Union Thugs Attack Fox Reporter On Camera

That lovely gentleman in the black baseball cap is about to throw several punches at FoxNews contributor Steven Crowder. Later in the video another upstanding union member takes a few more whacks at Crowder.

The unruly crowd had forced the collapse of a tent being used by American’s For Prosperity who were at the scene supporting the right to work legislation, placing them distinctly in the minority. No one was hurt in the collapse, but several people escaped just moments before the entire structure collapsed, potentially avoiding serious injury.

It appears Crowder was trying to interview union members about the attack on the AFP tent, which didn’t make them very happy. At this time there is no information on whether police are investigating this incident.

Video below…

Shortlink:

Posted by on December 12, 2012.
Filed under The Looney Left, Tolerance, Unions, Viral Video.
Doug Johnson is a news junkie and long time blog reader, turned author.

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • The_Weege_99

    Nothing quite so demonstrates the unions’ love of freedom as when they break the law and prevent others from exercising their rights.

  • JWH

    Completely unacceptable.

    • Commander_Chico

      I also disapprove.

      • jim_m

        Of the Unions or Steven Crowder?

      • retired.military

        What is the matter Chico? They didnt have OWS signs?

  • ackwired

    Not a lot of good judgement exercised here. A handful of Right-to-Work supporters go to a huge union rally and then try to engage them. How’s that working for you? And then the union thug throwing punches while the company thug stands there with a gun.

    • jim_m

      I have watched it several times. Where are you seeing a gun?

      • jim_m

        I would also take exception to your moral equivalency here claiming that the AFP people were as wrong for exercising their 1st amendment rights as the union thugs were for assaulting them. There is a difference between free speech and violence even if the left does not want to recognize it when it comes to conservative speech.

        • ackwired

          You might want to read my comments again. I did not say what you claim. I questioned their judgement, not their right to express their opinion.

          • jim_m

            That explains the supine pose the left takes with the islamist terrorists: If there is violence threatened you are a fool to stand up for your rights. I will keep that in mind.

            I would add that the possession of the rifle may not have been illegal but the death threats from the union thugs absolutely were illegal.

          • ackwired

            You are a transparent liar.

          • jim_m

            How so? You did leave your comments open to the interpretation that when a threat of violence is made that you should not speak your beliefs. This is the same behavior the left shows with regard to opposing radical islam. Don’t offend them because they will riot and kill people. Therefore we should be throwing directors of bad movies in jail to appease muslims.

            While the left are largely cowards, their union friends understand this dynamic. They will ratchet up the violence until they get their way. Spineless toadies will say that people voicing contrary views are foolish or wrong for doing so.

          • ackwired

            You changed my words and applied your words to a different situation. You are a transparent liar.

      • ackwired

        After the fists fly, you will hear one of the union people say repeatedly,
        “He’s got a gun”. Look back by the tent and you will see a rifle barrel sticking up in the air.

        • jim_m

          It looks like a stick from a protest sign and not a gun barrel.

          But Michigan is a concealed carry state so they should watch out who they choose to assault.

    • LiberalNightmare

      And how do you know its a company thug with the gun? As far as i can tell the union folk are the ones with violence on their minds.

      • ackwired

        Yes, the union people are much more riled up. The gun is back right by the tent, which is where the right-to-work people are.

        • jim_m

          Yes, I doubt that the union thug would be threatening to murder one of his own.

        • jim_m

          Yes, I doubt that the union thug would be threatening to murder one of his own.

    • retired.military

      ackwired

      Dont people have the right to peacefully assemble? Were the RTW folks calling names? Instigating the OWS folks by other than being there? When you had OWS crowd try to crash Tea party protests did you see the tea partiers throwing punches?

      This isnt the first time that the unions have started trouble and resorted to violence with people who oppose their viewpoint.

      “the union thug throwing punches while the company thug stands there with a gun.”

      Here let me highlight the most important words in that phrase.

