Oct
13
2011

Does Elizabeth Warren *also* support spitting on our troops? #OWS

LITERAL spitting.

[UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers.]

I ask this because back at the beginning of October Ms. Warren seemed to be very much in favor of the entire Occupy Wall Street ‘thing.’ As the Boston Globe noted: “All of the candidates expressed support for the controversial protesters who are part of the “Occupy Boston” movement downtown.”

The question then becomes: does that support include the members of Occupy Boston who went after a Coast Guard woman in uniform today?

Occupy Boston protesters spit on Coast Guard member: MyFoxBOSTON.com

If the video doesn’t load, here’s the gist:

The Coast Guard in Boston confirmed that a woman in uniform was harassed and spat upon by Occupy Boston protesters.

The woman was walking to the train and said protesters spit on her twice, called her foul names and even threw a water bottle at her.

The article notes that “the Coast Guard is warning all staff working on Atlantic Avenue to avoid those protesters while in uniform.” It’s a hell of a thing when you can’t walk the streets of an American city while wearing an uniform and not get harassed by a bunch of ignorant, low-rent mouth-breathers whose courage is directly proportional to their numbers, but I guess that this is the sort of thing that we have to expect from that sort. Particularly since obviously there’s not a chance at all that the Boston city government will do anything about the situation.

But it’d be interesting to see whether Elizabeth Warren – who is running for the Democratic nomination for Massachusetts Senate – pushes back on this calculated insult to our troops by Occupy Boston. Assuming that she knows about it. Assuming that she understands why it was bad. Assuming that she even really cares, either way. Hard to tell: after all, it was just a member of the military, right? And a female one, too. That’d make the Coast Guard member a class and gender traitor, in certain Academic Left eyes…

Moe Lane (crosspost)

20 Comments

  • Rob Crawford says:

    In two months, the left will deny it ever happened.

  • max says:

    The Coast Guard is part of the military now? When did this happen? I know they are part of the Armed Services alongside the military, but except in time of war they haven’t been part of the military. They used to part of the Commerce Department until they were absorbed into the Homeland Security blob, but that didn’t make them part of the military.

    Maybe anyone is a uniform is fair game, in which case restaurants should be warning their employees.

  • Ric Locke says:

    What makes it even more grotesque is that the Coast Guard isn’t “military” in any of the senses that generate leftoid objections, even when they’re “called up” into DOD for a declared war. This is especially relevant in the Boston area, where the CG’s main job is directing ship traffic and fishing the protesters’ drunk relatives out when they wreck their Bertrams.

    So “Occupy” aren’t just vicious, filthy creeps, they’re pig-ignorant vicious filthy creeps. But we knew that.

    Regards,
    Ric

  • Tagore Smith says:

    Let’s not get stupid here: I’m pretty sure Elizabeth Warren is not in favor of spitting on members of the Coast Guard.

    It was unwise of her to endorse the OWS crowd, simply because it is hard to figure out who the OWS crowd is, and endorsing them leaves her open to.. well things like this. At least with the Tea Party there are some local leaders who can distance themselves from more extreme participants.

    As far as I can tell I could take my cats down to Wall Street in a wicker basket, douse it with gasoline, set it on fire (I wouldn’t do that of course- I’m fond of my cats, and, well… just making a point here) and be as official a representative of OWS as anyone else.

    Warren was dumb in endorsing so inchoate a movement, and I suppose you are holding her accountable for that dumbness, but let’s not make people responsible for things they clearly wouldn’t endorse, without better reason than that.

  • Tagore Smith says:

    Have to admit I am picturing the Occupy people “consensussing” on this though: “Let me take the temperature of the crowd here. Shall we not set the kitties on fire? We need consensus here. No, no booing- hand-signals please. OK, we can’t reach consensus that we should not burn the kittens up, so I’m afraid we’re going to have to do it. Drop the match. Yes, it pains me too, but the process is important here, and there is a guy in the back- he seems to be masturbating- who is against not burning the kittens, and since we couldn’t come to consensus here I’m afraid the kitten sacrifice will have to continue.”

    I guess consensus has a lot to do with how you pose the question, actually…

  • Cameron says:

    Max, they swear the same oath the rest of us and they are bound by the UCMJ. They have a different focus than the other services but they are still military. Heck, they get mobilized like the other services and provide port security.

    As for this incident…My shocked face. Let me show it to you.

  • Peter says:

    The Coasties sure are military. Their normal jobs may be different than the other branches but there were a helluva lot of Coaties lost during WW2, driving landing craft onto hostile beachheads. More lost on convoy duty.

