What Right Does a City Have ‘Ordering Marines to Move’?

I mean think about it—no, not just superficial thought, not a ‘what for’ thought—how about some critical thinking? I mean seriously, in my humble opinion I believe what’s going on of late in Berkeley, California and of course to a lesser degree in Toledo, Ohio is very close to anarchy.

As for me and what information I’ve been able to gather concerning this chaotic situation, it is more than apparent that Berkeley’s City Council is too far out of control. What a bleeding mess!

Just a few quick quotes:

“Americans across the nation are outraged at Berkeley’s insult to our troops who have fought and died for their ability to live in freedom.” Senator DeMint, (R)

“All people to avoid cooperation with the Marine Corps recruiting station, and applaud residents and organizations such as Code Pink” that “impede, passively or actively” the work of military recruiters.”     Berkeley City Council

While a city has no constitutional obligation to provide police protection to the general public, if it does provide it to some groups, but then denies it selectively to a disfavored political group, that is a First Amendment violation. (Essentially, a ‘fairness doctrine’ or fair and balanced.) Here is the exact rule of Law:

See Dwares v. City of New York, 985 F.2d 94 (2d Cir. 1993) (police violated First Amendment by allowing flag-burners to be assaulted, since the flag-burners alleged that those who assaulted them were assured by police that they would not be arrested unless they got “totally out of control,” and the assaults were so obvious that it gave rise to an inference that the police were acting selectively in denying the flag-burners police protection based on their offensive political views).  (Hat-tip Michelle Malkin)

Finally, how does anyone lash out at the very organization that defends and protects those very ‘rights’?

%d bloggers like this: