City Council this week voted to tell the Marines their downtown recruiting station is not welcome and "if recruiters choose to stay, they do so as uninvited and unwelcome guests," according to The Associated Press.

The council also voted to explore whether a city anti-discrimination law applies to the Marines, with a focus on the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy that prevents open homosexuality in the military.

The council also voted to give the antiwar group Code Pink a parking space in front of the recruiting office once a week for six months, as well as a protest permit.

The Marine recruiting office in Berkeley has been open for about one year, but has been the subject of recent protests by Code Pink members.

EDIT
video of code pink blocking the stations door.

Update #2
Protesters Chain Selves To Recruit Center Doors
link
Part of the story for the rest click the link

The World Can?t Wait ratcheted up the protests at the downtown Berkeley Marine Recruiting Center Friday, when three demonstrators dressed in orange jump suits to symbolize the garb worn by prisoners at Guantanamo Bay chained themselves to the recruiting center doors at 64 Shattuck Square.
Despite assurances by Lt. David Reece that police would be stationed across the street only to keep the demonstrators safe, a large group of police??a wall of cops in riot formation,? according to Stephanie Tang of the World Can?t Wait?cut the chains and arrested the three demonstrators at around 2:30 p.m.

?They said they had a request from the Marine Corps to move us,? Tang told the Planet on Monday.

Lt. Andrew Greenwood confirmed that ?they were arrested at the request of a person at the Marine Recruiting Center.?

The trio was cited with infractions on charges of interfering with or obstructing a business operator. Two were cited and released and a third, with an outstanding traffic warrant, was held for a couple of hours and released, Tang said.

?They were arrested without incident,? Greenwood told the Planet Monday.

By 9:30 a.m., Mary Ann, Alex and Lou, all who declined to give their last names, had been chained to the door of the Marine Recruiting office for about two hours.

Describing their protest as ?civil resistance,? Mary Ann told the Planet the recruiting center ?represents the immoral acts of this president?the Iraq war, wire tapping, torture, and ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] raids.?

The San Francisco Chronicle denounces the Berkeley actions
link

There's nothing surprising - or objectionable - about an anti-war protest outside a Marine Corps recruiting office in Berkeley. Bullhorns, locked arms, chanted slogans: Bring it on if that's the way demonstrators want to oppose the Iraq war.

But what is the Berkeley City Council doing by endorsing statements denouncing these recruiters as "uninvited and unwelcome intruders" and reserving curb space for the convenience of weekly protesters?

Berkeley's leaders have taken the worthy notion of political protest and shoved it over the cliff. While playing up arguments of free speech and organized protest, the council has loaded the deck with insulting language that denigrates the military and embarrasses the anti-war cause.

The motion approved by the council includes a number of remarkable statements: "The United States has a history of launching illegal, immoral and unprovoked wars of aggression" and "The military recruiters are sales people known to lie to and seduce minors."

The move has provoked an uproar. South Carolina Republican Sen. Jim DeMint wants to yank some $2.1 million in Washington money bound for Berkeley schools, food programs and ferries. Sorry senator, we don't see the connection - or sense of fairness.

Two Berkeley City Council members, Betty Olds and Laurie Capitelli, are hurrying a resolution for the council's Feb. 12 meeting to paper over the harm done. Their idea is to state Berkeley's opposition to the Iraq war and support the troops, no-brainer notions in local politics. The measure would also attempt to undo the damage by also dropping the offending rhetoric of the original resolution that singled out the Marine recruiters. That would be a welcome ending to a foolish crusade.

Business Owners React to Marine Corps Vote
Threaten to withhold taxes in protest
click link for whole story

Some Berkeley business owners say they have received such a negative response from the recent City Council resolutions against the Marine Corps recruiting center in Downtown Berkeley that they may withhold city taxes in protest...

At a meeting of the chamber's Government Affairs committee yesterday, some members discussed a plan to withhold business license taxes to protest the resolutions' effects on their business.

A formal plan to withhold taxes would require the approval of the chamber's executive committee or board of directors.

