Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Union Thugs Assault Dissenters In Michigan... Where is President Obama?

In January of 2011, following the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, Arizona, President Obama urged us all to “make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.”  The President advocated “a more civil and honest public discourse” in the wake of the Tucson massacre.

I'm looking at the violence dealt out by union thugs in Michigan over the last couple of days and can't help but wonder - where is President Obama?  Where are his demands for talking to each other in a way that heals and a more civil and honest public discourse?

OK, I suppose the union thugs are being honest.  They hate anyone who threatens to take away power and money from the union so I guess they're expressing their honest thoughts.  But what about civility and talking in a way that heals?  So far it seems those people who have been attacked and beaten and/or who have had their business destroyed (as in the case of the hot dog vendor whose hot dog cart was demolished) are the ones who need to heal.  But they're not going to get any sympathy or encouragement from the union thugs who attacked them.

The union guys aren't even shy about what they're doing.  Yesterday, on camera, they attacked a FOX News reporter and hit him several times.  So  why isn't the President speaking out about union violence?  Could it be, perhaps, unions donated just over $400 million to Obama's re-election campaign?  Could it be that in exchange for his support of unions they gave huge amounts of money to  get him re-elected and therefore buy his silence in these current matters?

We all know President Obama is pro-union.  He has made that clear on numerous occasions.  However, given his comments when a Democrat Congresswoman was senselessly gunned down, wouldn't it make sense for him to condemn the violence being perpetrated by the unions in Michigan?  Or do civility and healing only apply when something bad happens to someone on the left?

It's sad, really, but also very telling when the President remains silent while these things are going on.  Most likely the mainstream media isn't reporting on much of the violence.  After all, they're behind the President all the way.  But you know someone at the White House has 24 hour FOX News duty so it's inevitable that President Obama is aware of what's happening in Michigan.  Unless, of course, like Benghazi, they just don't think it pertinent to tell the President or Vice President what's going on...  wink, wink...

What the unions and the main stream media don't want people to know is that right to work  laws don't interfere with unions and their business.  They only interfere with their cash intake because in a right to work state the unions can't force people to join or to pay dues to them just to get a job.  And they allow the individual to decide if he/she wants to join a union rather than allowing the unions to force membership.  So certainly, unions are upset about it.  They'll lose revenue when they can't force someone to pay dues.  And much of that revenue goes to politicians who support their causes.

I hope Michigan's economy grows exponentially because of this new law.  And I hope more union-only states follow suit.  Statistically, right to work states have a higher job growth rate and higher real income rate than union-only states.  And union-only states have more unemployment.  Those are statistics that unions don't want us to know about.  But don't take my word for it - here's the link to the federal government's statistics:

So  you can believe the unions - that union labor is the only way to go, or you can believe the truth - that right to work states produce more, employ more, grow the economy more and provide relief for those who need work.  Unions would rather a family starve than accept a non-union job.  Seems to me their priorities are a bit screwed up.

No comments:

Post a Comment