      “union thug throwing punches while the company thug stands there”

      So who is clearly in the wrong here? THe person who starts things by throwing punches or someone who posses a firearm legally? ( BTW I didnt see a gun either nor have I heard about one from what I have read but going by your statement is how I phrased my questions).

      What right did you the union people have tearing down the tent in the first place? That is destruction of private property. Which is illegal and somethign which Chico backed when the OWS crowd was doing it.

      • ackwired

        I wasn’t commenting on who was right or wrong. I was simply observing that a lot of poor judgement was being displayed. It’s kind of like going into a biker bar and asking the bikers if they don’t think motorcycles should be outlawed. You have the right to do it. But it does not show very good judgement.

        • retired.military

          Ackwired
          I understand what you are saying.
          But you are talking about 2 very different scenarios.

          a. going into the biker bar. You are instigating the action and though you have the right of free speech that doesnt mean that others wont take exception to it. Doesnt make violence legal but at the same time the person going into the bar is looking for trouble by confronting the bikers who are not doing anything more obstisively than drinking a beer. They arent offering their opinons on anything.

          b. protest. By its nature there are people for and against the protest and as such you expect to see at least 2 sides to it. Permits are issued for protests. People have the right to freely assemble.

          Once again I point to the Tea party protests. There were protestors from the left at these. Did you see violence? Sucker punches thrown? Tents ripped down? Racial epitaphs hurled at a vendor and his cart destroyed? The answer is no you dont. Yet you see this time after time from the left and the violence is directed against those on the right.

          I could have cared less about the OWS protests except for the lawbreaking, and other outrageous illegal behavior that occured at them. They were not peaceful nor in a lot of cases were they legal.

          • jim_m

            I think Ackwired subconsciously says exactly what he means and that is that voicing a conservative political view in public, in front of a state capitol, is an activity which one should expect to result in violent confrontation which is likely to lead to your serious injury.

            Hence, Ackwired believes that voicing a conservative political opinion in public, in front of the state capitol is an act of questionable judgement and that anyone of sound judgement would, in the words of Ackwired’s union thug friends, “Shut the F@#$ up”.

            Bottom line is that even a moderate lefty believes that conservative views have no place in public.

          • Carl

            You really can’t see how foolish you look, can you?

            What Jim is subconsciously saying is that he’s been attention-starved ever since he was a baby, and that even now his wife and children ignore him — so he’s reduced to sitting n Wizbang 24/7 making up lies and fabricating facts out of thin air in the desperate hope that somebody — somewhere — anywhere — will show him some love.

          • jim_m

            Per usual, Carl has nothing of substance to say so he attacks the commenters on the board.

          • Carl

            Attacks? poor baby – you broad brush liberal and democrats hourly – but the widdle Jimmy feels “attacked” when somebody points out his lies.

            Wow…

          • retired.military

            And you broad brush the tea party every time you mention them.

          • retired.military

            I disagree. I find ackwired one of the more saner posters from the left on any of the boards that I frequent.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            faint praise indeed.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            faint praise indeed.

          • Carl

            The reporter was getting in people’s faces and provoking a fight.

            Fox News is such a joke, but they sure know how to get their audience in a lather.

          • LiberalNightmare

            I thought getting in peoples faces was the democratic way.

            Are you saying the Obama was provoking a fight when he said that?

          • retired.military

            Carl
            Did the reporter touch anyone? If not then he committed no crime. If so than he committed assault.
            Vs the union guy who definitely committed assault.

            He “Provoked the fight” (your words) by asking them “why dont you like the right to work laws”?
            or did he provoke the fight by asking the guy to leave the tent alone and pointing out that a lady had already gotten hurt?
            Or was it when he came out of the tent when the union guys were shaking it and trying to tear it down and then the 2 union guys got into the face of him and the guy standing next to them?
            (around the 35 second mark)
            Or at the 1 min mark was he provoking them by walking towards the tent and was grabbed by the collar of the jacket from behind?

            Also if you look at about 40 second mark you will find that the guy that starts swinging isnt even in front of the reporter. He appears to be addressing the guy next to the reporter.

