Will Obama Bless Michigan Union Violence With Silence?


The capitol in Lansing, Michigan is beset by union protesters upset at the impending passage of right to work legislation, a stunning turnaround in a state long seen as a bastion of organized labor.

The union protesters are behaving themselves about as you’d expect. Which means they’re attacking anyone who disagrees with them. Here’s video of union thugs ripping down a tent set up by Americans for Prosperity, which was on hand to rally in favor of the law (via Jonah Goldberg).

Here’s more showing union protesters attacking those recording the protests:

Now some are wondering if Obama will respond to this violence, or if he’ll condone it by remaining silent?

Remember all the hand-wringing from the left and the media about the supposedly violent tea party protests (at which no actual violence occurred)? Remember Obama and his allies using the tragic shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson to suggest that conservatives were creating a “polarized” atmosphere which lends itself to violence?

Don’t expect any of that concern to be directed at union thugs and their protests in Michigan.

Update: A Michigan Democrat promises, “There will be blood” if right to work law passes.

Rob Port is the editor of SayAnythingBlog.com. In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters.

Related posts

  • $8194357

    Why wouldn’t he bless communist union viloence?

    It is just the parasidic twin to islamic jihadist terrorism, no…


  • ND in MD

    I thought Barak was pro-choice? LOL.

  • $8194357

    And meanwhile…Back at the muslim brotherhood ranch in Egypt….

    Barry is giving taxpayer paid for gifts to friends and associates to

    further the “agenda”…………


    Obama Regime to give 20 F-16 Fighter Jets as a gift to the Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt

    I guess this is in return for Mohammed Morsi’s recent fascist power grab and rush to implement a new sharia-based constitution. After all, Obama has to make sure Egypt is prepared to help wipe Israel off the map.

    • http://ndgoon.blogspot.com Goon

      So now we’re basically giving AQ Jets? Wow!!! Unacceptable.

      • $8194357

        We don’t know the half of what the muslim brotherhoods been doing in DC the last year visiting the top folks across Barrys pro MB administration..

      • camsaure

        I’ll bet he will be aiding them in Syria next.

  • Thresherman

    Expecting Obama to condemn union thuggery against right to work supporters would be like expecting Hitler to condemn the Brownshirts for harrassing Jews.

    • $8194357


      • Thresherman

        I’m also wondering when out local leftists who trash talk the Tea Party are going to condemn the union thugs who beat Crowder in the face just because they disagreed with him. Perhaps they feel that is excusable because they think that they are on the right side of the issue or they can’t think of any way to change the subject to blaming Republicans because lord knows we always advocate beating up people for exercising free speech.

        • $8194357

          This propaganda war is always rigged for what ever “group”
          “satelite soviet” are protesting..
          From code pink, rainbow coalition to jihadist islam..
          Their cause is a false moral “but just” cause…
          Anything Constitutional or conservitive is evil and ment to enrage according to the leftist lucifer wanna bees pointing and accusing 24/7…

    • http://ndgoon.blogspot.com Goon

      Never happen in a million years. Obama will not condemn union thuggery.

    • matthew_bosch

      It’s a sad state of affairs.

    • camsaure

      He will do worse than that, he will actually encourage violence.

  • SigFan

    The unions and many federal bureaucrats are being transformed into Obama’s civilian law enforcement troops. And though he is an ass the Democrat in MI was right – there will be blood – and not just in MI.

  • Bret Stiles

    Thank God I had the choice NOT to join the union at my job in North Dakota. A right to work state. I still have to keep quiet or else my tires will be slashed though.

    • Thresherman

      Because unions support people holding opinions other than theirs , right?

  • matthew_bosch

    A flaw with those of us on the Right is the inherent expectation for a reciprocal action of civil discourse from the Left.

    • $8194357

      Marx and Alinsky both said to use the rights own morals against them while having non of your own..The ends would justify any means…
      Lucifer is of that same mind set, huh…

  • Stuart

    Obama not liking this behavior? Heck he loves division and chaos! He’s a Chicago thug himself. Create chaos…then use the opportunity to divide…and issue more executive orders by fiat to restore order. It’s called order out of chaos!

    Wake up America!

  • Neiman

    Are we not in the era of political and especially union thuggery and doesn’t Obama come from the home of extreme union, racial and homosexual thuggery? Answer is self evident.

  • tony_o2

    Where’s the harm in Card Check legislation? So what if the union has a list of people who are opposed to them taking over a particular business or an entire industry. Union members are peaceful and would never do anything violent against people who oppose them…../sarc

  • http://ndgoon.blogspot.com Goon

    Of course, thugs of a feather stick together.

  • LastBestHope

    Obama blessed with silence his Muslim Bro pal in Egypt, when Morsi tried to make himself the new pharaoh. The killing has just begun in that ongoing crisis, as those opposed to living under Sharia law get murdered.

    And he blessed the ayatollahs in 2009 with his silence as the Iranian people were slaughtered.

    I’m sure that in MI, the elected legislature will be deemed to have “acted stupidily” by His Oneness.

    Mob rule will be supported under the Obama regime.. when it suits him.

    • $8194357


  • $8194357

    If anyone wants to get a good factual history of union/political corruption?
    Here is a very good place to start your search…..


    A labor union is an association of workers in a particular trade, industry,
    or plant, which uses collective action to press for improvements in the pay,
    benefits, and working conditions of its members. The roots of trade unionism as
    a movement can be traced to 18th-century Britain, where the first fraternal and
    self-help associations of workingmen were established. During the 19th century,
    trade unionism developed simultaneously in America, Great Britain, and other
    parts of Europe.

    When unions became outspoken on political and economic
    matters, they generally met with hostility from employers and government. They
    were often prosecuted under restraint-of-trade and conspiracy statutes.
    Consequently, workingmen’s associations in Britain and the United States were
    usually fleeting enterprises through much of 19th century. Overall, British
    unionism exhibited a stronger inclination to political activity than its
    American counterpart, culminating in the formation of the Labour Party in

    In 1886 several unions of skilled workers established the American
    Federation of Labor (AFL), which marked the start of a large-scale labor
    movement in the U.S. Unionism in America gained political legitimacy more
    gradually than in Britain, by a series of court decisions that incrementally
    placed greater restrictions on the use of injunctions and conspiracy laws
    against unions.
    Below is a list of all the labor unions that ranked — along with various corporations, special-interest groups, and professional associations — among the 140 leading donors to U.S. political parties and their candidates from 1989-2010. Every one of these unions, without exception, gave the vast majority of its donations to Democrats. Next to each union’s name is the total dollar amount of its political contributions during the two-decade period, as well as what percentage of that money went to Democrats:

    Ties to communist/socialist organizations:

    In March 2011, Loudon reported that 96 union leaders and activists from 26 states had recently gathered for an “Emergency Labor Meeting” in Cleveland to “explore together what we can do to mount a more militant and robust fight-back campaign to defend the interests of working people.” This closed-door meeting was endorsed by many of the most radical socialist labor leaders in America, including affiliates of such groups as the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, the Democratic Socialists of America, the Communist Party USA, the Party for Socialism and Liberation, the Socialist Party USA, and the International Socialist Organization.

  • Snarkie

    So you don’t want a powerful federal government, but you want Obama to get involved in local news?

    Sure buddy.

    More like you are just doing some partisan grandstanding.

    How involved did you want Obama to get when they locked up that whacknip for starting a gunfight on the 508 after Glenn Beck told him to go shoot up the ACLU?

    Oh wait, I remember when you wanted Bush involved in that husband’s private decision to pull the plug on his vegetable wife. I guess you do want an omnipresent federal government.

    Do you need a minute for some soul searching?

    • $8194357

      What happens when socalism/communism becomes “spiritual” like in China?
      Barry is the ONE for the social justice enviromental nazi left snarkless…
      Ya can’t get more “spiritual” than that huh…
      What ‘core values’ ?


    • Thresherman

      Obama already involved himself in the “local” issue when he he stood up with union officials and spoke there yesterday and now he has ownership in it. Property was destroyed and there was at least one assault captured on video and you want to sweep that under the rug. Further he has tied himself closely to the unions and willingly took a ton of money from them so he has an obligation to come forth and condemn these heinous acts. Quit frankly, so do the unions. But let’s see if our unbiased media will hold their feet to the fire on this, I tather doubt they will.
      And how about you? Are you fine with someone getting punched in the face repeatedly by some union thug just because the thug didn’t like his point of view? Are you one of those cowardly liberals who are fine with blaming conservatives for things they had nothing to do with, like the Gifford’s shooting, but aren’t man enough to find fault with one of your own even when he clearly engages in a crime and it is caught on tape? I know you want to change the subject rather than address this, but this is the subject and it is what is happening now, not something from long ago that may or may not have any bearing to the matter at hand. So the question is, are you a guided by your convictions or only do so when it suits you?

    • http://sayanything.flywheelsites.com Rob

      I want Obama to take a not at all controversial stand against the labor movement, which is a key part of his base, beating up people they disagree with.

      I don’t know that was unreasonable.

      • Snarkie

        Neither of those is a sentence, but I think I get what you mean.

        You want a Democrat POTUS with a clear mandate (imagine how much worse your loss would have been if he was a white guy) to grandstand in favor of Republican issues.

        And people accuse me of huffing glue.

        Get a clue Port.

    • Onslaught1066

      It’s interesting that you, an admitted wife killing POS, would bring up wife killing.

      Oh wait, did I say interesting, I meant typical.

      Do you need a minute to huff some more glue?

    • mickey_moussaoui

      The problem with your ill informed rant is that obama already got himself involved with “local news” when he gave his little speech to unions the day before this event took place.
      pay attention dumdum

  • Guest

    My how quickly you abandon your antigoverment intervention principles when it comes to protecting corporate interests! Thanks for showing the shallowness and inconsistency of your views and exposing yourself yet again as a partisan hack!

    • http://sayanything.flywheelsites.com Rob

      The right to work law isn’t government intervention. The law requiring union membership was intervention. This restores the right of workers to choose.

      • Guest

        Yes it is. The corporations agreed with the unions about their employment policies. It’s a contract between the unions and employers and the government is stepping in to limit what the employer and union can agree to. You’re advocating the government intervene to take certain things off the table. It’s government intervention any way you cut, only a partisan hack like you wouldn’t see it.

        • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

          Don’t confuse Rob with the facts, particularly when it involves his hypocrisy about government intervention in the free market.

      • Guest

        ” The law requiring union membership was intervention.”

        FALSE. There are no laws requiring union membership. Nice try, partisan hack. http://www.nrtw.org/a/a_1_p.htm

        • mickey_moussaoui

          Then unions don’t deserve to be protected by any law either thus “rite to work” is a valid way to protect everyone “EQUALLY”

        • HG

          The law required that even non-union employees pay union dues. That’s what changed. You can now work for whoever you want to, negotiate your own pay, and you don’t have to pay union dues just because the union says so. That’s freedom.

          • Guest

            Nice try HorridGas, you’ve just proven the point that you selectively disfavor intervention when it doesn’t protect corporate incomes. The law didn’t require these people to pay union dues either as it was an agreement between the union and the company. If the employee felt so strongly about not joining a company where he had to pay such fees, he is more than able to look elsewhere. Moreover, all contracts restrict freedom. If as part of a business deal you negotiated an exclusive easement across another company’s land and the landholder goes around and starts letting all your competitors across the land for free out of spite, your attempt to enforce the agreement is just as much trying to ‘restrict their freedom’ as the right to work agreement is. Thanks again for showing you conservatives are so ideologically bankrupt and inconsistent, it’s amazing to see how you retarded you guys are!

          • HG

            It was a law. not just a contract agreement that is why it took an act of the legislature to change the law.

            Now the individual is free to work wherever he wants without being forced to pay union dues.

            It’s a great day for freedom.

          • Guest

            Thank you for being unable to differentiate between this and any other contract such as the landowner letting people cross over his land for free despite a negotiated easement and again proving that you are indeed nothing more than a partisan hack, HorridGas! It’s a great day for seeing your ideological bankruptcy!

          • Guest

            Just because certain contracts could previously be enforced by the courts does not make them a law, HorridGas.

          • tony_o2

            Lets say that you only do business with several companies in your area. Those companies decide to form an association. How many states have a law that requires you to sign a business contract with those companies just because you are already doing business with them?

            I understand your argument about enforcing contracts. But there shouldn’t be a law that requires you to sign a contract just because one party insists on it. Under labor laws, if an employer’s employees vote to join a union, the employer is prohibited (by law) from firing them and must sign a labor contract with the union.

          • Guest

            Your argument is unpersuasive. Your argument assumes that the business is required to sign a contract, which is not true. That business, just like an employee in a right to work state, is not obligated to sign anything. Moreover, just because a person/company may be forced to sign a contract to get their ideal position is not a valid reason to over-ride the freedom of the employer and the union. Why should their freedom override the freedom of employer and everyone in the union? There is no reason, except partisan hacks lack you desperate to find any reason to destroy unions.

        • $8194357

          Why don’t you try GEICO?
          Government Employees Insurance Company…
          Now there is a government/private partnership the left
          and the RINO right could get behind huh…
          Those on the dole double dipping the working class…

        • tony_o2

          Joe gets a job at a non-union shop. 5 years later, union leaders convince the majority of his coworkers to unionize. The law says that the employer has to recognize the union and sign a labor contract with the union. Even though Joe and his minority coworkers refuse to join the union, the law still binds them to a labor contract that they did not sign.

          The law does not say that they have to join the union, but the law still binds them to a labor contract that they did not sign.

      • Guest

        What a surprise Rob would mysteriously disappear after having his blatant lies exposed.

