Black Senator Advocates Shooting Cops, Compares Law Enforcement To Islamic Terrorists

Facebook/Ernie Chambers

According to a state senator in Nebraska, the only difference between American police and ISIS terrorists is his belief that cops are more dangerous. During a recent hearing, Ernie Chambers shared his fiercely anti-police rhetoric, going so far as to say cops deserve to be shot without cause.

In a reference to ISIS, Chambers dismissed the terror group’s violence in favor of continuing his screed against law enforcement.

“My ISIS is the police,” he asserted, claiming the public servants “are licensed to kill us – children, old people.”

For those interested in battling terrorism, he suggested limiting their investigation to domestic sources.

“I wouldn’t go to Syria,” he said. “I wouldn’t go to Iraq. I wouldn’t go to Afghanistan. I wouldn’t go to Yemen. I wouldn’t go to Tunisia. I wouldn’t go to Lebanon. I wouldn’t go to Jordan. I would do it right here. Nobody from ISIS ever terrorized us as a people as the police do us daily.”

Twitter

Twitter

The abstract denunciation of police forces across the nation took on a far more menacing tone when Chambers speculated about what he would do with a gun.

“If I was going to carry a weapon,” he said, “it wouldn’t be against you. It wouldn’t be against these people who come here that I might have a dispute with. Mine would be for the police. And if I carried a gun, I’d want to shoot him first and then ask questions later, like they say the cop ought to do.”

Social media erupted with reaction to Chambers’ remarks, including a number of cops who took exception to his violent imagery.

Facebook

Facebook

Share this article on Facebook if you oppose Chambers’ comments.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Woman In Custody After Throwing Molotov Cocktail At People Praying For Life In Front Of Planned Parenthood

Photo Credit: Planetrussell (Creative Commons)

Image for representational purposes only.

A woman is in custody Monday after hurling a molotov cocktail at three women who were praying peacefully in front of the local Planned Parenthood.

03252015_Molotov Tweet_Twitter

The executive director of Central Texas Coalition for Life told KXAN Monday they were able to record part of the suspect’s license plate number before she fled the the scene. Melanie Toney has been charged with aggravated assault.

The group has been praying outside the facility that provides abortions as part of a ‘40 Days for Life’ campaign.

“I don’t know what it was, I thought it was a firecracker, but I saw a person toss out something out of her vehicle,” explained Faviola Hidalgo to KXAN right after her prayer session. She saw Toney flee in a white BMW SUV and dialed 911. “My heart just sank, I got so scared, I said, ‘Oh my God, that is fire!.”

“This is definitely the first time that something of this nature has been thrown at us that’s actually threatened and put people in danger, so it’s obviously very alarming,” said Heather Garner, executive director of Central Texas Coalition for Life.

Garner’s organization took to Facebook after the incident Tuesday, noting, “This is not the first time people have thrown objects at pro-lifers but clearly this instance was a more direct threat, and we always want to exercise caution.

The safety of our volunteers is of utmost importance which is why it is necessary to have at least 2 people praying at all times. Our approach has always been that we have a peaceful prayerful attitude and be aware of our surroundings, which is what these volunteers exemplified. Let us pray for all involved.

This is one of the stories they promoted:

Facebook

Facebook

h/t: The Daily Caller

Share this if you are pro-life and are against throwing Molotov cocktails at peaceful, prayerful people

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Bill O’Reilly And Glenn Beck Clash Over Future Of Republican Party

Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly

Founder of TheBlaze Glenn Beck joined Bill O’Reilly on Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor to discuss earlier comments made by Beck about leaving the Republican Party.

Last week, Beck spoke about leaving the party due to its inability to stand on principles and failure to stand against Obamacare and immigration.

“I’ve made my decision. I’m out,” he said. “I’m out of the Republican Party. I am not a Republican, I will not give a dime to the Republican Party. I’m out.”

O’Reilly pushed back against the comments, suggesting Beck would vote for Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and therefore not be leaving the Republican Party.

Beck argued that “blind support” for the party should be avoided, speaking to voters who simply vote for the D or R. But while he said that Cruz is his guy for now, he added that he would also support Senator Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Gov. Scott Walker, R-Wis.

“Here’s the thing — don’t vote for parties,” Beck said, with O’Reilly agreeing. “Don’t blindly support the parties. Support the people.”

h/t: The Blaze

Share this article on Facebook if you agree with Beck that parties need to be overlooked and candidates need to be elected based on their principles alone.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Calls For Obama’s Impeachment Could Well Grow Louder With Army’s Decision To Charge Bergdahl

Images Credit: Twitter

When President Obama agreed in mid-2014 to exchange five top Taliban leaders in U.S. custody for an American soldier held by a terror group in Afghanistan, prominent critics of the deal charged that the commander-in-chief had committed “high crimes and misdemeanors” and should be impeached.

At the heart of those early calls for impeachment were claims that Obama had broken federal law against supporting terrorists. A June 2014 post on WND quoted Fox News’ Senior Judicial Analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano:

“’We have a federal statute which makes it a felony to provide material assistance to any terrorist organization. It could be money, maps, professional services, any asset whatsoever, include human assets,’ [Napolitano] said.”

Colonel Allen West, a former member of Congress, called on Capitol Hill lawmakers “to draft articles of impeachment as no one is above the law in America.”

