Pelosi’s Excellent Jobs Plan

Close down a major manufacturing plant and put hundreds of workers out on the street, unless they unionize, even if the workers have already rejected the union!

Pelosi Vs. Boeing — And Jobs

“Do you think it’s right that Boeing has to close down that plant in South Carolina because it’s nonunion?” asked host Maria Bartiromo.

Pelosi’s quick answer was “yes.”

Pelosi said she preferred the plant in the right-to-work state would unionize; failing that, the National Labor Relations Board is right to shut down the plant where Boeing hopes to build its Dreamliner passenger aircraft.

Never mind that workers at the South Carolina plant were once unionized and voted to kick the union out. The Vought Aircraft plant, which Boeing purchased in 2009, was once one of Boeing’s suppliers.

See also:
Pelosi: “Yes” The Obama NLRB Should Shut Down Boeing’s Plant In SC
Pelosi Says She Supports Pro-Union NLRB Telling Boeing Where To Build Its Factories…
Unionize, Or Die
Nancy Pelosi Goes ‘Rogue’: Boeing Should Either Close Down SC Plant Or Unionize It
Pelosi: Shut down Boeing in South Carolina
Pelosi: NLRB Should Shut Boeing Plant Down Or Force It to Unionize
Nancy Pelosi To Boeing: Shut SC Plant Down
Rick Santorum says Nancy Pelosi is ‘flat out wrong’ on Boeing comment

That’s right, Democrats like Pelosi believe that not having a job is better than having a good paying nonunion job, even if the workers have already rejected unionization. And why do do Democrats work to destroy nonunion jobs? The answer to that is simple. The unions forcibly collect dues from their members, then the unions donate large amounts of their members’ dues money to elect Democrats, and then the Democrats work to further the Unions’ agenda, so the unions can collect more dues, to elect more Democrats, who work for the unions . . . a never ending, self-reinforcing cycle of political corruption.

/and the wheels on the bus go round and round . . .


Comedy Gold Power

Did she really say this [expletive deleted] with a straight face?

Clinton: US using “smart power” for Libya, Syria

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton defended the U.S. response to crises in Libya and Syria on Tuesday, saying the Obama administration is projecting “smart power” by refusing to act alone or with brute force to stop autocratic repression in the two countries.

. . .

Clinton said Libya was a study in the use of “strategic patience,” whereby the United States resisted the impulse for immediate intervention and instead helped to build support for the country’s nascent opposition, which the U.S. now recognizes as Libya’s legitimate government. She said the unprecedented NATO-Arab alliance protecting civilians on the ground was a key result of the tactics of smart power.

“This is exactly the kind of world that I want to see, where it’s not just the United States and everybody is standing on the sidelines while we bear the costs,” she said.

In Syria, Clinton said Washington had adopted a similar stance. The administration has imposed sanctions to protest a ruthless crackdown on reformers but has thus far resisted calls to make an explicit demand for President Bashar Assad to step down, something it did with Qaddafi.

Clinton said it would be a mistake for the administration to demand Assad’s ouster on its own because it wouldn’t be effective given Washington’s long-strained ties with Damascus and limited U.S. influence and trade with Syria.

See also:
U.S. taking “smart power” approach to Libya, Syria
Clinton: Libya, Syria show ‘smart power’ at work
Clinton: Libya, Syria show ‘smart power’ at work
Clinton: Libya, Syria show ‘smart power’ at work
Clinton: Libya, Syria show ‘smart power’ at work
‘Smart power’ at work, says Hillary Clinton
Clinton defends U.S. response on Syria
Clinton Passes Up Chance to Call on Assad to Step Down as Obama Remains Silent
A Conversation with Secretaries Hillary Clinton and Leon Panetta

Let’s recap: for months now, we’ve been bombing the [expletive deleted] out of Libya, a country that isn’t a direct threat to U.S. national security, killing civilians, destroying infrastructure, and backing a “rebel” movement containing elements of al Qaeda. That’s “smart power” and “strategic patience”, check. Meanwhile, Bashar Assad in Syria, a dictator in a country with plenty of American blood on its hands and a huge threat to U.S. national security, is killing civilians on a daily basis, with a death toll totaling in the thousands, and we’re doing nothing, because our relationship with Syria is “strained”. That’s also “smart power”, as well as “protecting civilians”, check.

What manner of counterproductive, nonsensical bull[expletive deleted] foreign policy is that? Smart Power my ass!

/are you seriously telling me that we have to put up with these moronic clowns for another year and a half?