But Carolyn Henry Golphin, the immediate past chair of the chamber's board, said withholding taxes should only be a last resort.

"We have to do what we have to do," she said. "We do need to make a stand together if that's what we all agree on."

Liz Stevens, broker and owner of Windermere Real Estate in Berkeley, said the current controversy was part of a larger problem.

"The city has a good way of keeping people at arms length and making decisions that affect them at the same time," she said.

Mark McLeod, a member of the chamber's board and president of the Downtown Berkeley Association, said he agreed that the council should have considered the implications of its actions before voting for the resolutions.

"The council can't operate as an isolated unit-the university, council and chamber have to realize they're all members of a large, complex community and have to act with a realization of the effect of their actions on all members of the community," he said.

 

[Farang]

Great idea.. take $975,000 from one of our most prestigious universities, $750,000 from infrastructure, and $330,000 in nutrition education for fatass children, give it to an already bloated military. Fucking brilliant.

 

[ProfJohn]

^ I don't agree with giving the money to the DoD, but I agree with taking it from Berkeley.

 

[Tab]

Aren't there laws about this issuse? If it's not illegal who cares...

 

[IronWing]

Earmarks are just another part of the appropriation process, nothing evil. The Senator is seeking to punish the city because they don't share his values and because doing so gets him airtime.

 

[Jaskalas]

A city should have the right to be disrespectful, and to be disrespected in return. Pulling their funding is a good response.

 

[MovingTarget]

The people of Berkley can say whatever they want, via referendum or other means, but they do not have the authority to force the offices to close. The federal government does have the authority to appropriate money elsewhere, but honestly its just bad form and reeks of payback. The money that Berkely would not be getting if this passes could be better spent elsewhere in other towns that need it. I don't think it should be used as a boost for the military since it isn't military services that would be cut. Of course Berkeley is going a bit overboard in specifying parking spots for a specific group of protesters (code pink). That just seems childish to me on their part.

 

[IronWing]

The second poll question is poorly worded and spins the issue.

Does any city have the right to kick out Marines like this?

The city did not kick the Marines out.

 

[sandorski]

Local control? The City should have final say in these matters. From the sounds of it this Recruiting center is controversial, although I suppose it might just be to a small group.

 

[Rainsford]

You know what, ProfJohn, you and the guy from South Carolina are absolutely right, federal money should be allocated based on whether or not you personally agree with their ideology. I for one don't like the disrespect Texans show to gay people, I propose we stop sending them federal money as well. But I'm a reasonable guy, I think we should be fair here. So to counter the political monetary allocation of ProfJohn and the South Carolina Republican, I think we need to form a panel of judges equally far to the LEFT side of the political spectrum (I propose communist guerrillas from South America) to identify localities with unacceptable conservative political views for termination of funds.

Of course this isn't quite so ridiculous a position as I'm making it sound, because ProfJohn and the ass clown from South Carolina aren't really outraged, it's the oldest Republican trick in the book. Nothing like dragging the troops out for a little cheap publicity and a quick round of feigned outrage. Don't worry, I'm sure the Marines will go back to dying in Iraq where you can forget about them as soon as you're done pretending to be mad at Berkeley.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
But I'm a reasonable guy, I think we should be fair here.

Why be reasonable? They aren't being reasonable, neither should we.

As for holding funds, what was that about Federal money for highways?

Interstate_Highway_System
The dominant role of the federal government in road finance has enabled it to achieve legislative goals that fall outside its power to regulate interstate commerce as enumerated in the federal Constitution. By threatening to withhold a percentage of highway funds, the federal government has been able to stimulate state legislatures to pass a variety of laws related to the pursuit of "general welfare". In 1987, the Supreme Court upheld the practice as a permissible use of the Constitution's Commerce Clause.

