April 04, 2006
Seattle activists seek to outlaw military

Seattle Times: "Initiative targets military recruiting in Seattle"

A group of anti-war activists wants a citywide vote this fall on whether military recruiters should be allowed on Seattle city property and in schools.
Speaking on behalf of the the initiative campaign are WTO riot organizer turned School Board member Sally Soriano, Councilman Nick Licata and Garfield PTSA President Amy Hagopian, who equates the initiative with the civil rights movement.

UPDATE: I was just cc'ed on an email from Councilman Licata's office:

His quote only supports a personal hope that the campaign will promote discussion about the war ... I was - just this morning - explaining to a person associated with the campaign that Nick would not be taking a position on the campaign.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 04, 2006 10:15 AM | Email This
1. Let them pass the the measure and have the Fed cut off all funding. Then we can listen to the Seattle City Politburo whine about the they have then.....

Posted by: Budster on April 4, 2006 10:27 AM
2. I'm with Budster. Lets balance the federal budget on the backs of leftie whackos!

Posted by: Fred on April 4, 2006 10:32 AM
3. Sure, no problem, you can ban military recruiters from your campus. It's very simple.

All the schools have to do is go without federal funding. That's the law.

The federal government cannot tell you how to operate your schools. Regulation of education is not a power granted in the US Constitution. What it can do it attach conditions to the money. You cash the check and you've accepted the conditions. In this case, the federal money (grants, reimbursements, or direct support) comes with the condition that the campus will be open for military recruiters. Thus, it is the lawful duty of military recruiters to go to those campuses and recruit.

Oh, and you might want to look up the federal law concerning conspiring to interfere with an officer in the lawful execution of his duties by threats, intimidation or force. Or the next section, for knowing of the conspiracy and failing to take action to prevent it. Here's a hint: Military personnel are in the catagory of "any person [...] accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States".

I hear Leavenworth is lovely this time of year. Kansas, I mean.

Posted by: gmcraff on April 4, 2006 10:41 AM
4. Budster said,"Let them pass the the measure and have the Fed cut off all funding. Then we can listen to the Seattle City Politburo whine about they have then."
But then they'll have to come up with another bond or tax to fund the schools, and it's back to square 1...or zero.
Perhaps what the vote should be about is whether "anti-war" recruiters should be allowed on Seattle city property and in schools.

Posted by: Pseduotsuga on April 4, 2006 10:52 AM
5. But don't you dare question their patriotism.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega on April 4, 2006 10:54 AM
6. Cutting off federal funds for Say WA sounds like the ticket. That was a good suggestion after the 2004 robbery. If you can't seat a legitimate governor to make your case for federal handouts, you don't get any. So cut them off and when Fraudoire goes to DC to whine, the Feds can tell her when Say WA sends us a legitimately elected governor, then we'll talk.

Posted by: Interested Observer on April 4, 2006 10:59 AM
7. Other than someone dreaming this up, is it even an issue an initiative can be filed for?

I have heard of State's rights, but City rights?

Posted by: swatter on April 4, 2006 11:19 AM
8. They can file this one next to the "nuclear free zone" and other wacko ordinances passed by the city council. If I remember the Supreme Court's opinion correctly, Congress doesn't even need to tie access to granting of money. Congress (using its enumerated power) can just pass a law (one probably already exists) that grants the military access to the publics schools for the purposes of recruiting

Posted by: TG on April 4, 2006 11:36 AM
9. Interested Observer,

I prefer to let each issue stand on its own merits or faults, rather than mixing issues. Rather like the situation when local funding deviances are discussed here and some mouth-breather pipes in with, "Yeah, well, the [Bush|Congress|FDA|FAA|NEA|whatever] spend money on [this thing], so that justifies [town] in spending money on [that thing]!!1!!1!! OMG WTF I 0wnz0r3d J00!", one thing really has little to do with another.

In the one case, anti-war activists are determined to cut themselves off from the federal teat in order to have their monopoly on the indoctrination of impressionable minds. You can have your way if you take your consequences. I'm not in favor of federal funds being spent on education, anyway. That's a state/local responsibility.

In the other, a governor's election performed with a maximum of buffoonery to the point that the margin of error was wider than the margin of victory. The more that it is poked at, the more it smells.

It would be a stretch of the most extraordinary kind to find a linkage between the two. Unless, of course, the governor is willing to step into the mess and tell the local agitproptists that their scheme [has/has not] the support of the governor's office. I wonder what the governor's office's position on this is?

Also, I wonder if the correct context for this question should be a tax issue: Do the residents of the school district wish to pay higher taxes to offset the loss of federal funding caused by barring military recruiters? That's a question worthy of putting on the ballot.

Posted by: gmcraff on April 4, 2006 11:36 AM
10. Look, I'm sick to death of anit war protests plugging up the roads and sidewalks, the military recruiters getting verbally abused and the whining from the far left.

Let the jerks spend their money and time on their temper tantrum.

/wonders where is Chuck Norris when I need him

Posted by: kim in vancouver on April 4, 2006 12:06 PM
11. At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the ocean and crush us at a blow? NEVER! All the armies of Europe, Asia, and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the Earth in their military chest; with Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.

At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reaches us it must spring up from among us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freeman, we must live through all time, or DIE by SUICIDE!

Posted by: Pacific Grove Phlash on April 4, 2006 12:15 PM
12. The Seattle Times' editorial board whacked up editorial on felon suffrage today probably deserves a SP response, please.

Posted by: A Watchdog on April 4, 2006 12:25 PM
13. “The nation that will insist upon drawing a broad line of demarcation between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting done by fools and its thinking by cowards.”

—Sir William Francis Butler

Posted by: ewaggin on April 4, 2006 12:26 PM
14. Here's a thought: if Auburn and/or Kent ever went to war with Seattle -- Seattle couldn't raise an army to defend itself -- we'd get shellacked...

Posted by: Lew on April 4, 2006 12:53 PM
15. This makes me laugh. Liberals have no ability to coherently extrapolate the effects of some of their positions. For instance:

1) They don't like the military, and especially don't want them recrutiing on campuses.
2) They don't like guns, and especially don't want them in the hands of civilians.

So who does that leave with the guns? The military! In that event, if they want to come on campuses they will, and how will the liberals stop them, with spit wads? Maybe a smarmy lecture?

Come on, libs, grow up. Our military are heroes, protecting your dumb asses.

Posted by: katomar on April 4, 2006 01:06 PM
16. Just a thought, but have you ever noticed how the lefties want to protect the "children" from going into an honorable profession that may involve killing because they know what's best for all children. They know the military is evil and will irreparably harm all those children. To them, the child should have no say in the matter.

But when it comes to a minor making a choice that always results in a killing, these same people say the parents have no right to stop the event or even know about it. And they want the schools and publically funded agencies assist the minors in the execution of this act, again without notifying the parents. Why, because the parents do not know what is best for their child - the child and themselves know what's best.

Crazy, huh?

Posted by: RBB on April 4, 2006 01:19 PM
17. I'm a Reservist who has been actively opposing the anti-war groups and activities based out of Seattle Central Commun(ist) College, and it amazes me that we have so many apparently-educated people in Seattle (and elsewhere) who cannot disentangle their politics to the point that they finally realize that recruiters have no effect on foreign policy, nor will kicking them off campus somehow starve the military of fresh recruits.

Moreover, what if these people were actually able to reduce military effectiveness, especially in the Reserve and Guard? What happens the next time a disaster hits and, thanks to the anti-recruiters, there are not enough troops to rush to the aid of whichever city, county, or state needs boots in the mud, saving lives and restoring order?

I know that this won't happen, but do the anti-recruiters realize how counter-productive their activities are and how morally baseless they have become? The military is simply a tool, and is used for humanitarian missions as much as it is used for blowing stuff up. Like during the tsunami relief effort, when the heathen U.S. military rushed to the aid of Muslim victims while the majority of the Islamosphere stood around with its hands in its pockets.

But that's another issue.

I'll just end by stating that I think a lot of anti-recruiters are simply acting on a deep sense of inadequacy. They see men and women who have earned a uniform, and they know that they themselves have never proven that they have what it takes to do the same, and they harbor silent jealousy. I could be wrong, but having seen enough of the anti-recruitment scene, I suspect that this has much to do with it.

Posted by: Brad R. Torgersen on April 4, 2006 01:40 PM
18. In the early days of the Viet Nam era, I was stationed in San Antonio where racial segregation was still in effect. San Antonio was surrounded by (5) major military installations and the commanders of all the bases told the city fathers that they would restrict all personnel to the base and no money would be spent in San Antonio until it was integrated. The "Whites Only" signs came down in 2 days. It would be interesting to see that same military tactic applied to Tacoma, Seattle, Bremerton and Everett and see who howls.

Posted by: john425 on April 4, 2006 01:50 PM
19. Finishing my post above--I think the city of Seattle would lose millions of consumer spending dollars if GIs were restricted to base until the "recruiter ban" was dead.
BTW--Amy Hagopian was on the School Board that actively recruited Gen. Sanford as school superintendent. I gues Amy thinks it is OK for generals to run the schools but not allow troops into them.

Posted by: john425 on April 4, 2006 01:59 PM
20. All of the above posts prove the point that liberals are flailing lately. They are dropping stink bombs anywhere and everywhere in an effort to gain political control in government and therefore MONEY, and control over our daily lives, therefore MONEY. And MONEY = power. Their greatest fear is irrelevance.

Posted by: katomar on April 4, 2006 02:05 PM
21. Brad R.T.,

I think you've nailed it. A few years back Julia Gorin wrote a column about the anti-gun male in particular.


I suspect that everything she says applies to the anti-military crowd in general.

Posted by: RBW on April 4, 2006 03:09 PM
22. Some good posts here.
Bottom line, any citizen who demonstrates that he or she is mentally, morally, and physically fit to enter the military, and who meets current entrance requirements, has a RIGHT to do so under the provisions of our Constitution. No city, county or state can abridge or preclude a citizens abilty to exercise that right, any more than they can abridge our right to vote. Oh...OK, it is Seattle, but thats another story.

Posted by: Diogenes on April 4, 2006 04:35 PM
23. When things go wrong they want the feds help. I guess if the big earthquake hits Seattle the left will demand military protection of their property. I would love to hear the Military say Sorry Seattle you are on your own. We have to take care of the areas that do not want to prevent our recruiters from entering your city. We will honor your wishes and will not send any military help into your City as you desired. The military will have their hands full helping everyone. I guess they could honor Seattle's desire to prevent military in their City. How long do you think they will last if that happened. The riots and destruction by the locals will be pretty bad and even if you want to send in the military it would not be safe to do so. The lefties would think it was a military takeover anyway. So I hope they keep the troops safe and keep them out of Seattle.

Posted by: David Anfinrud on April 4, 2006 04:57 PM
24. Nick Licata's office explains his involvement as "a personal hope that the campaign will promote discussion about the war".

Now, this is behavior more suitable for a troll. When the subject is military recruiting in the schools, I'd like my elected representative to address that subject. Does Mr. Licata support or oppose such recruiting? What are his reasons for or against?

But his spokesbloke slithers sideways and substitutes a wholly different subject - just like a troll. I always admired Mr. Licata for his straightforward opposition to public subsidies for private sports palaces, and his practical approach to financing the Highway 99 viaduct repairs. But here, either that spokesbloke is blowing smoke, or Mr. Licata will not face the question. He's not representing me by evading this issue.

Mr. Licata, do you regard national defense to be so unimportant, or so immoral, that recruiters must be banned from public schools?

Posted by: Hank Bradley on April 4, 2006 05:16 PM
25. Sounds like a winning strategy that more of the Democrat party should run on. I'd love to see Maria Cantwell or Rick Larsen have it as part of their campaign literature.
I'd include McDermott, here, but I don't want him to win by an even larger percentage of the vote.

Posted by: Reporterward on April 4, 2006 05:19 PM
26. Lew said: "Here's a thought: if Auburn and/or Kent ever went to war with Seattle -- Seattle couldn't raise an army to defend itself -- we'd get shellacked..."

So, does that mean that Seattle is the equivalent of, say, France?

Posted by: Baboy Ako on April 4, 2006 05:29 PM
27. Brad, thank you for your service.

Posted by: South County on April 4, 2006 08:55 PM
28. **I guess if the big earthquake hits Seattle the left will demand military protection of their property.**

If the big one happens midday during the week I doubt that there would be much to protect. All the towers will come tumbling down.

Posted by: Janet on April 4, 2006 09:58 PM
29. I say if Seattle votes to kick out the military recurters then the Military should not defend seattle if attacked. You donot want us we do not want you. But, that wont happen, because the Military has more honor, honesty and dignity in one new recruit just starting boot cam then all of the Seattle Liberal Elitists combined. God bless our troops.

Posted by: RennDawg on April 4, 2006 10:12 PM
30. Hmmm,
Isn't this the same person behind I-86 that caused the big uproar about this time last year with GHS's PTSA and she was kicked off the Seattle School Board after the Fed's threaten to cut the purse strings?
That is right, she is. Of course if the purse strings are cut by the fed's then what happens? Well the city of Seattle will need to raise property taxes to cover the lose of income. Let us not forget military could just up and leave, let alone a factor for BRAC to close Ft Lewis and/or McChord. Other major cities saw that happen as well in the last round.
Listen closely folks, that giant sucking sound is the city imploding on itself cause of a number of mis-guided individuals who only care about their own feelings and not the rest of the city.
I also wonder how fast the votes are tallied for this one if it does make it to the ballot. How many against it will go missing or mis-counted.

