Michelle Malkin has written a blog tracing in detail a list of the more egregious assaults on Military Recruiters by the Anti War Left.  For those of us pissed off by the Berkeley Council's attempts to drive them out, this shows that to be a drop int eh bucket.  Here are a few excerpts:

Special report: Tracing the Left’s escalating war on military recruiters

Ideas have consequences. Inaction has consequences. For the past several years, I’ve chronicled the Left’s escalating war on military recruiters–and the apathetic, weak-kneed response to it. In Unhinged, I devoted a sub-section of my chapter “They Don’t Support Our Troops” to the organized campaign of harassment against recruitment offices on college campuses nationwide. The anti-recruiter thugs have thrived thanks to a combination of public indifference, law enforcement fecklessness, and left-wing ideological apologism. As you may recall, I have personal experience with the anti-recruiter propagandists, who lie through their teeth, exploit media sympathy, and harbor nothing but raw hatred for the men and women who protect and defend their rights to bitch and moan.

Many observers wanted to shut out any possibility that yesterday’s bombing at the Times Square recruitment center was ideologically motivated.

But will any on the left and in the Democrat Party raise their voices–loudly and clearly–to condemn the ongoing, militant anti-recruiter campaign?

Will they urge the Code Pinkos and their ilk to halt their intimidation and obstruction efforts?

Or will they continue to sit silently and attempt to downplay yesterday’s bombing as an isolated incident– instead of the all-too-predictable symptom of reckless tolerance for dangerous “peace”-peddlers skating on the edge of sedition?

Context matters. Drawing on my past reporting and blogging, here is a brief history of the anti-military recruitment movement’s mounting acts of vandalism and violence (which is by no means comprehensive and which I’ll continue to amend as commenters and readers remind me of other incidents). Let the apologists and pooh-poohers delude themselves into believing that the Times Square bombing was a “lone” act. The facts speak for themselves:

OK, in case you didn't know, a small bomb was detonated in New York's famed Times Square, just outside the door of a USMC recruiting office.

Now, I admit when I heard this, my first inclination was similar to many of my blogging peers, that the anti war activists had decided to take their show to the big apple, in a big way.  Hot Air summarized it well:

Given the escalating protests over military recruitment, it seems inevitable that people would bomb those who seek to protect the nation and fight our enemies. This morning, unknown attackers bombed a Times Square military recruitment office.

...

Now the movement has decided to morph into domestic terrorism. Of course, the people responsible will claim that they bombed the office during the night to keep anyone from being hurt. That’s exactly the same kind of rationalization that people like the Weather Underground and the SLA used at first, anyway — that terrorism was justified by their politics. In fact, a few like William Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn still claim that.

As it turns out there are two twists that make this both likely and unlikely:

First this:

Police now say that the bomb was “roughly similar” to two other bombings in NYC, at the Mexican and British consulates. They have some clear video of the incident as well:

Officials said that in today’s attack, a man bundled in a gray hooded jacket or sweatshirt and wearing a backpack was seen riding a bicycle around the recruiting station and acting suspiciously moments before the explosion. Video footage from a surveillance camera showed a bicyclist dismounting, approaching the recruitment center, then returning to the bike and riding away before the explosion occurs.

Interesting. It fits closer to Bob Owen’s analysis. And I’ll say this much — if so, then my original post jumped to conclusions. The anti-war protesters have turned to intimidation and vandalism, and if unchecked will proceed to violence. However, this may not have had anything to do with the anti-war movement, and I should have been a little more circumspect about that this morning.

I don't know where this came from (I got it from Andrews Dad), but is is worrisome.  While controlling spending is certainly advisable, and butting waste is essential, this contains far too many sweeping generalizations.  It seems to me that he really doesn't grasp some military concepts.

Scared yet?

More on this tonight.

 Trackposted to Hot Air, Sister Toldjah, STA, Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, third world county, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Celebrity Smack, The Pink Flamingo, , Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

I am taking a slightly different approach to the Obama weapons story.

If you didn't know, this was a product of the debate the other night, where Obama said:

You know, I've heard from an Army captain who was the head of a rifle platoon -- supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon. Ended up being sent to Afghanistan with 24 because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq.

And as a consequence, they didn't have enough ammunition, they didn't have enough Humvees. They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief.

Now, that's a consequence of bad judgment. And you know, the question is, on the critical issues that we face right now, who's going to show the judgment to lead? And I think that on every critical issue that we've seen in foreign policy over the last several years -- going into Iraq originally, I didn't just oppose it for the sake of opposing it.

OK, aside from the body armor rumors a few years ago, and the factual complaint that there are not enough armored Humvees to go around, this is really the first serious accusation of underfunding I have heard.

The Pentagon, of course denies it:

Pentagon doubts Obama account of equipment problem

The Pentagon on Friday cast doubt on an account of military equipment shortages mentioned by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama during a debate with rival Hillary Clinton.

...

"I find that account pretty hard to imagine," Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman told reporters.

So is it true?  Yes and no.  What it seems to boil down to is a nuanced account of one platoon in Afghanistan.

Obama took several anecdotes and merged them into a single tale which made it sound worse than it was.  He deliberately spun this make it appear that our troops were struggling for survival armed with Swiss Army knives and rocks, and only the availability of captured weapons gave them any hope of survival.

First of all, I read this at Rosemary's Thoughts:

Code Pinko vs. Move America Forward

Now is the time to fight back. If you have to wear pink just to get in under cover, do so. They are on to our plan to show up on the 12th. They are planning to stack the deck by having all code pinkos sitting in those chairs. DO NOT ALLOW THIS. Here is the e-mail I received from Move America Forward:

The radical anti-military group, Code Pink, has been paying attention to our plans to organize a pro-troop demonstration in front of the Berkeley City Council Chambers on Tuesday, February 12th. (Located at 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way in Berkeley, CA - CLICK HERE FOR A MAP).

We learned of this posting from Code Pink and their allies today: www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/02/07/18477667.php.

EXCERPT: "Our efforts to close the Berkeley Marine Recruiting Station have galvanized national attention. The pro-war forces, represented by the group Move America Forward, are mobilizing to descend on Berkeley on Tuesday, February 12, starting at 5am! They plan to spend the day attempting to intimidate our peace-loving City and City Council."

As if this were not enough, a member of the city council, Linda Maio, had this to say in an e-mail:

"…we have received info that the marines and their supporters are gearing up to come to the Feb 12th council meeting to shame us and attack us, in large numbers. Now that Laurie and Betty have put on a recommendation to rescind what we did (on the agenda of Feb 12th) we expect they will jam the microphone with their diatribes. Press will be there in full force. The regular meeting starts at 7 p.m. People need to get there early enough to get in and grab a seat. Pls help pass on the word. The fire dept will not allow more people in than room can hold. Therefore, I am urging people to come early and occupy a seat, and be prepared to speak too and represent our city's values next Tuesday."

Props to Caosblog for her blogs on this story.  Her coverage has been great.

Like me, she has been surrounded by Military people her whole life, and this a personal issue to her.

So it isn't just me.  And more and more comments are coming to me from people who feel the same way, both military people and civilians.

We start with her story:

My son and the recruiter, Debbie Lee, Gold Star Mom & Berkeley

My son is in the Army, not the Marines. But my dad is a former marine, my Uncle is a former marine, and my younger son went to the Marine Military Academy in Harlingen, Texas, slept in a barracks, trained and had PT with former marines and was an officer in the Marine Corps Junior ROTC there.

I love my men in uniform, and I have to say - with all my friendships with current and former military personnel, I love the culture, the people, the sense of family, the sense of duty, honor, country. I love the pomp and circumstance, the ceremonies, the recognition. And they know how to turn a kid around. They should; they’ve been doing it for over 100 years.

There is a good point there that is oft overlooked, that being that while it is obvious that the Military needs people, we tend to forget that some people really need the Military.

I can say from experience that I am not the same person I would have been had I not served as I did.  For one thing, I appreciated my freedoms...like the freedom to quit my job.  When I worked at a retail store, I heard the younger people complaining about the job and the bosses...and suddenly I laughed, because I realized that they had the choice to quit and go somewhere else at any time.

First of all I will say briefly that I am encouraged by the building support against Berkeley.  The fact that I have seen so many local comments from people who are aghast at the total idiocy of this situation, particularly from the oh so liberal Seattle, was a bit of a surprise (I expected much more push back), but then again Code Pink (note please my restraint to not call them Code Pinko as so many others do) has always been an extremist fringe group.

This blog will be looking at the actual city council resolution and seeing just what they actually said.  It will also talk about the Mayor's attempts to make everyone happy and save face.  And I will link to the petition now active concerning this.

First, the resolution.  A commenter linked me to the actual city record search.  Interesting stuff.

First, here is the letter sent to the City Council and Mayor by the Peace and Justice Commission concerning the Marines.  A first read makes it sound like a Moveon.org or Code Pink manifesto, but in fact, this is an official commission whose members, according to the link above, are appointed by "Each Councilmember and School Director". 

So, bearing that in mind, this is the official advice they gave the Mayor and the City Council concerning the Marines (emphasis mine):

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Peace and Justice Commission
Submitted by:Steve Freedkin, Chairperson
Subject: Marine Recruiting Office in Berkeley

RECOMMENDATION
(1) Direct the City Attorney to investigate and report back to Council within 60 days on City options for enforcing Chapter 13.28 of the Berkeley Municipal Code, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, with respect to military recruiting offices in Berkeley; (2) 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; and (3) 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.

