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

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
1. Where did Berkeley deny anyone's right to free speech or those that want to be marines? Did they tell the recruiters that they are not allowed to operate within the city negating their free speech? No. Did they tell anyone wanting to join that they were prohibited from entering the premises? No. Where is this denial of speech being levied on the marines that you speak of?

For the letter passed by Berkeley

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Berkeley encourage all people to avoid cooperation with the Marine Corps recruiting station, and applaud residents and organizations such as Code Pink, that may volunteer to impede, passively or actively, by nonviolent means, the work of any military recruiting office located in the City of Berkeley.

They encouraged groups to IMPEDE people thus they are trying to limit the rights of those who want to be Marines.

Link to Justice and Peace letter from a right wing source link

3a. It is not the job of the local city council to pass judgments on the national government nor should a local government be accusing the national government of launching ?illegal, immoral and unprovoked wars of aggression?

3b. They may be right about the discrimination, but even they admit that they can?t really doing anything about that policy.

Beyond that I am done with this thread, unless there are more updates. It is a waste of time to debate this with you. You clearly don?t understand thee separation between local government and national government.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
1. Where did Berkeley deny anyone's right to free speech or those that want to be marines? Did they tell the recruiters that they are not allowed to operate within the city negating their free speech? No. Did they tell anyone wanting to join that they were prohibited from entering the premises? No. Where is this denial of speech being levied on the marines that you speak of?

For the letter passed by Berkeley

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Berkeley encourage all people to avoid cooperation with the Marine Corps recruiting station, and applaud residents and organizations such as Code Pink, that may volunteer to impede, passively or actively, by nonviolent means, the work of any military recruiting office located in the City of Berkeley.

They encouraged groups to IMPEDE people thus they are trying to limit the rights of those who want to be Marines.

Link to Justice and Peace letter from a right wing source link

3a. It is not the job of the local city council to pass judgments on the national government nor should a local government be accusing the national government of launching ?illegal, immoral and unprovoked wars of aggression?

3b. They may be right about the discrimination, but even they admit that they can?t really doing anything about that policy.

Beyond that I am done with this thread, unless there are more updates. It is a waste of time to debate this with you. You clearly don?t understand thee separation between local government and national government.

I'll respond to you and Citrix in the same window since you are both parroting the same idiocy.

Code Pink was given a permit to a space near the recruiting station. The city council, with that grant has dictated the terms and conditions of what they view as acceptable protesting and stated that they personally approve of the protesting.

Their call to impede is limited to the approved area in which they were granted their permit. That is not a limit on free speech, in fact it is the exact opposite. Now, if you can provide a shred of evidence that they denied permits to supporters of the military to do the same, then you have a case.

Your 3a. is an utter joke. It is every citizens' duty to pass judgment on the federal .gov and if they feel that they have launched a war that was illegal, they are performing that duty by speaking out against it.

I feel sorry that you believe that we all have to cower to the all-might gubment, but some of us are able to realize that we have the right not to.

 

[ProfJohn]

It is the job of the citizens to pass judgment on the federal government via their votes for congress and President. It is not the job of the local city council to accuse the federal government of engaging in illegal wars.

You as a citizen have the right to stand up and protest anything, but the local government should not be encouraging you in the manner Berkeley did.

 

[DealMonkey]

The proof that the Marines (or any other service branch for that matter) having an undeniable and inaliable right to operate where and how they wish, has been conspicuously missing from this thread. Is there a federal law that guarantees such broad authority to operate wherever they wish? Including a community that doesn't want them there?

Frankly, I doubt such legal protection exists.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
It is the job of the citizens to pass judgment on the federal government via their votes for congress and President. It is not the job of the local city council to accuse the federal government of engaging in illegal wars.

You as a citizen have the right to stand up and protest anything, but the local government should not be encouraging you in the manner Berkeley did.

