Occupy Thieves

The great movement for social and economic justice continues in Des Moines, as we can see in this piece on KCCI News.

Neighbors near the Occupy Iowa camp in Des Moines said protesters took some of a man’s belongings Wednesday after he was evicted from his apartment.A KCCI news crew was at the camp on Wednesday to do a story on how protesters were surviving the cold when the controversy broke out.Wednesday morning, neighbors said they saw two Occupy Iowa protesters moving a mattress across the street and that set off a fiery exchange between neighbors and protesters.”Them Occupy Iowa people, two of the men came over and took this TV and put it on a flatbed. They got over there and was wheeling it across the street. I told them, ‘How dare you come over here and take this 65-year-old man’s (belongings) who has been put out,'” said the neighbor.Neighbors said the TV, other furniture and items belong to a man evicted from an apartment near Stewart Park Square where the Occupy Iowa camp is located. A woman caring for two small children was also evicted from her apartment, they said.The belongings from the apartment were put on the curb when the apartment was cleaned out.Neighbors told KCCI that the Occupy protesters went through the belongings, taking what they wanted.”To steal people’s furniture that have been set out of their house, to drag over there under the guise of, ‘We are Occupy Iowa, is wrong,'” said

Maybe the man was one of the hated one percent. Or, maybe once you get the idea that it is all right to take other people’s property, it is difficult to when to stop.

How about this exchange?

KCCI reporter Marcus McIntosh talked to Occupy Protesters about the incident.

“You said the political statement you are trying to make is you are fighting for people who are homeless and have been evicted so isn’t it hypocritical to come over here and take stuff from people who have been evicted just because their stuff was put on the street?” asked McIntosh.

“I just don’t understand the connection you are trying to make,” said protester Bob Allen.

“You don’t understand the question or you don’t want to understand,” said McIntosh

.”I want to understand. I understand completely. I understand there is an issue trying to be made about us somehow stealing property that was put next to the street when in fact this is commonplace and happens everywhere,” said Allen.

The mind boggles at the stupidity that is on display here.

An Ally No More

Caroline Glick does not feel that Israel can consider the US an ally any more. I wouldn’t go quite as far as that since there is still a lot of pro-Israel sentiment here, but it is clear that Obama is no friend of Israel. It is far less clear just what, if anything, he is trying to accomplish in the Middle East, beyond blindly supporting our enemies and undermining our allies. She makes a good case and I urge you to read the whole column on the Obama administration’s attacks on Israel. My favorite part would have to be this.

The same Secretary of State that has heralded negotiations with the violent, fanatical misogynists of the Taliban; who has extolled Saudi Arabia where women are given ten lashes for driving, and whose State Department trained female-hating Muslim Brotherhood operatives in the lead-up to the current elections in Egypt accused Israel of repressing women’s rights. The only state in the region where women are given full rights and legal protections became the focus of Clinton’s righteous feminist wrath.
In the IDF, as in the rest of the country, religious coercion is forbidden. Jewish law prohibits men from listening to women’s voices in song. And recently, when a group of religious soldiers were presented with an IDF band that featured female vocalists, keeping faith with their Orthodox observance, they walked out of the auditorium. The vocalists were not barred from singing. They were not mistreated. They were simply not listened to.
And as far as Clinton is concerned, this is proof that women in Israel are under attack. Barred by law from forcing their soldiers to spurn their religious obligations, IDF commanders were guilty of crimes against democracy for allowing the troops to exit the hall.
Now, think about this for a minute. This is a part of the world in which women are expected to walk around in mobile tents, but Hilary Clinton can only criticize Israel’s lack of progress. Oh, there’s more.
Panetta excoriated Israel for not being involved in negotiations with the Palestinians. Israel, he said must make new concessions to the Palestinians in order to convince them of its good faith. If Israel makes such gestures, and the Palestinians and the larger Islamic world spurn them, then Panetta and his friends will side with Israel, he said.
Panetta failed to notice that Israel has already made repeated, unprecedented concessions to the Palestinians and that the Palestinians have pocketed those concessions and refused to negotiate. And he failed to notice that in response to the repeated spurning of its concessions by the Palestinians and the Arab world writ large, rather than stand with Israel, the US and Europe expanded their demands for further Israeli concessions.
Panetta demanded that Israel make renewed gestures as well to appease the Egyptians, Turks and Jordanians. He failed to notice that it was Turkey’s Islamist government, not Israel, that took a knife to the Turkish-Israeli strategic alliance.
Now, maybe I don’t know very much about international relations or diplomacy, but it seems very odd to me to expect someone to make concessions to people that have repeatedly made it clear that they want to destroy them. Maybe if Israel is really, really nice the Palestinians will agree to kill only half the Jews.
There are two possible explanations for this state of affairs – and they are not mutually exclusive. It is possible that the Obama administration is an ideological echo chamber in which only certain positions are permitted. This prospect is likely given the White House’s repeated directives prohibiting government officials from using terms like “jihad,” “Islamic terrorism,” “Islamist,” and “jihadist,” to describe jihad, Islamic terrorism, Islamists and jihadists.
Restrained by ideological thought police that outlaw critical thought about the dominant forces in the Islamic world today, US officials have little choice but to place all the blame for everything that goes wrong on the one society they are free to criticize – Israel.
The second possible explanation for the administration’s treatment of Israel is that it is permeated by anti-Semitism. The outsized responsibility and culpability placed on Israel by the likes of Obama, Clinton, Panetta and Gutman is certainly of a piece with classical anti-Semitic behavior.
I can think of at least one more reason, that does not exclude the two Glick gives. How about abject stupidity and cluelessness on the part of the President and nearly everyone in his administration?
Related articles