And here we go.  People are starting to gather and get vocal.

Before I report on the latest let me say one thing.  Dissension is an American tradition.  Even the "symbolic gestures" passed by many local communities are traditions of free speech and discourse that I appreciate, and I defend...in principle.  In other words, I vigorously defend the rights of American Citizens to protest, to pass initiatives and to complain.

However.

Freedom of speech works both ways.  I have the freedom of dissent too.  I have the freedom to see what they do and hear what they say and to protest them.  The fact they are engaged in a free speech activity is not cover and shield against retaliation and counter demonstration.

In the case of the Military, Berkeley and Code Pink can harass and protest the Marines within the confines of the law and even alter existing law to harass them a bit more.  Whether or not that is a violation of various Federal laws is a matter for lawyers and Judges to determine.

But, Berkeley and Code Pink must remember that they too are subject to protests in retaliation, whether in the form of boycotts, public displays of disgust and legal action.

One thing I have noticed quite often in these situations is that people tend to think free speech creates a vacuum of protection and sanctity.  It doesn't.  In fact it is not a protection of legal action at all, which means the vandalism committed by Code Pink is subject to criminal prosecution.

Free speech is not a protection against consequence.

In summary, if they have a right to do what they do, I have the same right to do what I do, and to join the other bloggers in their efforts to protest them.

Now, the latest, via Michelle Malkin:

Berkeley backlash building: American Legion, Sen. DeMint weigh in

The backlash against Berkeley’s anti-Marine, anti-troop measures is building. The American Legion and Sen. Jim DeMint weigh in tonight. Keep it up. Send a message to Berkeley: We’re not in the 1960s anymore.

UPDATES Below

Berkeley continues its attempt to rival San Francisco as the capital of Military Derangement.

It seems like it was mostly just the vigorous activities of Code pink, as noted in this blog, that accounted for the Military hatred, but now the City has climbed into bed with Code Pink in their battle against the Marine Corps. Via Michelle Malkin:

 Berkeley wants to treat military recruitment offices like porn shops

Only in Berkeley. Sigh:

In response to a Marine Corps recruiting office established in Berkeley last year, local activists are trying to make it more difficult for future recruiting centers to open in the city.

If passed by a majority of Berkeley voters, a proposed initiative would require military recruiting offices and private military companies in Berkeley to first acquire a special use permit.

To obtain this permit, a business must hold public hearings and a public comment period.

If the initiative passes, recruitment offices could not be opened within 600 feet of residential districts, public parks, public health clinics, public libraries, schools or churches.

Currently, a recruiting office is held to the same standards as most other businesses, which do not require a public hearing or have limits on where offices can be established.

The author of the initiative, Berkeley-based lawyer Sharon Adams, modeled the initiative after current zoning law that restricts the location of adult-oriented businesses.

“In the same way that many communities limit the location of pornographic stores, that’s the same way we feel about the military recruiting stations,” said Phoebe Sorgen, an initiative proponent and a member of the city’s Peace and Justice Commission.

Question their patriotism? Damned straight.

Um, yea I tend to agree.

 Megan Sego at California Patriot issues a call to arms:

One persistent argument that surfaces frequently revolves around the people who are openly anti war but who claim to support the troops.

So are clearly phony and easily caught by their anti Military prejudices, but others I have long maintained are sincere.

The problem is that most of their support revolves around ending the war.  By bringing them home they figure they have shown the ultimate support.  By impeaching Bush and Cheney, those they claim lied us into war they feel they are supporting the troops.

I don't particularly want to devolve into semantics here, but I tend to disagree.  The overwhelming majority of the troops volunteered to serve and most have at least reenlisted if not outright enlisted since the war began, so they have effectively voted for the war with their oaths.

Supporting them is a matter of encouragement, faith, allegiance and love.  The anti war nuts too often degrade to discouragement, disrespect and derision.  Not always.  But often enough to be the norm. 

One side thought is that we tend to lump all Bush critics with the Anti War Nutroots and that isn't really fair.  True, many liberals like to use the Military as a tool to further their Bush Derangement and some Democrats have too often carried an anti war person on their shoulders as proof of Bush's crimes.  But in being fair, not all are really anti war.

In fact, some that dislike Bush are strongly patriotic and supportive and put their belief in supporting our Military where the money meets the road.

Such is Scarlett Johansson, a young woman who is an open critic of the Bush Admin and Obama supporter, who ignores politics in showing her support in person.  Not one mention of any political aspect to the war or too Obama or anything else in her visit, that I can find.  She came in an honest effort to show her love of the men and women who sacrifice to make us all free.