Posted by: charles on April 5, 2006 12:06 AM
31. I spent over 20 years in the Navy. I may have traveled over a million miles submerged in that time. I dont know but I spent at least 8 years of my time underwater. I watched many things happen during my time. My one conclusion is that you can never trust a Democrat President to protect our country. Several times under Republicans I was part of missions that were to protect the US. Under Democratic Presidents I think they will do the right thing yet they talk big and very poor on action. I thought when the first world trade center was bombed we would be doing military actions against the nations supporting the terrorists. I have confidence that our military knew shortly after the bombing who was involved. Yet the democratic leadership treated it as a criminal case. Guess what our intelligence sources were killed. Could it be that the lawyers were able to pass enough secret material to the terrorists so that our moles where discovered. Lawyers and Democrats both hurt the gathering of information. They weakened the military by making lawyers as contact points before missions were permitted. We missed our #1 target because unknown to anyone in the Whitehouse you had to have permission from a lawyer to kill Ben Laden. The delay was enough for him to get away. These were rules of engagement setup by the Clinton Administration. I bet those rules were changed real fast once it was figured out. No President when he comes to office can read all the rules and regulations put in place for 8 years and get them all corrected in a timely manner. Important issues were always covered. but always there was a layer of Red Tape that had to be fought. Democrats love putting Red Tape in the way of the Military. They see the military just as represented by XXX-The State of the Union. Military wants war and will kill any president who cuts military expenditure. And the military savings be spent to bring peace to the world. Lets see We have issues of armies in South America being supported by one Anti American President. Who wants high oil prices and will sell it to those who oppose the US at a cheaper price. As long as there are people like that war will always happen. Because they support Terrorism.
It has been shown since the time of President Carter that Democrats have cut the military and Republican presidents had to rebuild the military. It more expensive to rebuild and takes time yet every time those cuts were made. Domestic spending increased 2 to 8 times the cuts made to the military. Even under Reagan building the military increased costs were only 30 to 40% of the total budget increased spending. To you leftest look up the numbers on change in Defense spending and then look at the deficit that took place. The Democratic congress were a disaster at balancing spending. They controlled both the House and Senate.
It is this history that I vote Republican. Because defense of the US is the most important thing for this country. Democrats and Seattle do not support it I thereby can not vote for them unless they prove to have standards that show that Military strength is important and must be maintained. Anything else is National Suicide.
The attacks on American Military are stupid. Every man and woman in the military signed up to join the military. Because they want to defend this country. Opposing military recruiters well I would love all federal funding to any KC program be cut to help pay down the deficit. KC can stand on their own. They do not want to support the troops why should the feds provide any money to KC for any project. It would be a very funny sight to see that happen. I would love to be in the meeting were something like this was announced and see what these politicians say when 20 to 30% of the money they spend disappears. What programs would be cut? I bet it would be school funding first. Because they know the people always vote for more taxes to keep our schools open.

Posted by: David Anfinrud on April 5, 2006 01:11 AM
32. two points.

first, I find it incredibly funny that the anti-war left will stop at nothing to prevent military recruitment. If they were to succeed in keeping the military from maintaining it's ranks(which will never happen) Congress would be forced to enact the draft which would leave these kids with no choice at all.

Second, I am glad that the Federal Government actually owns the land that is the FT Lewis Military Reservation. I say this, because there is nothing the anti-war left can do to stop it, unlike some states that lease the land to the Feds.

Posted by: TrueSoldier on April 5, 2006 08:34 AM
33. TrueSoldier,

You don't understand... In PC-Speak the meaning of choice has changed to have one very specific meaning. In the normal meaning, lefties can't stand choice, you are meant to do as you are told by the enlightened elite!

It is amusing, though, how this enlightened elite do not seem to understand the very logical conclusion you draw. Then some of these leftie moonbats will be forced to serve in the service they despise. Think service might give them an attitude adjustment?

Posted by: Fred on April 5, 2006 09:52 AM
34. This shows the lack of intelligence of the generic Seattle moonbat. Make a self-serving political statement even though it risks losing Federal funding. What they need is a good enema !

Posted by: KS on April 5, 2006 09:33 PM
Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember info?