            Seriously Carl, Please explain your statement above as I dont see it by watching the video. Please stay away from throwing the racism charge around and making straw man arguments about Fox news. Please discuss the video as I have done.

            BTW I have stated numerous times I very rarely watch any news on any station.

          • ackwired

            I’m not sure the scenarios are so different. These union folks think that their livelihoods are being threatened. They are afraid. All anger is fear, and they are very afraid. This does not excuse their behavior. But I’m not sure that it is good judgement to challenge them until they calm down a little.

          • retired.military

            Ackwired see my post to Carl above your response.
            Since when is challenging asking a simple question in a calm tone of voice? or asking someone to leave a tent alone? or walking out of a tent and having them walk up on you? or walking away from someone with your back turned.

          • ackwired

            In a normal conversation what you say would be quite right. However, this was obviously a very emotionally charged environment and the union people obviously felt challenged, and I suspect that the right-to-work folks realized that what they were doing would be interpreted as a challenge. One of them was concerned enough about the situation to bring a gun. The right-to-work folks did nothing to overtly challenge or taunt the union folks, and the violent response was inexcusable. But if the right-to-work folks were trying to avoid a confrontation, they used very poor judgement in choosing to be there and to confront them.

          • ackwired

            Some additional information. There are now reports that the guy shown throwing punches had just been knocked down by another of the right-to work-people. Obviously the video has been audited. There are now allegations that the editing was not impartial.

            http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/12/selective-editing-by-fox-news-contributor-revealed-by-fox-news/?smid=tw-thelede&seid=auto

          • jim_m

            Challenged? They objected that anyone should hold a contrary opinion. They assaulted a hotdog vendor because he sold hotdogs to the conservatives. These people were looking for a fight. They had been whipped up by violent rhetoric from their union leaders and dem politicians. They believed, with justification, that physically assaulting their opposition was legal and required of them.

            Forget Steven Crowder. These a-holes attacked an innocent vendor because he was doing business with people they disagreed with. THAT is the mentality of today’s left. The vendor offered no provocation. There was no excuse for any of the violence the union thugs dished out.

          • ackwired

            Don’t you hate it when someone over-reacts just because someone else has a different opinion?

          • jim_m

            Yeah, because my bloviating is just like union thugs beating the crap out of someone.

            jeez, get some perspective.

  • 914

    You lost! Get back to work you thugs!

  • Pingback: Detroits Plight | Dooley Reported

  • LiberalNightmare

    Once again we see the intellectual party at work.

  • warnertoddhuston

    All unions are a criminal enterprise.

    • Carl

      The reason conservatives are so dead set against unions is that unions give women and minorities equal footing and equal pay. In the private sector women make 77 cents compared to each dollar in wages for men. In a union shop the wages are equal for men, women, blacks, whites, etc….

      So the unions have to go — can’t have a system where people are equal and make equal wages — the white men on the right can’t have that.

      • jim_m

        Ignorant tool. Unions are some of the most racist institutions in this country. Probably because they are associated with the left.

        As noted by UnionFacts.com, since 2000, there have been over 4,200 complaints filed against unions for racial discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission.

        Unions are anti female and anti minority

        A January 2008 review of trade unionists working on $500-million worth of Philly public projects during the preceding five years conducted by
        then Inquirer columnist Tom Ferrick concluded, “these well paid union jobs … remain all-male, nearly all-white and the majority live in the suburbs.”

        Trust Carl to spout a bunch of ignorance and lies. This is why he never links to anything because he simply cannot.

        Once again we see that Carl’s accusation of racism and sexism are nothing more than projection.

        • jim_m

          Blacks fleeing the Jim Crow laws that the democrats passed in the South moved north to face the same racial discrimination by democrat associated unions.

          Harry Alford, President & CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce, has noted.
          Due to the Jim Crow laws of the South, there were many Black southern craftsmen who would travel to perform their skills. Many would go to places like New York, Philadelphia, Detroit, etc. and would out compete local white contractors who could not perform as well as they did and could not settle for their affordable pricing. It was because of this, that construction unions in the North were formed to block out Black crews from coming into communities and providing a better service for a cheaper price. Soon after the unions were formed they set in motion the Davis-Bacon Act (named for two New York congressmen). This act set up arbitrary labor wage scales so that Black craftsmen could no longer under price their white counter parts. They all had to pay a certain price, prevailing wage, at a minimum and competition became no more. With the price competition out of the way, the whites moved in through political favor and blatant racism. This would be followed with Project Labor Agreements which meant some projects would be declared “Union Only”. With the construction unions discriminating against Blacks, PLO’s [sic] would also mean “Whites Only”.

          • Carl

            Jim and his Teabilly pals hate blacks. They can’t stand to see a situation where an employer is REQUIRED to pay women and minorities equal pay to white men.

            He typically makes things up – just outright lies. Or he quotes the way things were a hundred years ago – as if that has any relevance to today.

            He must watch Faux News 24/7. He certainly doesn’t have a life – - or friends. Just a bitter old white man who HATES that Obama get elected.

          • jim_m

            he quotes the way things were a hundred years ago

            Wow. I didn’t realize that the year 2000 was “a hundred years ago” or for that matter that 2008 was so long ago too.

            Sorry that I ruined your little lying narrative on how unions care about minorities. Facts matter. Just not to you.

          • Carl

            Yeah, the way things were a hundred years ago – OK, this time it’s only EIGHTY YEARS…

            From JIm M’s screed – he quotes at length, ad nauseum….. “Soon after the unions were formed they set in motion the Davis-Bacon Act (named for two New York congressmen). This act set up arbitrary labor wage scales so that Black craftsmen could no longer under price their white counter parts.”

            Reality Bites!

            The Davis–Bacon Act of 1931 is a United States federal law which established the requirement for paying prevailing wages on public works projects

            He’s so stupid he doesn’t even know when he argues with himself he’s wrong – most of the time he hasn’t a clue about the subject he’s talking about – but he’s damn sure he’s right… lol.

            80 years is close enough to a 100, Jim. And the Jim Crow Act goes back to the mid 1800s.

            lol….

          • jim_m

            I posted a quote from the 2008 Philadelphia Inquirer. That demonstrates that unions, the dems, and the left have not changed one whit since reconstruction.

            2008. That’s just 4 years ago. 4 YEARS AGO. Not 100. Not 80. 4 YEARS

            And before you call me stupid you should recognize that the quotation you complain about is not from me but from Harry Alford, President & CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce. So you are calling a black man stupid, not me. Racist much?

            Get over it. Learn to read. Take a class on reading comprehension. It would do you good.

          • jim_m

            the Jim Crow Act goes back to the mid 1800s.

            Hey Carl, I have searched for “The Jim Crow Act” but cannot find it. There are lots of references to Jim Crow laws, but no act. What is this Jim Crow Act you are referring to?

            Or is it that you don’t know what you are talking about and once more you project your own issues on others? Seems likely.

          • Carl

            Jim Crow laws go back to the mid-1800s, – and once you realize that you change the subject? You deflect? You pretend you werent’ caught lying again?

            Wow, sorry for “attacking” you, Jimmy.

          • jim_m

            I didn’t change the subject. My comment containing the 2008 Philly Inquirer quote preceded my comment containing the quote From Harry Alford.

            You simply failed to read with any comprehension. You have mistakenly called Jim Crow laws the “Jim Crow Act” to general hilarity.

            You missed my point that unions currently discriminate followed by my making the point that unions historically discriminate.

            I have posted links to my arguments. You bluster. You lie. You claim that I lie, but whereas I post links to back myself up you do not.

            I once again suggest that you project.

          • Carl

            Oh yeah – it’s hilarious when you are caught lying.

            Oh darn – another “attack”! LOL…

          • jim_m

            Funny how my so-called lies are all backed up with links. You have how many links to back up your assertions?

            People are laughing. They are not laughing with you Carl. They are laughing at you.