Joining in the stinging criticism of Obama’s questionable “Taliban Five” trade deal was the former assistant U.S. attorney who successfully prosecuted Islamic radicals behind the first bombing of the World Trade Center.

Andrew McCarthy argued that “transferring the five terrorists to Qatar in exchange for the release of Bergdahl ‘violates the law against material support to terrorism.’”

Commentator Matt Barber (whose columns frequently appear on Western Journalism) added his voice to the chorus calling for impeachment. Via CNS News:

Whether Obama is intentionally trying to overthrow his own government is open for debate. But that he is, ‘adhering to [America’s] Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort,’ is without question.

Those calls for Obama’s impeachment came after controversial details of the deal were made public last summer, but long before the Army’s investigation of the Bergdahl case was complete…and longer still before today’s announcement that the military is charging Bowe Bergdahl with desertion.

When President Obama formally and proudly announced Bergdahl’s release after five years in captivity, there was a high-profile Rose Garden celebration of sorts featuring Bergdahl’s parents. Fox News reminds us:

“Bob Bergdahl, who had studied Islam during his son’s captivity appeared with a full beard and read a Muslim prayer, while Bergdahl’s mother Jani embraced the president.”

Then the administration set about trumpeting its triumphant accomplishment in the media.

Obama’s National Security Advisor Susan Rice — known for her adamant assertion that the Benghazi attack was caused by an Internet video — went so far as to praise Bergdahl on national television, hailing the newly freed soldier as having “served the United States with honor and distinction.”

Rice’s declaration that the release of this “honorable” soldier marked a “joyous day” seems all the more removed from reality now that the Army has determined to prosecute Bergdahl for willfully leaving his post in Afghanistan.

Appearing on “The O’Reilly Factor” close to two months ago, retired Army officer, Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer, claimed the Pentagon had determined to charge Bergdahl; but the White House was desperately trying to keep that fact from going public because it would embarrass Obama.

Some of Bergdahl’s platoon-mates in recent months have been outspoken in their claims that Bowe Bergdahl voluntarily walked away from his unit and put his fellow soldiers lives at risk when they conducted dangerous missions to try to locate him.

At a Wednesday afternoon briefing about the Bergdahl case, an Army spokesman said there are two charges being lodged: “desertion with intent to shirk important or hazardous duty” and “misbevaior before the enemy” that endangered his fellow soldiers.

The next step in the case is for the Army to hold a preliminary hearing at Fort Sam Houston, Texas. If taken to a court martial and found guilty, Bowe Bergdahl could face life in prison.

The consequences for Barack Obama, beyond potential embarrassment and renewed political grief, are yet to be determined.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

White House Chief Of Staff Calls For End To Israel’s 50 Year ‘Occupation’ Of Palestine

USAID U.S. Agency for International Development (Flickr)

White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough delivered a strong message to the annual J-Street Israel conference in Washington on Monday, stating, “An occupation that has lasted for almost 50 years must end, and the Palestinian people must have the right to live in and govern themselves in their own sovereign state.”

McDonough’s word choice of “occupation” is among the most strident language the Obama administration has used in the week since Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu won re-election. Obama’s chief of staff added, “The borders of Israel and an independent Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps. Each state needs secure and recognized borders, and there must be robust provisions that safeguard Israel’s security.”

President Obama used the same language to describe the current governing relationship between Israel and the Arab citizens living in the West Bank. In a joint appearance with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah in 2013, Obama said, “The Palestinian people deserve an end to occupation and the daily indignities that come with it.”

Israel gained control of the West Bank, the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip, and the Sinai Peninsula during the Six Day War in 1967. The conflict ignited when Egypt amassed forces on the Jewish nation’s southern border and allied with Jordan and Syria, which struck Israel on multiple fronts. Israel prevailed in the war.

Israel returned the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt in 1979 following the Camp David Peace Accords, and withdrew from the Gaza Strip, relinquishing local control to the Palestinian Authority in 2005. The Gaza Strip had been part of Egypt prior to 1967. Israel retained control of the Golan Heights from Syria and the West Bank from Jordan for security and territorial reasons. There was no Palestinian state prior to the 1967 War. Though Israel has turned over local control of communities in the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority, as a result of the 1993 Oslo Accords, it has not been willing to cede complete governance of the territory to establish a Palestinian state.

Netanyahu has stated on multiple occasions that the pre-‘67 borders are indefensible. Previous Israeli prime ministers have held the same view. When Jordan controlled the West Bank, the distance between its border through Israel to the Mediterranean Sea at its narrowest point was nine miles.

Creative Commons

Netanyahu has walked back a statement made the day before his election last week indicating there would be no independent Palestinian state on his watch, but has maintained the current leadership of the Palestinian Authority, which is allied with the terrorist group Hamas, dictates that the climate is not right for a peace deal at this time. President Obama reportedly told Netanyahu that the United States would still “need to re-assess our options following the Prime Minister’s new positions and comments regarding the two state solution.”

McDonough’s remarks at the J-Street conference, coupled with other statements by White House officials, indicate one aspect of the administration’s re-assessment may be to pull support for Israel at the United Nations, potentially paving the way for a U.N. imposed two-state solution.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom