Obama's Tacit Approval of the violence in Michigan

Bruce Johnson
Dennis Miller has pointed to the recent and continuing evidence of the dichotomy between image and reality in the Obama world. Dennis, take a bow. This latest episode of inflammatory language coming from Michigan Democrats and Union officials provides some telling evidence of Obama's selective concern for provocative and inappropriate political discourse.

Obama's implied consent has been evident throughout his presidency.  I don't ever recall his position regarding the unprosecuted Black Panther polling incident. If only a journalist would ask him to weigh in.  And now, nary a one dare ask him to opine on the Michigan politicians and union officials with their harsh dialogue and suggestions of coming violence.  Obama should know fomenting when he hears it, shouldn't he?

Presidentially, Obama gave a "let us all calm down" type of speech following Gabby Giffords shooting.  Even though first portrayed political tragedy and since proven to be more the work of a lunatic than an ideologue, the idea of the nation's leader making a call to all to behave in a civil manner was welcome. It was refreshingly Presidential and non partisan.

Yet when Democrats or union officials speak as they did in the following examples, Obama seems strangely and selectively silent. Is his silence consent? One wonders.

During the events surrounding the signing of the Michigan Right to Work legislation, Rep. Doug Geiss, a Detroit-area Democrat said "there will be blood, there will be repercussions."

Union leader Hoffa said on CNN on Tuesday. "We're going to have a civil war in this state."

The sound of crickets from the White House is deafening.

The selectivity of Obama's requests for calm seems conditionally applied. Is it the party affiliation or the union affiliation....or both...that prevents a call for even discourse from the Oval Office?

During the summer, the Occupy Movement was less than peaceful.  Even though the entitlement to assemble is recognized, occupation then disruption are not within the realm of approved behavior or guarded birthrights.  Laws were stretched and disregarded.  Property was damaged. The President was silent. Was this tacit consent?

The man who loves to give vapid oratory has an opportunity to serve up something substantive in Michigan, yet has declined.  "Qui tacet consentit" until proven otherwise.

Bruce Johnson


Dennis Miller has pointed to the recent and continuing evidence of the dichotomy between image and reality in the Obama world. Dennis, take a bow. This latest episode of inflammatory language coming from Michigan Democrats and Union officials provides some telling evidence of Obama's selective concern for provocative and inappropriate political discourse.

Obama's implied consent has been evident throughout his presidency.  I don't ever recall his position regarding the unprosecuted Black Panther polling incident. If only a journalist would ask him to weigh in.  And now, nary a one dare ask him to opine on the Michigan politicians and union officials with their harsh dialogue and suggestions of coming violence.  Obama should know fomenting when he hears it, shouldn't he?

Presidentially, Obama gave a "let us all calm down" type of speech following Gabby Giffords shooting.  Even though first portrayed political tragedy and since proven to be more the work of a lunatic than an ideologue, the idea of the nation's leader making a call to all to behave in a civil manner was welcome. It was refreshingly Presidential and non partisan.

Yet when Democrats or union officials speak as they did in the following examples, Obama seems strangely and selectively silent. Is his silence consent? One wonders.

During the events surrounding the signing of the Michigan Right to Work legislation, Rep. Doug Geiss, a Detroit-area Democrat said "there will be blood, there will be repercussions."

Union leader Hoffa said on CNN on Tuesday. "We're going to have a civil war in this state."

The sound of crickets from the White House is deafening.

The selectivity of Obama's requests for calm seems conditionally applied. Is it the party affiliation or the union affiliation....or both...that prevents a call for even discourse from the Oval Office?

During the summer, the Occupy Movement was less than peaceful.  Even though the entitlement to assemble is recognized, occupation then disruption are not within the realm of approved behavior or guarded birthrights.  Laws were stretched and disregarded.  Property was damaged. The President was silent. Was this tacit consent?

The man who loves to give vapid oratory has an opportunity to serve up something substantive in Michigan, yet has declined.  "Qui tacet consentit" until proven otherwise.

Bruce Johnson