Why not? The local government should be representing its citizens and speaking their views, since the local government IS the local citizenry.
Since the Berzerkely city government only voiced an objection to the war and to the Marine recruiters, and didn't actually attempt to stop their activities, they did nothing wrong. It's NOT the same thing that many anti-abortion protesters do...many of them try to physically stop people from entering the clinic, they harass and threaten the staff of those clinics, and in extreme cases, they blow up the clinics, often killing people inside. I haven't seen any reports of the anti-war folks blowing up any recruiting offices...have you?

I have a soft-spot for the Marines...I voluntarily enlisted during the Vietnam war. That "fiasco" was at least as unpopular as the current 'clusterfuck" yet other than a few protesters at recruiting offices, the majority of protests were done elsewhere.
While I support the rights of the City of Berkeley and its citizens to do this, I still don't like it. For me, this is like burning an American flag...I don't like it, but will fight to support the rights to do it as protest.
Who has this protest in Berkeley harmed? NO ONE.
Who would be harmed bu cutting off the federal funding? A LOT of people...mostly poor, but it would also remove federal funding at UC Berkeley and many other institutions that do research for the feds.
This is just punative tantrum-ing by a Republican war supporter to get his name in the news.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
The proof that the Marines (or any other service branch for that matter) having an undeniable and inaliable right to operate where and how they wish, has been conspicuously missing from this thread. Is there a federal law that guarantees such broad authority to operate wherever they wish? Including a community that doesn't want them there?

Frankly, I doubt such legal protection exists.

Do you like your own money? If you want it back after sending it to the Feds, you will submit to any illegal demand they impose on you. End of story.

Don't like it? Fix it. I dare you.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
It is the job of the citizens to pass judgment on the federal government via their votes for congress and President. It is not the job of the local city council to accuse the federal government of engaging in illegal wars.

You as a citizen have the right to stand up and protest anything, but the local government should not be encouraging you in the manner Berkeley did.

Many U.S. cities, world countries and religious orders have formally condemned the war in Iraq. Otherwise, the rest of your blathering is simply your opinion.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
The proof that the Marines (or any other service branch for that matter) having an undeniable and inaliable right to operate where and how they wish, has been conspicuously missing from this thread. Is there a federal law that guarantees such broad authority to operate wherever they wish? Including a community that doesn't want them there?

Frankly, I doubt such legal protection exists.

Do you like your own money? If you want it back after sending it to the Feds, you will submit to any illegal demand they impose on you. End of story.

Don't like it? Fix it. I dare you.

I see you conveniently ignored my challenge. Here, I bolded it for you as a reminder.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
It is the job of the citizens to pass judgment on the federal government via their votes for congress and President. It is not the job of the local city council to accuse the federal government of engaging in illegal wars.

You as a citizen have the right to stand up and protest anything, but the local government should not be encouraging you in the manner Berkeley did.

Weren't you cheerleading the Moveon condemnation? If you feel that the fed has the right to go on record with criticism, then why don't the local governments have that right?

 

[Starbuck1975]

Code Pink was given a permit to a space near the recruiting station. The city council, with that grant has dictated the terms and conditions of what they view as acceptable protesting and stated that they personally approve of the protesting.

Apparently that space must be the very entrance to the recruiting station...have you seen the news footage of Code Pink members clearly preventing individuals from entering and exiting the recruiting station?

The city of Berkeley, and Code Pink, certainly has the Constitutional right to protest the war in Iraq...they can even choose to protest the war by demonstrating in front of recruiting stations...they do not have the right to block entry.

Similarly, given that the Marines are an extension of the federal government, and given that Berkeley has essentially chosen to challenge the federal government, it is an appropriate response for the federal government to cut off funding.

There is a balance between local government and the federal government...if you firmly believe in something, there are consequences.

I personally find Code Pink's tactics to be detestable...protest the government officials supporting this war...protest the Bush Administration...but don't target our servicemembers...they don't get to choose where the politicians send them.

But I guess the anti-war movement is frustrated by the fact that unlike Vietnam, the Iraq war protests are not getting a lot of attention...most sure way to get some media attention...block a recruiting station, with local government support and encouragement.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

I personally find Code Pink's tactics to be detestable...protest the government officials supporting this war...protest the Bush Administration...but don't target our servicemembers...they don't get to choose where the politicians send them.

But I guess the anti-war movement is frustrated by the fact that unlike Vietnam, the Iraq war protests are not getting a lot of attention...most sure way to get some media attention...block a recruiting station, with local government support and encouragement.

I hear this argument all the time and its a load of crap. So you think in order to protest against the war in Iraq they have to drive more then 3,000 miles to protest in front of the White House? Why???? The Marines are an obvious symbol of that war, and protesting there is 100% legitimate. If a company does something you don't like, you don't have to drive up to the CEO's house to protest against them, so why would it be any different with the Marines?

Every single person in the Marines currently has either extended or re-enlisted since the Iraq war started. They know exactly what they will be doing, boo-hoo for them if they get sad that some people don't like it.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Every single person in the Marines currently has either extended or re-enlisted since the Iraq war started.

Have any statistics or evidence to back that assertion up...I know of a few enlisted and officers who are stuck serving due to involuntary extentions to their contracts...some who departed the military, but were called back to active duty from the IRR roles...so don't assume that everyone currently serving did so with the understanding of the current war in Iraq, and have a willingness to continue serving there.

They know exactly what they will be doing, boo-hoo for them if they get sad that some people don't like it.

I don't know many Marines who "boo hoo" over protestors...doubt you would demonstrate such audacity to one of them in person.

I hear this argument all the time and its a load of crap. So you think in order to protest against the war in Iraq they have to drive more then 3,000 miles to protest in front of the White House?

There are numerous forms of protest, and none require proximity to that which inspires you to protest...but a Marine recruiting station is not a symbol of the war in Iraq...it is a symbol of those serving in Iraq.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
The proof that the Marines (or any other service branch for that matter) having an undeniable and inaliable right to operate where and how they wish, has been conspicuously missing from this thread. Is there a federal law that guarantees such broad authority to operate wherever they wish? Including a community that doesn't want them there?

Frankly, I doubt such legal protection exists.

Do you like your own money? If you want it back after sending it to the Feds, you will submit to any illegal demand they impose on you. End of story.

Don't like it? Fix it. I dare you.

I see you conveniently ignored my challenge. Here, I bolded it for you as a reminder.

Congress will do what it wants. There is no need to challenge when you are under control. My challenge to you is to fix it. I dare you.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Every single person in the Marines currently has either extended or re-enlisted since the Iraq war started.

Have any statistics or evidence to back that assertion up...I know of a few enlisted and officers who are stuck serving due to involuntary extentions to their contracts...some who departed the military, but were called back to active duty from the IRR roles...so don't assume that everyone currently serving did so with the understanding of the current war in Iraq, and have a willingness to continue serving there.

They know exactly what they will be doing, boo-hoo for them if they get sad that some people don't like it.

I don't know many Marines who "boo hoo" over protestors...doubt you would demonstrate such audacity to one of them in person.

I hear this argument all the time and its a load of crap. So you think in order to protest against the war in Iraq they have to drive more then 3,000 miles to protest in front of the White House?

There are numerous forms of protest, and none require proximity to that which inspires you to protest...but a Marine recruiting station is not a symbol of the war in Iraq...it is a symbol of those serving in Iraq.

Interesting you would say that a building owned by one of the primary fighting units in the war in Iraq is not a symbol of the war in Iraq. The other thing about it is that these people are in fact executing this policy... you are attempting to excuse their behavior because they are 'just following orders'. That's crap too.

You are right actually that some people have been involuntarily recalled and there are some people in critical ratings that have been extended. These are a small percentage of the total, but I guess that still counts... so fair enough on that.

As far as the Marines go, I know plenty of Marines. I spent 7 years in the navy, and I've said much worse to their faces. So what were you saying again?

 

[Starbuck1975]

Interesting you would say that a building owned by one of the primary fighting units in the war in Iraq is not a symbol of the war in Iraq.

The anti-war protestors of the Vietnam era made the mistake of targeting service members as representatives of government policy...soldiers may be the strong arm of American diplomacy, and some perhaps even enjoy or reslish such a role, but they do not get to decide policy. If the Marines were actively lobbying Bush to start a war in Iraq, you would have an argument...the Armed Services represent and serve the people, and therefore in protesting the Marines, Code Pink's grievances are falling on the wrong ears.

you are attempting to excuse their behavior because they are 'just following orders'. That's crap too.

Do soldiers, or the armed forces, have an option...you receive deployment orders, there isn't much wiggle room for a soldier to pick and choose the battles they want to fight. I too know of people who willingly re-enlisted and volunteered for additional tours in Iraq...apparently, these soldiers find meaning in their mission there, or perhaps at this point want to see the mission succeed given the sacrifices made by their comrades in arms...a concept the anti-war crowd never has and never will understand, because in their mind's eye, soldiers are all blood thirsty baby killers.

As far as the Marines go, I know plenty of Marines. I spent 7 years in the navy, and I've said much worse to their faces. So what were you saying again?

What I am saying is that, given that you are apparently a veteran as well, that your attitudes would be so hostile towards those still on active duty.

 

[cumhail]

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor


Where is the link to the article? Or is this one of those spin emails?


And, as has been pointed out the city did not ask the marines to leave. It was only a resolution disliking the recruiting office. They did NOT kick the marines out. The knee jerk reaction by the senator from SC is just a cheap publicity stunt.

If the city dislikes a certain kind of business within it's limits it should have the right to close it down (which Berkeley didn't). Why can't the marines keep their recruiting offices on their own premises?

Not quite, though close... it's an article that originated on Foxnews.com.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Interesting you would say that a building owned by one of the primary fighting units in the war in Iraq is not a symbol of the war in Iraq.

The anti-war protestors of the Vietnam era made the mistake of targeting service members as representatives of government policy...soldiers may be the strong arm of American diplomacy, and some perhaps even enjoy or reslish such a role, but they do not get to decide policy. If the Marines were actively lobbying Bush to start a war in Iraq, you would have an argument...the Armed Services represent and serve the people, and therefore in protesting the Marines, Code Pink's grievances are falling on the wrong ears.

you are attempting to excuse their behavior because they are 'just following orders'. That's crap too.

Do soldiers, or the armed forces, have an option...you receive deployment orders, there isn't much wiggle room for a soldier to pick and choose the battles they want to fight. I too know of people who willingly re-enlisted and volunteered for additional tours in Iraq...apparently, these soldiers find meaning in their mission there, or perhaps at this point want to see the mission succeed given the sacrifices made by their comrades in arms...a concept the anti-war crowd never has and never will understand, because in their mind's eye, soldiers are all blood thirsty baby killers.

As far as the Marines go, I know plenty of Marines. I spent 7 years in the navy, and I've said much worse to their faces. So what were you saying again?

What I am saying is that, given that you are apparently a veteran as well, that your attitudes would be so hostile towards those still on active duty.

The Marines are implementing the policy that Bush has put into place, they are a symbol of the policies that Bush is currently enacting. This certainly makes them fair game for being protested against. This is particularly true when the Marines are almost entirely made up of people who have either enlisted or re-enlisted (or chosen not to resign their commisions) after the Iraq war started. You were right that there were a few exceptions, but there are not many. If a group of people has explicitly signed up for the Marines knowing what role they are going to play, then they obviously don't have that big a problem with the policy. So again, fair game for protests. (I don't think there is any need to justify any target for protest to be honest though, and the whole idea of holding up the armed forces on this pedestal where they can't be criticized is bullshit in my opinion.)

Your caricature of the anti-war movement is nowhere close to accurate. Saying that anti-war people think all soldiers are bloodthirsty baby killers is retarded. There is a large anti war movement here in San Diego, and most of the people I know in it either have friends in the military or were once in it themselves. We just know a crime against humanity when we see one.

