“Get a little bloody:” It’s the union way

By Michelle Malkin  •  February 23, 2011 10:51 AM

Thuggery? What thuggery? Oh, yeah. That thuggery:

A Democratic Congressman from Massachusetts is raising the stakes in the nation’s fight over the future of public employee unions, saying emails aren’t enough to show support and that it is time to “get a little bloody.”

“I’m proud to be here with people who understand that it’s more than just sending an email to get you going. Every once and awhile you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary,” Rep. Mike Capuano (D-Ma.) told a crowd in Boston on Tuesday rallying in solidarity for Wisconsin union members. …

This is not Capuano’s first brush with violent rhetoric. Last month Capuano said, “Politicians, I think are too bland today. I don’t know what they believe in. Nothing wrong with throwing a coffee cup at someone if you’re doing it for human rights.”

Via NHJournal.

Watch:

More via The Hill:

Capuano made his remarks before a crowd of union members in Boston, along with other members of the state’s congressional delegation. Massachusetts has an influential union population that could loom large over the 2012 Senate race. Capuano is considering getting in that race to challenge Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) next fall.

“This is going to be a struggle at least for the next two years. Let’s be serious about this. They’re not going to back down and we’re not going to back down. This is a struggle for the hearts and minds of America,” Capuano told union members.

And capillaries, too, apparently.

None of you are surprised, of course.

“Getting bloody” is the Big Labor way.

As Wisconsin unions call for general strikes, I remind you again of the violent legacy of AFL-CIO thug-in-chief Richard Trumka:

Trumka and Obama will cast Big Labor as an unassailable force for good in American history. But when it comes to terrorizing workers, Trumka knows whereof he speaks.

Meet Eddie York. He was a workingman whose story will never scroll across Obama’s teleprompter. A nonunion contractor who operated heavy equipment, York was shot to death during a strike called by the United Mine Workers 17 years ago. Workmates who tried to come to his rescue were beaten in an ensuing melee. The head of the UMW spearheading the wave of strikes at that time? Richard Trumka. Responding to concerns about violence, he shrugged to the Virginian-Pilot in September 1993: “I’m saying if you strike a match and you put your finger in it, you’re likely to get burned.” Incendiary rhetoric, anyone?

A federal jury convicted one of Trumka’s UMW captains on conspiracy and weapons charges in York’s death. According to the Washington, D.C.-based National Legal and Policy Center, which tracks Big Labor abuse, Trumka’s legal team quickly settled a $27 million wrongful death suit filed by York’s widow just days after a judge admitted evidence in the criminal trial. An investigative report by Reader’s Digest disclosed that Trumka “did not publicly discipline or reprimand a single striker present when York was killed. In fact, all eight were helped out financially by the local.”

In Illinois, Trumka told UMW members to “kick the s**t out of every last” worker who crossed his picket lines, according to the Nashville (Ill.) News. And as the National Right to Work Foundation (pdf), the leading anti-forced unionism organization in the country, pointed out, other UMW coalfield strikes resulted in what one judge determined were “violent activities … organized, orchestrated and encouraged by the leadership of this union.”

Trumka washed off the figurative bloodstains and moved up the ranks. As AFL-CIO secretary, he notoriously refused to testify in a sordid 1999 embezzlement trial involving his labor boss brethren at the Teamsters Union. No surprise. Thugs of a feather: Trumka’s violence-promoting record echoes the riotous Teamsters strikes dating back to the 1950s, when the union organized taxicab companies to target workers with gas bombs, bottles and fists.

And now, Trumka is spearheading a Democratic Party get-out-the-vote campaign by far-left groups — publicized in the revolutionary Marxist People’s World — to “energize an army of tens of thousands who will return to their neighborhoods, churches, schools and voting booths to prevent a Republican takeover of Congress in November and begin building a new permanent coalition to fight for a progressive agenda.”

Take those as literal fighting words. The bloody consequences of compulsory unionism cannot be ignored.

***

Flashback: SEIU and the “persuasion of power;” Update: St. Louis thuggery on tape

Flashback: Caught on tape: SEIU thuggery

Flashback: The progressive “climate of hate:” An illustrated primer, 2000-2010

~ For the latest breaking news, be sure to join Michelle's e-mail list ~
Posted in: SEIU,Unions,Wisconsin

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments


  1. #101
    On February 23rd, 2011 at 3:48 pm, Virginia Patriot said:

    First we have to get past the RNC to get a GOP nominee who is not playing for the other team, ala McCain.

  2. #102
    On February 23rd, 2011 at 3:57 pm, Virginia Patriot said:

    In 2012 we must make the candidates address border security and immigration enforcement.
    20-30 million citizens of other countries are in our country illegally, 55% from Mexico, most of the rest from other Central and South American countries. Let’s not ignore the leftward voting trends of these countries. It is notable that they picked May Day, an old communist day of celebration for their marches.

    Most polls show at least half of the American citizens of Hispanic descent want the borders and laws enforced. Republicans will not win by alienating their current voters to get 40% of a new small block that will grow very large, very fast if amnesty is granted. That will grow the Democrats vote larger and faster as the influx increases exponentially as the result of another amnesty. It will spell the end of the Republican Party. The people who used to vote Republican will stop voting or form a new party. Conservatives will lose political influence and we will slide inexorably towards socialism (it has already started).

    Most of what you hear about this issue is political propaganda that tries to convince you to give up your country without a fight, including on Fox News. The big money players are all on board the cheap labor express, they care not that American citizens do not want another amnesty. We know the last one resulted in 10 times the number of illegal aliens and a general disregard of our laws. The next one will be equally successful.

    The RNC wants an amnesty candidate.
    Don’t vote for one.

  3. #103
    On February 23rd, 2011 at 4:34 pm, Joan of Snark said:

    On February 23rd, 2011 at 3:48 pm, Virginia Patriot said:

    “…we have to get past the RNC to get a GOP nominee who is not playing for the other team….”

    You’re absolutely right. Personally, I would advocate no money going to the RNC but instead directly to the very best GOP candidate (and that is not Palin, Huckabee or Romney or any of the other “celebrity” names being tested in recent straw polls). Then get everyone to vote in the primary election.

    Because there is an disgustingly good chance we end up with a RINO in the White House, it is even more important to get the conservative win in every Congressional and state-level seat possible to act as containment.

  4. #104
    On February 23rd, 2011 at 4:38 pm, Joan of Snark said:

    On February 23rd, 2011 at 3:57 pm, Virginia Patriot said:

    “The RNC wants an amnesty candidate.>

    The RNC needs a reality check. In the form of millions and millions of missing donation checks, that is.

  5. #105
    On February 23rd, 2011 at 4:41 pm, old trooper said:

    You know that this Toad is talking about someone elses blood, not His.

  6. #106
    On February 23rd, 2011 at 5:06 pm, BK said:

    Looks like the left does not want a democracy, but a thugocracy.

  7. #107
    On February 23rd, 2011 at 5:07 pm, granite said:

    On February 23rd, 2011 at 5:06 pm, BK said:

    Looks like the left does not want a democracy, but a thugocracy.

    I believe that it has always been thus.

  8. #108
    On February 23rd, 2011 at 5:18 pm, greenLibertarian said:

    The saying should be “get your opponents a little bloody”, or a lot bloody?

  9. #109
    On February 23rd, 2011 at 5:55 pm, Merlyn said:

    If the Dems want civility in public discourse, this schmuck is certainly not promoting it. He should be impeached by the House for inciting violence.

  10. #110
    On February 23rd, 2011 at 6:20 pm, hopin_society said:

    On February 23rd, 2011 at 11:02 am, spaceycakes said:
    I’m up fer a little–wanna tussle, Mikey?

    mikey cup o’ GUANO don’t want nuttin’ to do wid me, needer

    where’s that lying cleaver to demand more civility – right, just from the troublemaking repubs

  11. #111
    On February 23rd, 2011 at 9:04 pm, beenthere said:

    Has anyone called for Rep. Mike Capuano (D-Ma.) to resign?
    Will anyone call for Rep. Mike Capuano (D-Ma.) to resign?
    If Rep. Mike Capuano were an R instead of a D, every republican congressperson and every conservative pundit would be demanding his resignation.
    Why the double standard?
    Very well, I now demand that every republican congressperson and every conservative pundit who refuses to demand Rep. Mike Capuano resign, resign themselves forthwith.
    Somebody needs to say it.

  12. #112
    On February 23rd, 2011 at 10:39 pm, OK_Loyalist said:

    beenthere What really needs to be said 1st is. “You’re under arrest for inciting violence in the streets”!

  13. #113
    On February 24th, 2011 at 12:58 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

    Massachusetts has an influential union population that could loom large over the 2012 Senate race. Capuano is considering getting in that race to challenge Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) next fall.

    Yes, and we saw how the unions “loomed large” in MA in the 2009 Senate race, didn’t we?

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Follow me on Twitter Follow me on Facebook