Right to Fight

| December 11, 2012

Michigan union thugs are getting their hackles up and working themselves into a frenzy in Lansing, here’s the video from Fox News;

Old Trooper sends a video of our buddy Michael Steven Crowder getting pummeled by union thugs;

The Michigan Legislature on Tuesday gave final approval to contentious “right-to-work” legislation, in the face of raucous protests in the capital and stern warnings from Democratic lawmakers.

“There will be blood, there will be repercussions,” State Democratic Rep. Douglas Geiss, speaking on the House floor on Tuesday, warned ahead of the votes.

Yeah, when you’re out of ideas, turn to violence.

ADDED: Michelle Malkin’s video gallery of the thuggery.

Category: Unions

Comments (92)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Jonn Lilyea says:

    I’ve never been in a union, but my wife’s first job happened to be in a union shop. After she completed all of her schooling and training and got the job the union started sending her threatening letters from their lawyer about how they were going to get her fired if she didn’t join the union. So she did.

    Then, when another company bought the place, there was a vote among the employees about whether they were going to remain a union shop. Again, union stewards openly threatened employees who they suspected were going to vote against them. On the day of the vote, most of the employees who would have voted against the union just didn’t vote after incidents of car-keying and open threats of violence.

    I suspect that’s how many unions remain in the workplace.

  2. Steadfast&Loyal says:

    Here’s a good article about Right to work in Michigan.

    The point brought is that Michinga is a very large Union state….and even they can’t argue that unions bring higher wages since Michigan ranks 36th in Income levels in the US.


  3. Twist says:

    I know that my brother-in-law was asked by his union to sign Gov. Walker’s recall petition. The funny thing is that my brother-in-law lives, works, is a resident of, and union is in Indiana.

  4. NHSparky says:

    @50 Bret–nice find. I’m guessing if an FOIA was dropped on him it would be less-than-likely our boy here was an 11- or 18-series MOS. YMMV.

  5. Ex-PH2 says:

    This article in the news this morning says there is a ripple effect expected:


    Wisconsin is already a right-to-work state. It may happen in Illinois, but only if Rahmbo turns into a union-buster. As much as he’s a control freak, it could happen. Gov. Quinn won’t do that.

    I’d like to see it happen, especially after the most recent teachers’ union strike, which took place — naturally — the day school was to start. I wanted to go downtown and yell ‘get your lazy asses back to work’. If the train tickets hadn’t gone up so much (transit union demands), I might have.

  6. Bret says:

    IBEW Local 876 – Facebook page – gone.

  7. DaveO says:

    How did the unions lose? They haven’t pulled out any of the judges they have on the payroll. Probably be a signed injunction against this RTW law by nightfall.

  8. Nik says:


    Thanks for that, Tman. They all look and sound much better that way.

  9. DefendUSA says:

    Insipid…you’re sooo tolerant, aren’t you? When words and and threats don’t work, then it’s okay if you beat the shit out of people or do things that could cause harm? Wow. It would suck to be you.

    Steven Crowder earned earned himself some brass as part of Breitbart’s Army, hell, yeah!! Breitbart. Is. Here.

    PS Nik…posted your words of wisdom on my FB.

  10. MySpace is for Losers says:

    The idiot is on MySpace in 2012….That says it all right there. He must be into teen girls.

    Whats up with Chris “The F(*&^ing Hammer” Opalweski…the young man who shouts about “killing plenty of MotherF**&^s with a gun”

  11. PSR Pete says:

    And the unions did everyone a favor at Hostess as well. What was it, 18,000 lost jobs because of one union?

  12. Roger in Republic says:

    I was a member of the IBEW in the 80’s while working in the shipyards. The union bosses fed untold millions of dollars to Democrat politicians for years. Our contract expired with little or no negotiations from the employer.All the yards on the west coast were members of an association that bargained with all the unions under a master contract. while negotiations were underway our employer resigned from the association and suspended talks. The day the contract expired we were locked out. It was not a strike,but a lockout. Ti was a blatant attempt to break the unions there. Not one of the demo pols made a peep. No denunciations. No righteous indignation. Crickets. Per state law we were not eligible for unemployment coverage. Even though we were locked out, the state (run by the same democrats) considered us in a labor dispute. At least the Ship Builders Association convinced a federal judge that the lockout was illegal as unfair to competition. All of these Democrats we had funded for years were powerless to help. The worst part of this story is that I was, and am, a conservative Republican voter. The union used my hard earned dues to pay for a bunch of chicken shit hand wringers.

    PS When the replacement workers(scabs) were told that the judge had ordered them off the property they trashed the ships under construction and it took us several months to redo all the work they had done as it would not pass the Navy inspections.

  13. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    @62. Yeah, the big bad corporations are always bluffing. The White House and Dept of Ed has been killing the sales of those foods deemed to be unhealthy. So, fewer sales means less product and less product means cuts. It’s not too tough to follow–unless you’re a union convinced that the big bad corporation is bluffing, that is.

  14. Insipid says:

    @60- Yeah, i kind of remember your guys collective orgasms every time the “filthy hippies” of the occupy movement got pepper sprayed. Breitbart and company have done nothing good in this world. I’m glad the fat fuck’s heart had an attack. Small wonder:


    Sometimes the bad do die young. If there is a hell, i’m sure he’s rotting in it.

  15. teddy996 says:

    More people automatically enrolled in public sector unions here than you had originally thought, and now you’re attempting to change the subject to distract from the schooling you recieved on the continued use of “closed shop” nonsense.

    You’re pathetic.

  16. Hondo says:

    Sippy the Pinhead was merely dissembling, folks. He was telling some of the truth but not all of it, leaving out critical details. As many here have observed, reality is actually exactly the opposite of what he was implying.

    Closed shops are indeed technically illegal under Taft-Hartley. However, union shops – which are the 100% functional equivalent of closed shops – are still completely legal in states without right to work laws.

    The distinction between the two is this: a closed shop only hires union members; if you’re not already a union member, you don’t even get considered. A union shop will hire non-union members; however, any non-union members hired must join the union within a specified period of time (typically 30 days). If they opt not to join the union, they are either fired – or are forced to pay the union an amount equivalent to union dues anyway, regardless of union membership, as a condition of employment. (Theoretically the employee is not required to pay the amount of dues attributable to political activity on the part of the union. Good luck with that.)

    And, for what it’s worth: Sippy’s deception appears deliberate. He is the one who brought up the “closed shop” issue and loudly proclaimed closed shops to be illegal.

    Not even a good smokescreen, Sippy. And it’s not a good idea to piss on people’s legs and tell them it’s raining, either.

  17. Troll Patrol says:

    All that vile bile, all that vitriol, spouted by that slag-rumped, flap-mouthed hedge-pidgeon….

    That surely does sound to me like someone is a sore loser.

  18. Old Trooper says:

    @65: Well, I remember the filthy hippies doing illegal shit as to the reason they got pepper sprayed. Of course, you know all that, but it doesn’t stop you from displaying your deceit for everyone else to see. I didn’t see anyone from AFP doing anything illegal, but I did see the fatass union thugs doing plenty of illegal shit. I, also, saw them trash a minority’s hot dog stand and scream racial epithets at him (there’s more of that tolerance on the left, again), but yet you come on here and espect anyone to believe your bullshit?

  19. teddy996 says:

    @67- and don’t forget prevailing wage laws. For areas that labor unions have priced themselves out of work, they make their pocket politicians pass a law that states all the other businesses match union labor rates. Sure helps out those mom and pop shops and small independent contractors, which is who insipid, as a progressive, really cares about… right?

  20. Nik says:

    I guess when Insipid’s lies fail, he’s got nothing left but to cheer for the deaths of others.

    Typical face of the Leftists.

  21. Insipid says:

    @71- My “cheering” is nothing compared to the shit Breitbart said concerning the death of Ted Kennedy. If it was good for Brietbart to call Ted Kennedy a “villain,” a “duplicitous bastard” and a “prick” then all bets are off concerning what we call him.

    @67- Hondo. First off, i’m begging you, for your own good to PLEASE get a new metaphor. This “piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining” metaphor is so dumb in all respects 1. It’s not even your metaphor 2. It’s not even all that clever in the first place. 3. repeating the same metaphor over and over makes us believe that you either forgot that you’ve used the metapor or you think that WE’VE forgot that you used the metapor. Either way you look pretty adle minded.

    As far as the rest of your post, it is, as always with you, pure bullshit. 1. BY LAW the fair use payments cannot be “the equivelent” of union dues. 2. BY LAW all you are required to pay is the cost that the union pays for arbitrating your salary and benefits. 3. BY LAW you are entitled to see the cost of the negotiations and to arbitrate the difference if you think it is too high. So basically you’re arguing for someont being a free loader. Enjoying all the benefits of Union without paying any of the costs. Of course you’re also for free-loaders who don’t want to pay health insurance so i guess i shouldn’t be surprised that you’re for free-loaders who will accept the benefits of higher pay and better benefits but also do not want to pay for them.

    @51- Jonn- Threatening to have someone fired for not joining a union is highly illegal. The notion that a lawyer would send such a letter is laughable. But if they did, send a copy of the letters to the NLRB and get them disbarred.

  22. Insipid says:

    @69- Old Trooper- the tea partiers were also doing “illegal shit” when they were intentionally disrupting town hall meetings. Or is disturbing the peace and creating a public nuisance no longer illegal? Or is “illegal shit” ok as long as they’re advocating causes you’re for? Either way, if someone is doing “illegal shit” the proper remedy is to arrest them, not to arbitrarily spray pepper spray in their faces.

  23. NHSparky says:

    Ted Kennedy

    Okay, he’s not a villain then. How about “murderer” instead?

    BY LAW the fair use payments cannot be “the equivelent” of union dues.

    “Employees, as of the effective date of this Agreement, will be required, as a condition of employment, to tender to the Local Union on a bi-weekly basis, Union membership dues OR A SERVICE FEE (emphasis mine) specified by the Local Union.”

    Now where did I pull that out of, sippy? My ass? No–try our union contract. What that says is that I can “opt out” of the union but they still get an equivalent to my dues as a condition of employment. And that payment of these dues is, as stated above, A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT. PERIOD.

    Now go fetch your fuckin shine box.

  24. NHSparky says:

    intentionally disrupting town hall meetings

    So I’m sure you can come up with a list of those folks who were arrested for disrupting same, or assaulting those with whom they disagreed. Hell, I’ll just settle for a video or two.

    We’ll be here, waiting.

  25. Old Trooper says:


    What illegal shit were the tea party types doing? As I recall, a young black man selling Gadsen flags outside a townhall meeting in St. Louis was attacked by white union thugs and no one was arrested for that and the msm made very little mention of it. As for disrupting townhall meetings; yeah, I can see where you would think that questioning your representative is considered illegal, when the whole purpose of the townhall is to answer questions from your constituents. Of course, when the representative didn’t like the question, they would have security go over and silence the questioner, like that whiney broad outside of Chicago did. Funny thing is, there were a whole lot of purple shirts (SEIU for the uninformed) in the audience at most of the townhalls and some of them even admitted to being paid to be there. Yep, real grass roots concerned citizenry there.

    Go sell your bullshit somewhere else, junior, because I ain’t buying it.

  26. streetsweeper says:

    @#73 – As I have said time and time again, the “tea partiers” you are referring to came from YOUR side of the fence ala Lyndon LaRoushe and CPUSA, you dingleberry.

  27. Nik says:


    Two wrongs make a right. Typical example of Leftist tolerance.

  28. NHSparky says:

    OT–my former (and sadly, future) Congresscritter, Carol Che-Pelosi was also famous (notorious) for pulling that shit.

    Never hold a townhall meeting, or if she did, only let her supporters in and give out “golden tickets” (I shit you not) which allowed the holders to ask her fluff questions.

    Trust me, I’ve talked to this woman, and to say she’s a vacuous ditz would be putting it mildly. Not an original thought in this woman’s head.

  29. Insipid says:

    @75- No need to wait long. Three people were arrested here for disrupting a town hall meeting with Paul Ryan:


    And here’s someone being arrested for disrupting a town hall meeting with Allen West:


    So, once again Republicans proving they are pussies who can dish it out, but can’t take it.

  30. NHSparky says:

    Fuck you, sippy–you and your kind know nothing but disruption and throwing little temper tantrums.

    The intent of my question was for you to provide us with examples of Tea Partiers being arrested for disrupting or assaulting those with whom they disagreed, you mindless drone, and you know fucking well and good you can’t do it.

    Bottom line, who does the projecting? And who’s “dishing” what out, exactly? Last time I checked, I didn’t see conservatives beating down hippies crying for free shit at OWS, for example.

  31. Insipid says:

    @78- Fuck off, Nik. I never said i was tolerant. If you want everything nice and polite get off the internet and join a sewing circle. This whole talking point of “liberal tolerance” is designed to set our side at a disadvantage. You get to say and act any way you please and also clutch your pearls when you get a small taste of your own medicine. I’m not playing your game. Yes, I am intolerant to bigots and bastards like Breitbart. Deal.

  32. Nik says:

    If they indeed broke the law they should be arrested, same as anyone else. If convicted, they should be punished, same as anyone.

    Now personally, if I were going to be arrested, I’d much rather go up for disturbing a town hall meeting than assault and destruction of personal property.

    It would be interesting to see how many of those Tea Partiers assaulted and destroyed the property of someone just because they didn’t agree with them.

    Which is beside the point. One person or group’s poor behavior doesn’t excuse another person or group of theirs.

  33. NHSparky says:

    Again, sippy–fuck you, you fucking fuck. Again, show me where CONSERVATIVES have physically attacked liberals at their gatherings, etc, like the left has physically and verbally attacked the right for DECADES.

  34. Nik says:


    Case in point. Incapable of holding a rational discussion.

    You’re wrong. Deal.

  35. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    Well, then, I guess Little Miss Puffy Pants told you guys!

  36. Hondo says:

    Comment 72 above isn’t even a nice try, Sippy. Calling you a pinhead might well be giving you credit you don’t deserve.

    First: in attacking my choice of words, you’re obviously engaging in smokescreen and attempting to change the subject – again. You’re doing so poorly and transparently, and are fooling no one.

    Second: in this case the metaphor is apt. You’re obviously attempting to deliberately mislead; I’m calling you on it. That’s exactly what the metaphor implies. Don’t like hearing it? Then quit attempting to mislead.

    Third: I’ll damn well use whatever metaphors, similes, or other figures of speech I please when pointing out your ignorance. You have no say in the matter. Don’t like that fact? Tough. Not your call.

    Fourth: as NHSparky observed above, it is perfectly legal in states without a RTW law for an amount equal to union dues to be involuntarily required from non-union employees in a union shop as a “service fee”. Since the amount is the same, that makes it “equivalent” (in monetary terms) to union dues. So you’re dissembling about that, too.

    Fifth: as I expressly noted above, a non-union employee in a union shop can indeed avoid paying for union activities unrelated to collective bargaining. (At least in theory they can. Whether they can actually manage to do so is another story.) So can union members. You conveniently ignored the fact that I already mentioned that in your ignorant rant above.

    Sixth: In actual practice, an individual who does not agree with union politics and who therefore doesn’t want to fund that portion of union activities is made to jump through hoops to avoid paying for union political and related activities. Indeed, such individuals are generally required to pay their union dues/”service fees” in full up-front, and then apply for a “refund” of funding deemed “politically related” after the fact (union members who cross the union and request return of political contributions often also get other “special attention” like keyed cars, death threats, beatings, broken windows, and the like). The unions make it as difficult and cumbersome as possible for people to do this as they can in the hope that people will give up and let the union keep the extra $$$. And it’s generally the union that determines what fraction of union dues are related to “political activities”, not an independent agency.

    In other words: all the union really cares about is getting their dues (or equivalent). Once they have the cash, they could care less about individual members. And they’ll pull out all the stops to keep every penny by means legal or otherwise.