    • sbark

      Unions are about getting money to left wing polticians…….and not disturbing that flow of money to left wingers……

      Jobs, wages, job conditions are just part of the left wing shell game ….In exchange for lucrative contracts via Govt actions such as “stimulus”…….the Unions funnel money back to the Dem’cat party

      When 90% of union dues go back to politicians ……its a simple moneylaundering scheme at best………at worst its simple criminal action.

  • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

    The Tea Party named themselves after the violent and terrorist act by The Boston Tea Party. What better way to honor the terrorist actions of those willing to take matters into their own hands?

    • HG

      So the Boston Tea Party was the act of terrorists? What a fool you’ve become, H.

      • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

        “Become”? That ship sailed a long time ago, HG!

        • HG

          True, but an even bigger fool today than yesterday.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            More experience.

      • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

        Their acts of terror were pretty alarming to those businessmen who were doing business legally, were they not? Or would you give the wink and a nod if the union guys started tarring and feathering business people?

        Holy shit, you are stupid.

        • HG

          Oh, I thought you were referring to the “Boston Tea Party”. You know, when officials wouldn’t return taxed tea to Britain and colonists, not terrorists, boarded the ships and threw the tea overboard.
          You might want to brush up on your history.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            You need a fundamental introduction to history 101. It’s only a matter of time before the terror that struck many are properly labeled what they were, brutal thuggery that borders on terrorism.

            News report: New Act of Terrorism

            A local militia, believed to be a terrorist organization, attacked the property of private citizens today at our nation’s busiest port. Although no one was injured in the attack, a large quantity of merchandise, considered to be valuable to its owners and loathsome to the perpetrators, was destroyed. The terrorists, dressed in disguise and apparently intoxicated, were able to escape into the night with the help of local citizens who harbor these fugitives and conceal their identities from the authorities. It is believed that the terrorist attack was a response to the policies enacted by the occupying country’s government. Even stronger policies are anticipated by the local citizens.


          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Vandalism, destruction of property, brutal thuggery by terrorizing people, including tarring and feathering them in order to send a political message to a government? Yeah, that’s not terrorism…that’s the behavior of heroes, to republicans.

            Texas schools teach Boston Tea Party as act of terrorism


  • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

    I didn’t see any evidence of “brutal thuggery”. Anyone interested to know what that is I advise them to read the history of The Boston Tea Party, the modern tea party heroes.

  • awfulorv

    J’ever wonder if there might not be some poor guy out there, probably Norwegian, who has had a hell of a time finding employment, during his lifetime, simply because one, or both, of his parents, thought it was a cute idea to name him, Blatant Lies?

  • sbark

    If only some 11% of the union dues collected go to members……..with the rest going basically to Left wing politicians………….its simply a money laundering scheme

    How come the unions complain the non-unionized workers get the “benefits” without paying the dues……………..but then why should the non-Fed Income tax paying voters get the “benefits” without paying the “dues”?????????

    Lets de-unionize the welfare and entitlement state……….

  • allen

    Joseph Paul Goebbels, Nazi quotes: Not
    every item of news should be published. Rather must those who control
    news policies endeavor to make every item of news serve a certain

    • $8194357

      Yes sir..
      Propaganda the art form…

    • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

      Like Pox does with edited punching videos, right?

  • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

    Is this the violence where the Pox agitator when in with a camera crew, pushed a guy to the ground and only showed the part where the guy got up and punched the doooosh bag in the face?

    Steven Crowder Doesn’t Deny Pushing To The Ground The Man Who Later Punched Him

    Unfortunately for Mr. Crowder, a look at the video broadcast
    on the Sean Hannity show appears to show quite clearly that he left out
    an important section of the footage when he put together his edit.
    A section of the Fox News broadcast preserved by the Web site Mediaite
    shows that Mr. Hannity’s producers at Fox News started the clip five
    seconds earlier than Mr. Crowder did. What the extra footage
    reveals is the man who punched Mr. Crowder being knocked to the ground
    seconds before and then getting up and taking a swing at the comedian.


    Why are nutters so violent?

    • http://sayanything.flywheelsites.com Rob

      The union guy Crowder pushed down, that was the same guy busy pulling down the tent on all the people inside?

      I guess violence is ok, as long as it’s the right kind of violence, huh boob?

      • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

        No, rube. I don’t think it’s the same guy. I guess violence is OK, as long as it’s the right kind of violence, huh rube?

      • Snarkie

        Ya right. More Brietfart fanboy bullshit. That’s what all your Michigan posts were about? You want Obama to follow all Brietfart’s fanboys around and comment on the bullsH*t they incite?