          • Vagabond661

            That’s a big 10-4. But Karl is the perfect example of the liberal who tries to ridicule and demean everyone instead of engage in an open and honest debate. His “LOL” stands for “Lies Of Liberals”.

          • Vagabond661

            That’s a big 10-4. But Karl is the perfect example of the liberal who tries to ridicule and demean everyone instead of engage in an open and honest debate. His “LOL” stands for “Lies Of Liberals”.

          • jim_m

            Funny how my so-called lies are all backed up with links. You have how many links to back up your assertions?

            People are laughing. They are not laughing with you Carl. They are laughing at you.

          • LiberalNightmare

            So that’s a no on replying with any facts or a comprehensive argument then?

          • retired.military

            Where is David Robinson decrying the tone of posters and saying that people being called racist is uncalled for.

    • Commander_Chico

      Warner is a real piece of work – wants to ban unions, wants to ban Islam, wants to censor the press. FREEDOM!!

      • warnertoddhuston

        Commander_cheapo is delusional. But, Do show me where I said i wanted to “ban” al those things or censor the press.

        • Commander_Chico

          Here’s where you wanted to ban a religion:

          http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/huston/060219

          Saying unions are “criminal” means you want to state to stop them.

          You’re always prattling about freedom of the press.

          Own your words, Warner, don’t wimp out, own them!

    • Hawk_TX

      I agree that all unions are criminal enterprises, because they violate the rights of the employer and employee. My view was summed up well by this post on the blog Cold Fury.

      BillyB

      “It seems to me a pretty simple fact that unions are unconstitutional, and always have been.

      Among the rights that men have are freedom to contract, and freedom of association. But, like all rights, the freedom to use them extends up to the point where they interfere with the rights of others, and no farther.

      One man’s freedom of speech does not allow him to gag another man; one man’s freedom of religion does not allow him to impose it on another man; one man’s right to property neither entitles him to steal, nor allows him to make another man his property (I seem to recall that there was some big to-do over this last one, about a century and a half ago).

      People have the right to collectively bargain; but not at the expense of others’ rights to individually bargain. Yet, through intimidation, violence, and — in States like Michigan — by law; that is exactly what unions do. In fact, it defines them. Without violence, intimidation, or unconstitutional legal sanction, no union would last a week. It would be undone by the rights of both non-union workers and employers to freely associate and contract with one another.

      How this hasn’t become obvious when some States have to specifically enact “Right-to-Work” laws, is beyond me. Men have always had the right to work for whoever will hire them; and men have always had the right to hire whoever will work for them on their terms.

      That this right has been denied to them for so long by unlawful acts of legislatures and union goons has no bearing on the existence of the right itself.”

  • jim_m

    I think we have long passed the point at which “Union thug” became a redundancy.

  • retired.military

    I guess this hot dog vendor sold to everyone and not just union members.

    I wonder if the folks who supported the OWS destruction and violence support the same type of violence from the unions. Of course the Obama admin hasnt decried these attacks. You know Obama – “if they bring a knife then we bring a gun:” “Get in their faces” I guess he is proud of the union guys.

  • JWH
  • JWH
  • Steve Smith

    Looks as if they had to drag a lot of trailer parks and drug alleys for those union protesters.

  • Steve Smith

    Looks as if they had to drag a lot of trailer parks and drug alleys for those union protesters.

  • http://www.wizbangblog.com David Robertson

    For what it’s worth, there are two sides to every argument. In that above-posted video, the pro-union protester who hit Crowder was knocked to the ground just before he started swinging his fist. I’d like to know how he got knocked to the ground. What if he perceived that Crowder had knocked him to the ground?

  • Tom Higgens

    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.So Steven Crowder, victim of multiple punches to the face by a union thug, was hiding the fact that the guy who punched him did so after having been knocked down himself (and who knows what else). That’s just one of Crowder’s misleading edits, and he’s not showing the footage that would make things more clear. Gosh, do you think it could be because it doesn’t support the version of the story he’s pushing?