Finally, my attitudes are not hostile towards those on active duty. My attitudes are friendly towards the freedom of expression and towards towns being able to say that they view the military as an undesireable element. The military gets no special dispensation from me, and they never will. I think our country already goes way way way overboard with its glorification of the military, and frankly I think such jingoistic crap is scary and disgusting.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Finally, my attitudes are not hostile towards those on active duty. My attitudes are friendly towards the freedom of expression and towards towns being able to say that they view the military as an undesireable element. The military gets no special dispensation from me, and they never will. I think our country already goes way way way overboard with its glorification of the military, and frankly I think such jingoistic crap is scary and disgusting.

Fair enough, you are entitled to that opinion. I for one think it is admirable to respect those who serve in the military, without necessarily glorifying or romanticizing combat...I too get a bit disgusted when I see a "Support the Troops" magnet on the back of say an H2 hummer, but that is a topic for another day.

Your caricature of the anti-war movement is nowhere close to accurate. Saying that anti-war people think all soldiers are bloodthirsty baby killers is retarded. There is a large anti war movement here in San Diego, and most of the people I know in it either have friends in the military or were once in it themselves. We just know a crime against humanity when we see one.

Varies depending on proximity and exposure to servicemembers. My comment was more specific to the Berkeley crowd, which is a bit far removed from what most of us recognize as reality.

The Marines are implementing the policy that Bush has put into place, they are a symbol of the policies that Bush is currently enacting.

We will not agree on this point. I am sure there are numerous servicemembers who do not agree with the war in Iraq, yet recognize the consequences if we fail there...again, the motivations that cause a person to re-enlist, or serve to begin with, vary by individual...so I cannot group servicemembers as representative of the Bush Administration and its ideologies, and therefore perceive any protests against military establishments or facilities as misdirected.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Interesting you would say that a building owned by one of the primary fighting units in the war in Iraq is not a symbol of the war in Iraq.

The anti-war protestors of the Vietnam era made the mistake of targeting service members as representatives of government policy...soldiers may be the strong arm of American diplomacy, and some perhaps even enjoy or reslish such a role, but they do not get to decide policy. If the Marines were actively lobbying Bush to start a war in Iraq, you would have an argument...the Armed Services represent and serve the people, and therefore in protesting the Marines, Code Pink's grievances are falling on the wrong ears.

you are attempting to excuse their behavior because they are 'just following orders'. That's crap too.

Do soldiers, or the armed forces, have an option...you receive deployment orders, there isn't much wiggle room for a soldier to pick and choose the battles they want to fight. I too know of people who willingly re-enlisted and volunteered for additional tours in Iraq...apparently, these soldiers find meaning in their mission there, or perhaps at this point want to see the mission succeed given the sacrifices made by their comrades in arms...a concept the anti-war crowd never has and never will understand, because in their mind's eye, soldiers are all blood thirsty baby killers.

As far as the Marines go, I know plenty of Marines. I spent 7 years in the navy, and I've said much worse to their faces. So what were you saying again?

What I am saying is that, given that you are apparently a veteran as well, that your attitudes would be so hostile towards those still on active duty.

The Marines are implementing the policy that Bush has put into place, they are a symbol of the policies that Bush is currently enacting. This certainly makes them fair game for being protested against. This is particularly true when the Marines are almost entirely made up of people who have either enlisted or re-enlisted (or chosen not to resign their commisions) after the Iraq war started. You were right that there were a few exceptions, but there are not many. If a group of people has explicitly signed up for the Marines knowing what role they are going to play, then they obviously don't have that big a problem with the policy. So again, fair game for protests. (I don't think there is any need to justify any target for protest to be honest though, and the whole idea of holding up the armed forces on this pedestal where they can't be criticized is bullshit in my opinion.)

Your caricature of the anti-war movement is nowhere close to accurate. Saying that anti-war people think all soldiers are bloodthirsty baby killers is retarded. There is a large anti war movement here in San Diego, and most of the people I know in it either have friends in the military or were once in it themselves. We just know a crime against humanity when we see one.

Finally, my attitudes are not hostile towards those on active duty. My attitudes are friendly towards the freedom of expression and towards towns being able to say that they view the military as an undesireable element. The military gets no special dispensation from me, and they never will. I think our country already goes way way way overboard with its glorification of the military, and frankly I think such jingoistic crap is scary and disgusting.

just wondering... have you ever served in the armed forces?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Citrix

just wondering... have you ever served in the armed forces?

Yep, I spent a little over 7 years in the navy and was over in and around Iraq during the actual war part of the Iraq war on the USS Valley Forge. (January-mid April 2003)

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: cumhail

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
Where is the link to the article? Or is this one of those spin emails?


And, as has been pointed out the city did not ask the marines to leave. It was only a resolution disliking the recruiting office. They did NOT kick the marines out. The knee jerk reaction by the senator from SC is just a cheap publicity stunt.

If the city dislikes a certain kind of business within it's limits it should have the right to close it down (which Berkeley didn't). Why can't the marines keep their recruiting offices on their own premises?

Not quite, though close... it's an article that originated on Foxnews.com.

Perhaps you should read the thread before you go making false statements.

The origin of the OP is from Drudge who got it off a blog.

But if you google ?Berkeley marine? and ignore all the articles about boats you will find TONS of stories about this.

As for 'kicking them out' this is what the city actually said:
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Berkeley direct the City Manager to send letters to the Marine Corps Recruiting Station at 64 Shattuck Avenue and to General James T. Conway, Commandant of the United States Marine Corps, advising them that the Marine recruiting office is not welcome in our city, and if recruiters choose to stay, they do so as uninvited and unwelcome intruders.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
The proof that the Marines (or any other service branch for that matter) having an undeniable and inaliable right to operate where and how they wish, has been conspicuously missing from this thread. Is there a federal law that guarantees such broad authority to operate wherever they wish? Including a community that doesn't want them there?

Frankly, I doubt such legal protection exists.

Don?t know if there is a law that says what you want in plain language, but the constitution does say the following:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

This is the so called Supremacy Clause which states that Federal laws and power supersede local and state laws and power.

Also check out this court case from just two years ago:

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that the government can force colleges to open their campuses to military recruiters despite university objections to the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays.

Justices rejected a free-speech challenge from law schools and professors who claimed they should not have to associate with military recruiters or promote their campus appearances.

The justices said Congress was within its rights to say any college that gets even a dime of federal money has to allow military recruiters, CBS News correspondent Bob Fuss reports.

The decision was a setback for universities that had become the latest battleground over the military policy allowing gay men and women to serve only if they keep their sexual orientation to themselves.

Change ?college? to ?town? and it seems logical that the Feds can take money away from any town that tries to bar recruiters. Also the ruling was 8-0 so there was not even a question about it.

Finally, from an article about the Berkeley mess ?Acting City Attorney Zach Cowan told the Planet that ?in general, the city can?t regulate the state, its entities or the federal government.?

 

[BoomerD]

PJ, in your prior post, you admit that all Berkeley has done is to tell the Marine Recruiters they're not welcome, not actually kick them out...so with that in mind, how is there any legal way to take away their federal feed-trough?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
PJ, in your prior post, you admit that all Berkeley has done is to tell the Marine Recruiters they're not welcome, not actually kick them out...so with that in mind, how is there any legal way to take away their federal feed-trough?

Well technically the federal government can take it away whenever it feels like it. It doesn't actually need a reason as the funds are the fed's to do with as they please. This is not the same as the colleges who wanted to bar entry for recruiters, this is just a town that is saying the marines suck and they wish they weren't around.

The whole funding cutoff thing is just some idiot senator trying to score political points by pretending to be Terribly Offended by Berkeley's dislike of the military. There are certain groups and places that the right always does similar things with... the Bay Area in general, anything Moveon.org does, anything Hillary Clinton does, etc. There are just certain people and places they know they can use to whip the right into a froth.

 

[alchemize]

I saw the Code Pink video for the first time. Interesting behavior.

As we all know, such behavior outside an abortion clinic would result in arrest and prosecution (and rightfully so). Yet the police and city council actually encourage these protestors in their illegal actions.

Just another asterik in the left's support of constitutional rights.