Rockford Tea Party Calls for Resignation of Teamsters President

-By Warner Todd Huston

After Teamsters President Jimmy Hoffa incited violence against Republicans as he introduced President Obama at Monday’s rally in Detroit, at least one organization called for Hoffa to resign over his intemperate and violent rhetoric. The Rockford Tea Party of northern Illinois made the call for Hoffa to resign.

Here is what Hoffa’s ignorant rhetoric sounded:

Rockford TEA PARTY calls for Labor Leader Jimmy Hoffa to Resign

Rockford, IL – September 5, 2011 — The Rockford Tea Party calling for Labor Leader and Democrat Party Operative, Jimmy Hoffa to resign after the Union Leader made calls prior to President Obama’s speech in Detroit to incite Union members to violent action against Tea Party Americans.

“They’ve got a war, they got a war with us and there’s only going to be one winner. It’s going to be the workers of Michigan, and America. We’re going to win that war,” said Hoffa.

“President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. Let’s take these son of bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong,” Hoffa said.

Calls to violence can never be acceptable in this civil society. Hoffa’s remarks were made in an introduction to Obama speaking to Auto Workers and Unions in Detroit and this sort of angry, hateful, call to violence should be repudiated by the President with a call from the President to ask Hoffa to resign his very public position of influence.

Hoffa’s call to violent action was and is incendiary and dangerous. If even one member of the Tea Party is harmed by anyone after Hoffa’s call to violence, then Hoffa should be held accountable by the Justice System and Charged appropriately.

Jimmy Hoffa must resign and should never hold a position of Public Influence with any organization again.

On Tuesday, Teamster Hoffa doubled down on his comments saying that he is proud of his violent rhetoric. For his part, Obama has pretended nothing happened. So, despite all his faux claims for a new civility, it is plain that the hypocrite-in-chief only intends for the right to be quieted, not his own, violent, profane compatriots on the left.


Leave a comment
  • He's a Hoffa. It's the Teamsters. Unless someone has a suitable pair of concrete boots, Rockford dept. of the Tea Party isn't going to make any difference.

    I'm not sure that it is incitement, anyway. In this case, nobody told Loughner II to get a gun (at least from what you quoted).Labor always has its armies.

  • I am not convinced it is incitement, either. But the problem here is that this EXACT same type of rhetoric when used by conservatives is attacked as "inciting violence" by this hypocrite president and his handmaidens in the Old Media. It is a double standard.

  • In reply to publiusforum:

    Well, did anyone say "get a gun and shoot Michelle Bachmann?"

  • In reply to jack:

    No. No one said "get a gun and shoot Gabrielle Giffords" either, but the left CLAIMED it happened via the supposed "violent rhetoric" employed by Sarah Palin and the Tea Party.

    You can't have it both ways, sir. Either this type of rhetoric is wrong for both the left AND the right, or it is meaningless all the way around.

  • In reply to publiusforum:

    Then, at this point, it is meaningless. There is a First Amendment, and as conservative Supreme Court justices continually point out, especially with regard to political discourse, and so long as it is not up to the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" level, protected.

    So, I guess neither the left nor the right believes in the First Amendment.

  • In reply to jack:

    Actually, it is the left that doesn't believe in the First Amendment. Nor do they believe in the Second.After all, the left is the ones that want things like gun control, gun banning, and the inaptly named Fairness Doctrine.

    Again, THIS piece is a response to the hypocrisy of the left and its handmaidens in the media for attacking Republicans for this type of rhetoric while giving the left a complete pass on the same stuff.

    If you are unconcerned by either side using this sort of rhetoric, that is fine, but to claim that it is some kind of plot by the right to prevent free speech is not only disingenuous but factually incorrect.

  • In reply to publiusforum:

    Well. did I say the last clause? No.

    As far as people on both sides being hypocrites, that is nothing new.

  • In reply to jack:

    I never said both sides are hypocrites on this.

  • In reply to publiusforum:

    I did.

    You sure implied it with all the "well the other side says it" except all of your tirade was at the left. Since it is the Tea Party that is demanding a repudiation from Obama for associating with Hoffa, well both sides are.

    Of course, both sides have a First Amendment right to make goofs of themselves.

  • "Of course, both sides have a First Amendment right to make goofs of themselves."

    LOL, now that I can agree with and both do so with gusto!

Leave a comment