    Seventh: I see you screaming like a spoiled child who didn’t get their way above about “freeloading”. However, I don’t see the outrage over the forcible violation of freedom of association caused by union shops. Freedom of association includes the freedom NOT to associate with – or fund – a group whose aims you do not support. (Indeed, the SCOTUS has explicitly equated political funding and free speech recently.) I expected no difference from you; you’re all for freedom when it supports your concept of what “should be” in your preferred “Progressive utopia”, but are dead-set against it when it doesn’t.

    In any case: the “freeloading” argument is a load of crap. Forcing a person to join (or fund) an organization with whose objectives they don’t agree is a violation of basic human rights as well as the Constitution. Compulsory membership/compulsory support under such conditions is simply not consistent with a free society. But it was common in the former USSR, if I recall correctly.

    You cannot possibly be stupid enough to have been ignorant of all of the above, Sippy. I am thus forced to conclude you are a deliberately mendacious tool.

  37. Old Trooper says:

    @84: Don’t forget Al “cheap shot” Franken, who bragged that he tackled a guy from behind who was heckling the speaker at a democrat rally. Yeah, that’s some real tolerance for the 1st Amendment right there. The thing is; Insipid can’t give any examples of conservatives physically attacking leftists at protests or rallies, but we have countless examples with actual footage of it happening to conservatives at the hands of leftist/commie assholes. Insipid is trying to defend the indefensible.

  38. Ex-PH2 says:

    Ah, Ted Kennedy…the last of the Kennedy dynasty…the family that brought up their male children to be male sluts. Yes, I remember it well, while my mother was practically creaming her jeans over Jack Kennedy because of his charisma. When I asked her what she meant by that, she said “sex appeal”. Not his intellect. Not his brilliance — of the three Kennedy brothers in government, he really was smarter than Bobby and Teddy, who tried to cheat on his Spanish test and got tossed out of Harvard for it and then his daddy bought his way back in.
    Ted Kennedy could not live down the FACT that he drove his car off a bridge with Mary Jo Kopechne in it, when he was drunk. He left her there to drown while he staggered back up the road to get help of some kind, and then couldn’t get his story straight.
    See, I remember these things because I was in my teens while they were going on. I was a freshman in college when Jack Kennedy was assassinated. I was in history class when someone came to the door and told us what had happened.
    It wasn’t until the only one of those three left was Ted, that the dirt really began piling up, especially after Marilyn Monroe killed herself and Jackie Kennedy married Ari Onassis to get her kids away from the Kennedys and their ‘clan’.
    So — Ted Kennedy a duplicitous bastard? Well, his parents were married, so he’s not a bastard in the true sense of the word, but duplicitous? Oh, yeah — in spades. When he tried to run for president, the first thing that came up was Mary Jo Kopechne’s death. He never lived it down.
    The problem with being a male slut in politics is that it always catches up to you and frequently is exposed to the bright sunlight of daytime news. I think Bill Clinton found that out the hard way after Monica Lewinski gave a graphic and vulgar blow-by-blow account of having sex with Slick Willy.
    I remember Hillary’s face in videos on the news, shot while the two of them were leaving church after that all came out. If looks could kill, Willy would have been leaving church in a coffin. She was ANGRY.
    It’s not really appropriate for the President of the USA to be getting a blow job when he’s on the phone with the JCS or Secretary of State.

  39. Hondo says:

    Ex-PH2: no doubt John Kennedy was brighter than Ted. But I think you may be selling Bobby Kennedy short. Of the group, he seems to have had the least dirt associated with him. And I’m not sure he wasn’t as bright – or perhaps even brighter – than John.

  40. Ex-PH2 says:

    That’s possible, Hondo, but we’ll never know. He was, in fact, the only one of the three who actually campaigned on behalf of the civil rights movement and black voter registration in the south. So it’s possible. I do know that Jimmy Hoffa and J. Edgar Hoover both disliked Bobby, and Hoover, who kept dossiers on everyone, actually hated him.

    Gee, that makes me wonder — did Hoover have a dossier on me? Can I get it back?

  41. Nik says:

    I guess the hot dog guy who was just selling hot dogs in the tent had it coming too.

    According to him, after they collapsed the tent, the perps formed a line and walked one end to the other trying to stomp anyone who was in the tent.

    Hot dog guy must be guilty of aiding and abetting.