Berkeley Protests

Edit:
Thanks Jung, for the comment. But the city is not kicking out the Marines. The city only said that the Marines are unwelcome. As the article said, the Marines have no intention of leaving. This is not like kicking out NCLB officials, this is like officially saying NCLB is a dumb idea.

At any rate, like I said, the Marine Corps has the moral high ground. They have their right to stay and express what they want, but they also respect the protesters right to free speech, and the Marines should be honored for their defense of the Constitution.
---------------------------------------------------


http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/07/berkeley.protests/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

What really disturbs me is not the issue being protested--whether the Marine Corps should be allowed to recruit, what methods they should be allowed to use, and the places they can recruit from. What is most disturbing is the action Congress is taking.

In particular, this passage: "Republican lawmakers in Washington fired back this week, threatening to take back more than $2 million of federal funding to the city as well as money designated for the University of California-Berkeley."

What is this saying? This is the federal government threatening a city and its residents for excercising their freedom of speech. The only thing these people are guilty of is expressing what they believe is right in the form of protests. What right does the government have to punish them for it? Threatening to punish the city for expressing the beliefs of, apparently, the majority of its citizens is telling them that they can't say it at all. This country, founded on the basis of freedom of expression, is now telling protestors to shut up or suffer the consequences?

I think the Marine Corps has the moral and constitutional high ground here. Says one Marine official: ""The Marine Corps is here to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, which does guarantee the freedom of speech," Franklin said. "In terms of the situation in Berkeley, the City Council and the protesters are exercising their right to do so." "

The Marine Corps cannot like the way they are being treated; yet, they understand the Constitution and the rights that it gives, and are accepting that these people are allowed to express what they believe. And yet, congressman Jim DeMint, R-South Carolina and David Vitter, R-Louisiana and their cohorts, who are supposed to know such things, cannot comprehend this simple fact, and try to sugarcoat their actions by taking advantage of the pride people feel in the military. All I can say is this is some political BS. There is no way such a bill, punishing Berkeley for peaceful protests, can be allowed to remain in existence, even if it is passed. The unconstitutionality of it is so blaringly obvious--punishment for a deed is as good as censorship--that any support for this violation of the Bill of Rights should be a stain upon the honor of all lawmakers.

I would also like to address the statement made by Senator Vitter, as quoted here from CNN: ""...I really get disturbed when taxpayer money goes to institutions which proceed to take votes, make policy or make statements that really denigrate the military," said Sen. David Vitter, R-Louisiana, a co-sponsor of the bill."

Well Sen. David Vitter, R-Louisiana, I really get disturbed when taxpayer money goes to representatives of my fellow citizens--representatives who believe and decide that stifling freedom of speech is the right thing to do.

Whatever your belief, it is not right to suppress the beliefs of others merely because you don't like it.

The bill is no longer about Berkeley protesting; it is about protecting freedom of speech.