The first major example was the introduction of the 55 mph (90 km/h) national speed limit in 1974. While its purpose was to save fuel in the wake of the 1973 energy crisis, federal speed controls stayed in effect for 21 years. The initial acceptance of the national speed limit emboldened various presidents and congresses to enact additional pieces of legislation, some of which have little to do with highways or transportation. Examples include:

* Increasing the legal drinking age to 21
* Lowering the legal intoxication level to 0.08%

Withholding funds seems common practice for all sorts of imposition. What is the little man supposed to do, starve? No, they submit to their master. Viva big government eh? Don?t pretend it hasn?t happened for ALL sorts of reasons.

In this case, being disrespected when being disrespectful appears to be perfectly reasonable. Don?t bite the hand that feeds you. If you ever want to be free, secede and feed yourself. Sort of like moving out of your parent's house.

 

[jackschmittusa]

As I understand it, cities have the right to zone for usage. They certainly do it all of the time.

Punishing a city because you don't like how they run it is childish and stupid.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Rainsford
But I'm a reasonable guy, I think we should be fair here.

Why be reasonable? They aren't being reasonable, neither should we.

As for holding funds, what was that about Federal money for highways?

Interstate_Highway_System
The dominant role of the federal government in road finance has enabled it to achieve legislative goals that fall outside its power to regulate interstate commerce as enumerated in the federal Constitution. By threatening to withhold a percentage of highway funds, the federal government has been able to stimulate state legislatures to pass a variety of laws related to the pursuit of "general welfare". In 1987, the Supreme Court upheld the practice as a permissible use of the Constitution's Commerce Clause.

The first major example was the introduction of the 55 mph (90 km/h) national speed limit in 1974. While its purpose was to save fuel in the wake of the 1973 energy crisis, federal speed controls stayed in effect for 21 years. The initial acceptance of the national speed limit emboldened various presidents and congresses to enact additional pieces of legislation, some of which have little to do with highways or transportation. Examples include:

* Increasing the legal drinking age to 21
* Lowering the legal intoxication level to 0.08%

Withholding funds seems common practice for all sorts of imposition. What is the little man supposed to do, starve? No, they submit to their master. Viva big government eh? Don?t pretend it hasn?t happened for ALL sorts of reasons.

In this case, being disrespected when being disrespectful appears to be perfectly reasonable. Don?t bite the hand that feeds you. If you ever want to be free, secede and feed yourself. Sort of like moving out of your parent's house.

Your argument becomes a little less compelling when you consider that Berkeley probably gives far more to the United States than it takes away in earmarks and other kinds of federal funding. Certainly I don't think the citizens of South Carolina are in any position to be judging Berkeley's contribution to "general welfare".

By the way, I think that interpretation of the commerce clause is ridiculous and unconstitutional, and I suspect you'd agree with me if you weren't such a knee jerk conservative when it comes to evil bastions of liberalism (or whatever) like Berkeley. You're such a hypocrite, and a particularly easy to manipulate one at that. You're all for small government, or so you keep saying, but folks like ProfJohn and the nimrod for South Carolina know all they have to do is shout "support the troops" and you start salivating like Pavlov's dog.

 

[Lemon law]

The same damn basic thing happened during Vietnam. We blamed our troops and our military for the sins of our politicians. While the larger country kept re-electing those same politicians. Thereafter it took our military about 20 years of responsible behavior and the Powell doctrine to regain its public image.

But now the city of Berkeley has simply said to military recruiters, you are no longer allowed to entice our young people to engage in suicidal behavior within city limits.

Now its understandable that the Federal government should be allowed to maintain its right to entice young people to engage in suicidal behavior. But its still a damning shot across the bow at the wrong targets on both sides.

 

[Jaskalas]

I don?t approve of the feds having that power.

Still, if they?re going to have it, they might as well use it. The same as I support the locals doing what they please.

You see, that is the error in socialist programs. Berkeley can never be free over the government?s power over it. Maybe now you can appreciate that. I doubt it, you?ll just say ?we need better government?. Well of course communism works, until you apply humans to it.

Just like everyone will be a good King. A good dictator. Why did we ever object to those? Oh yes, abuse of power. We have changed nothing since those days after creating the modern socialist dependence of the federal government. Go ahead, tell me I?m wrong.

This is the challenge we face, and I believe the 10th amendment held that answer. The final and ABSOLUTE necessity for our bill of rights. To ensure our god given rights, our federal government was to be limited to 10 enumerated powers. How far we have fallen.

 

[Moonbeam]

I think cities should have the right to carry arms and go to war with other cities or states that try to cut off their money. A team of Berkeley snipers would probably best answer the South Carolina Wanker.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: Farang
Great idea.. take $975,000 from one of our most prestigious universities, $750,000 from infrastructure, and $330,000 in nutrition education for fatass children, give it to an already bloated military. Fucking brilliant.

Since Berkeley (Berzerkly?) has thousands of VERY poor people within its borders, (remember, it's inbetween Oakland and Richmond...homes of 2 of the poorest ghettos in Kahleeforneeya, so I doubt the nutrition education funds go to fatass kids...more likely, it goes to help feed the poor children of those poor families. Often times, the meals the kids get at school are the only real nutrition they get.

I'm of mixed feelings overall about this. If Berkeley doesn't want the recruiter's office within its city limits, they should have that right, as long as they don't stop them from recruiting at the various schools in the city. THAT has been established as a federal perogative, not subject to city/state control without loss of funds.

As for pulling federal funding and earmarks for the city...that should only be permitted if they permit the people in Berkeley to stop paying federal income tax. As it is, Kahleeforneeya averages 78 cents returned for every dollar we pay in federal taxes, while some states collect as much as $3.01 for every dollar they pay. (New Mexico)
I'm sure Berkeley would gladly give up the federal funding it gets if it got to keep all the taxes their residents pay in federal taxes...

(edit...fixed my spelling of Berkeley)

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I think cities should have the right to carry arms and go to war with other cities or states that try to cut off their money. A team of Berkeley snipers would probably best answer the South Carolina Wanker.

Pity the poor fool that goes to war with the city of Berkeley. While the poor fool may be able to recruit snipers with guns, the Berkeley folks will go to work and invent death rays that will shrink the poor fool's pee pee to the size of a nano tube. Its fruitless to shrink the poor fool's
intellect, its already smaller than a nano tube as it is. Unfortunately, ego's are not subject to shrinkage because they are infinitely self inflating.

 

[Siddhartha]

This issue will eventually be resolved by the US Supreme Court.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: Farang
Great idea.. take $975,000 from one of our most prestigious universities, $750,000 from infrastructure, and $330,000 in nutrition education for fatass children, give it to an already bloated military. Fucking brilliant.

Since Berkely (Berzerkly?) has thousands of VERY poor people within its borders, (remember, it's inbetween Oakland and Richmond...homes of 2 of the poorest ghettos in Kahleeforneeya, so I doubt the nutrition education funds go to fatass kids...more likely, it goes to help feed the poor children of those poor families. Often times, the meals the kids get at school are the only real nutrition they get.

I'm of mixed feelings overall about this. If Berkely doesn't want the recruiter's office within its city limits, they should have that right, as long as they don't stop them from recruiting at the various schools in the city. THAT has been established as a federal perogative, not subject to city/state control without loss of funds.

As for pulling federal funding and earmarks for the city...that should only be permitted if they permit the people in Berkely to stop paying federal income tax. As it is, Kahleeforneeya averages 78 cents returned for every dollar we pay in federal taxes, while some states collect as much as $3.01 for every dollar they pay. (New Mexico)
I'm sure Berkely would gladly give up the federal funding it gets if it got to keep all the taxes their residents pay in federal taxes...

Poor people are obese in America.

You raise an interesting point, however, about Berkeley avoiding a federal income tax should they lose funding. It makes me wonder if the federal government has ever withdrawn all funding from any city, county, or state government, and what the repercussions were in this regard. It seems to me a dispute like this would spiral out of control until secession.

 

[fskimospy]

While its certainly within the federal government's rights to pull their federal funding, it's unbelievably stupid and childish. Some people and some towns don't like the values of the marines... why can't they act out against them? I see no reason why the military is any different then any other aspect of the federal government that people or towns want to restrict or protest against.

You all know as well as I do that this is some retard trying to manufacture outrage. WHY WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE POOR TROOPS!? They might get sad if they knew about this.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I think cities should have the right to carry arms and go to war with other cities or states that try to cut off their money. A team of Berkeley snipers would probably best answer the South Carolina Wanker.

Pity the poor fool that goes to war with the city of Berkeley. While the poor fool may be able to recruit snipers with guns, the Berkeley folks will go to work and invent death rays that will shrink the poor fool's pee pee to the size of a nano tube. Its fruitless to shrink the poor fool's
intellect, its already smaller than a nano tube as it is. Unfortunately, ego's are not subject to shrinkage because they are infinitely self inflating.

My guess is that his Pee Pee IS the size of a nano tube and that's why he's Republican.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: Farang
Great idea.. take $975,000 from one of our most prestigious universities, $750,000 from infrastructure, and $330,000 in nutrition education for fatass children, give it to an already bloated military. Fucking brilliant.

Since Berkeley (Berzerkly?) has thousands of VERY poor people within its borders, (remember, it's inbetween Oakland and Richmond...homes of 2 of the poorest ghettos in Kahleeforneeya, so I doubt the nutrition education funds go to fatass kids...more likely, it goes to help feed the poor children of those poor families. Often times, the meals the kids get at school are the only real nutrition they get.

I'm of mixed feelings overall about this. If Berkeley doesn't want the recruiter's office within its city limits, they should have that right, as long as they don't stop them from recruiting at the various schools in the city. THAT has been established as a federal perogative, not subject to city/state control without loss of funds.

As for pulling federal funding and earmarks for the city...that should only be permitted if they permit the people in Berkely to stop paying federal income tax. As it is, Kahleeforneeya averages 78 cents returned for every dollar we pay in federal taxes, while some states collect as much as $3.01 for every dollar they pay. (New Mexico)
I'm sure Berkeley would gladly give up the federal funding it gets if it got to keep all the taxes their residents pay in federal taxes...

Poor people are obese in America.

You raise an interesting point, however, about Berkeley avoiding a federal income tax should they lose funding. It makes me wonder if the federal government has ever withdrawn all funding from any city, county, or state government, and what the repercussions were in this regard. It seems to me a dispute like this would spiral out of control until secession.

(fixed my mis-spelling of Berkeley)

If you go into the poorer ghettos, you won't see many obese people. Yes, many low-income people eat crappy food that is fattening...won't argue that, but the inner-city kids tend to be borderline anexorics...they just gon't get enough nutrition or extra calories to get obese. (note, I'm NOT talking about the adults...many of them drink alcohol when they can afford it, and even take grocery money that should be spent to feed the kids, and spend that on booze and/or drugs. That just adds to the problems the kids have...and the kids are what this funding is supposed to be spent on...THAT is a big reason why I'm against this cut. Wanna hurt the adults? OK as long as it's not going to take much-needed nutrition away from the kids. We don't need "Biafra-looking" kids in US cities...

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: ironwing
The second poll question is poorly worded and spins the issue.

Does any city have the right to kick out Marines like this?

The city did not kick the Marines out.

Agreed. It was the RECRUITING OFFICE that was kicked out and rightfully so if they voted for it. It's democracy at work remember? ProfJohn likes to misconstrue the situation by changing words, kinda like Frank Luntz, to get the right response.

 

[marincounty]

You know the military abandoned Berkeley and the entire bay area a long time ago.
They closed the alameda air station, oakland army base, oak knoll naval hospital, mare island navy base, hunters point naval shipyard, fort ord, the presidio, and others I can't even think of.
The bay area now has ZERO defense capabilities. I think there is still the air force base in Fairfield. No marines, no navy, no nothing. Thousands of east bay residents lost their jobs.
It took many years for the area to recover financially.
I don't blame Berkeley for being mad at the military