  • Allan E. says:

    To even think that the MSM and liberal government hacks that are responsible for electing Obama president will hold their ideological bedfellows to account for this is folly. In their hearts they will cheer, and publicly they will deny this happened.

  • MassJim says:

    lets see, people protesting the lack of jobs spit on a woman who actually has a job in an organization that promotes equality between the men and women. They probably spit upon her because the Coast Guard interdicts large shipments of drugs entering the United States and I guess these protesters sure like their drugs. This incident is despicable and shows just who is involved in these demonstrations.

  • KevMo says:

    She was wearing a uniform. Uniform = evil to these troglodytes. Does anyone seriously believe the typical OWS type can tell the difference between a Captain in the air force and an Ensign from the Coast Guard. Or even a cub scout for that matter.

  • [...] HT to Mr. Reynolds, more at Moe Lane’s blog [...]

  • Diggs says:

    Sounds like some of these OWS dirtbags could use a little “wall-to-wall counseling” about their anger issues.

  • Diggs says:

    Not sure I understand Max’s point about the Coast Guard not being in the military. Is he saying that the OWS shitbirds are justified in spitting on people in uniform as long as that uniform isn’t being worn by a Coast Guardsman that’s been called up for Active Duty?

  • DSchoen says:

    max says: The Coast Guard is part of the military now? When did this happen? August 4th 1790.

    The United States Coast Guard (USCG) is a branch of the United States Armed Forces and one of the seven U.S. uniformed services. The Coast Guard is a maritime, military, multi-mission service unique among the military branches for having a maritime law enforcement mission (with jurisdiction in both domestic and international waters) and a federal regulatory agency mission as part of its mission set.
    The USCG has always been a branch of the military
    I know they are part of the Armed Services alongside the military, but except in time of war they haven’t been part of the military.
    The Coast Guard as established 28 January 1915, shall be a military service and a branch of the armed forces of the United States at all times. The Coast Guard shall be a service in the Department of Homeland Security, except when operating as a service in the Navy.
    They used to part of the Commerce Department until they were absorbed into the Homeland Security blob, but that didn’t make them part of the military. Wrong absorbed into the Homeland Security doesn’t exclude them from being part of the military.
    They gray area that has you confused is Posse Comitatus Act that The Act prohibits members of the Army from exercising nominally state law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain “law and order” on non-federal property (states and their counties and municipal divisions) within the United States. The statute prohibits Army and Air Force personnel and units of the National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The Navy and Marine Corps are prohibited by a Department of Defense directive, not by the Act itself.[1][2] The Coast Guard, under the Department of Homeland Security, is exempt from the Act.
    To be short a Coastie is a law enforcement officer same as the Boston cops I hope the Boston cops understand that when these scumbags spit on a coastie they are spiting on the Boston cops. Hold your polls accountable for supporting theses scumbags

  • DSchoen says:

    Tagore Smith says:
    October 14, 2011 at 4:33 am
    Let’s not get stupid here: I’m pretty sure Elizabeth Warren is not in favor of spitting on members of the Coast Guard.

    It was unwise of her to endorse the OWS crowd, simply because it is hard to figure out who the OWS crowd is,

    So we should cut her slack because she’s an idiot?

  • [...] Moe Lane » Does Elizabeth Warren *also* support spitting on our troops? #OWS [...]

  • Tagore Smith says:

    DSchoen says:
    “So we should cut her slack because she’s an idiot?”

    No. But we should be clear about why we are criticizing her. “Elizabeth Warren is in favor of spitting on members of the Coast Guard” isn’t going to play well, because it’s a ludicrous and unfair proposition.

    On the other hand “Elizabeth Warren is so desperate to have a grassroots movement to call her own that she is willing to to endorse a bunch of kids ‘occupying’ Wall Street despite having no real idea what they stand for” is a much more effective criticism because it is true, and not unfair.

    • Moe_Lane says:

      This reminds me of a point that came up in one of my undergrad Shakespeare classes: one of the major contrasts in the two funeral speeches in Julius Caesar was that Brutus made a speech that would persuade… Brutus; while Mark Antony made a speech that would persuade the crowd.

  • Tagore Smith says:

    Exactly, Moe. Exactly. I’ve heard it said that Western Civilization is dead, but I think there is some life left in the old mare. Shakespeare builds on a tradition of oratory old a thousand years before he was conceived.

    I just wish there were a candidate on my side who understood why Antony’s speech is so effective. Well, as my Mom used to say, if wishes were fishes…

RSS feed for comments on this post.


Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by TheBuckmaker.com