Richard Trumka, President of the AFL-CIO, has chimed in on the crime in Arizona and like much of the American left, the union boss is decrying all the purported violent rhetoric coming from the American right.

On his AFL-CIO blog, Trumka wagged his finger at talk radio and cable TV saying that the “vitriolic, hate-filled rhetoric” found there is destroying the political climate in America. “We must find ways to passionately debate and even disagree with each other without using words that can give unstable individuals an incitement to engage in violent acts.,” Trumka wrote.

This is a pretty interesting argument to make for one such as Richard Trumka especially when reviewing the union chief’s own violent history. Trumka’s rhetoric has been used to spur bombings, assault, property destruction, even murder in one case.

Back in 1989, for instance, when Richard Trumka was the head of the United Mine Workers Union his union sponsored a violence soaked strike called the Pittson mining strike. During that strike Trumka’s union thugs employed car bombs, destroyed mine owner’s property, used shotguns, and other violent means to force mine owners to accept the union’s demands.

That wasn’t a lone incident in Trumka’s violent union advocacy, either. In 1993 Trumka’s union was also involved is a murder. And when Trumka was asked about the incident, he blew it off as unimportant. In fact, Trumka seemed to imply that the victim deserved what he got.

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?

And THIS is the man decrying the “vitriolic rhetoric” of the right? Upon what moral grounds does this man stand?