Though the media has discussed the Code Pink “protest” group, no one has said what needs to be said about the issue of constitutional protest versus unconstitutional conduct. In fact, Code Pink is a particular example of how most leftwing groups confuse abuse of their rights with free speech/ peaceful assembly. They overlook the limits all of our constitutional rights have. Every right imposes on us an obligation to avoid violating other people’s rights when we exercise our own. Yet many leftists—including Code Pink—violate the rights of others through their “protesting”.
Code Pink is still advocating the closing of a Marine recruiting center located on Shattuck Ave in Berkeley, CA. They are also continuing their advocacy for reducing the number of military recruiting stations in CA. Their website shows Code Pink’s ongoing anti-recruitment activities including their Guerilla Street Theater for Peace, their “breastfeeding moms” and “yoga for peace” demonstrations in front of the aforementioned recruiting center.
The US Constitution guarantees “providing for the common defense”. This includes both the right of military men to recruit soldiers who can defend our country and the right of citizens to become soldiers by seeking out recruiters. The exercise of these rights is facilitated by the recruiting centers. Yet, the Code Pink demonstrators want to shut down recruiting centers and limit their number. Hence, by impeding recruiting activities, Code Pink is interfering with the exercise of recruiters’ and civilians’ rights. By violating their rights, Code Pink violates the Constitution’s “Common Defense” clause. By violating people’s rights and the clause, Code Pink is not exercising constitutional protest (i.e. not conducting “peaceful assembly” nor free-speech). A person’s right to do anything ends where another person’s rights begin. The first amendment says you have a “right to peacefully assemble to petition the government for a redress of grievances”. It does NOT say “you have a right to peacefully violate the right of your compatriots to provide for our common defense—when expressing your grievance.”
The “common defense” clause, in this case, refers to defending Americans from the terrorists in Iraq. Should the US soldiers be sent home as Code Pink espouses, the terrorists will establish their own government in Iraq. If that occurs, terrorists will be able to better coordinate their murderous attacks on Americans with other terrorist groups in other nations. Iraq potentially gives terrorists a base of operations. If Code Pink’s anti-recruiting goals were reached on a large scale, it would weaken our country’s defense against the terrorists attempting to take-over Iraq. Meanwhile, the terrorists are unrestricted in recruiting more American-hating mass-murderers. Hence, Code Pink, if successful, would be assisting our enemy in murdering Americans. Therefore, Code Pink should be investigated for sedition and the police should break up their pseudo-protest group. At the very least, the city of Berkeley should not grant any privileges to the leftist scum infesting the parking, and other spaces, near the Marine recruiting center on Shattuck Avenue. If the Code Pink mob uses the often-used leftist tactic of blocking entry to the recruiting station, then they are unethical to a greater extent for using coercive tactics in preventing potential recruits from seeking out recruiters.
Furthermore, the Code Pink group is part of a larger leftist movement that wants to “disarm the armed services”. This writer saw their pamphlets in Toledo, OH. The pamphlets were local, “independent” publications, which revealed the radical left’s attempt to disarm the entire military. Needless to say, this is an unrealistic and unachievable goal since most rational Americans are not going to support such lunacy. But this radical, twisted leftist dream does exist. The plausibility of disarmament fanatics joining the Code Pink gang is supported by one commonsense-based fact: the only way to approximate disarmament of the military is to prevent it from recruiting more soldiers all across America. If that were done, it would hamper the military’s activities since there would not be enough soldiers to perform those activities. The only other way to “disarm” would be advocating a law demanding the military discard all of it’s weapons (an impossibility that would never happen).
In short, Code Pink’s attempt to shut down and limit recruiting centers is unethical, corrupt and anti-Constitutional. By contrast, our US troops are the only ones being morally responsible. They have put aside their personal safety to fight a dangerous war to prevent terrorists from dominating Iraq and from endangering American lives. Hence, our American soldiers are displaying more conscience than the Code Pink traitors, who only work against their country and contradict the US Constitution. Therefore, the American soldiers are morally superior to the fake protesters that comprise the Code Pink crowd.
In addition, the reader should not be fooled or manipulated by Code Pink when they use “civilian casualties” as the excuse for opposing recruiting centers and the Iraq war. American soldiers would never intentionally fire upon people they knew were unarmed civilians. Any accidental civilian deaths bought about by American guns are usually the result of terrorists using Iraqi civilians as shields to hide behind after deliberately provoking American soldiers. Most American soldiers go out of their way to limit the civilian casualties that normally result from war. By contrast, terrorists seek to maximize the number of civilian casualties, while intentionally murdering them. Hence, our American soldiers are morally superior to the terrorists. Further, if the US troops stop fighting in Iraq prematurely, they would be morally responsible for the greater American civilian deaths Iraq’s terrorists would cause should they dominate Iraq. We must ignore the leftwing traitors and we must support our troops by wishing them “happy hunting”.
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2017 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2017 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement