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:
http://www.senate.mo.gov/10info/members/d27/taxcredits/Right%20to%20Work%20Statistics.pdf
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