Yet another right-winger is threatening violence against Democrats and calling for an armed rebellion against the government. This time, the individual making the outrageous statements is a police chief in Pennsylvania.
Mark Kessler is the chief of police in Gilberton, Pennsylvania. Like many police officers, Kessler loves guns. So much, in fact, that he videotapes himself firing various automatic weapons and posts the videos on Youtube. But Kessler doesn’t just shoot his guns on video — he also shoots off his mouth. His obsession with guns combined with his opposition to sensible gun control laws led him to completely destroy his own credibility as a law enforcement officer.
Raw Story reports that in one video, Kessler says,
“F*ck all you libtards out there, as a matter of fact, read my shirt.”
He then turns around and reveals the words “Liberals take it in the a**,” which is either a slur aimed at the liberal support of same-sex marriage or a threat of gun violence. Either way, it’s outrageous.
Rather than stop there, however, Kessler continues his rant.
“You take it in the ass and I don’t give a f*ck what you say so you can all just go f*ck yourselves. Period. I won’t be going to D.C. and I don’t give a f*ck. If you f*cking maniacs want to turn this into an armed revolt, knock yourselves out. I’m not about that, so see you on the other side.”
Here’s the video:
Apparently, Kessler is angry about gun control being implemented in Schuykill County by the democratically elected officials there. So, rather than go to court or start a petition or waiting till the next election to vote for new leaders, Kessler wants right-wing militias to march on the county and remove Democrats from office by violent force. Here’s an error-filled post on Kessler’s Facebook page from Tuesday in which he calls for the armed rebellion and refers to Democrats as “antiamerican thugs” and “nazis,” in true Tea Party form:
“For all of you waiting for this day, waiting for the word! TODAY IS THAT DAY ,SPREAD THE WORD, Schuylkill county Pennsylvania, birth place on unconstitutional gun control nullification! I will not stand idle while tyrants attack the constitution . A massive rally will need to be assembled right here in the heart of Schuylkill county ! I stood for my father, my mother, my country, our constitution , I now ask you to stand with me , sholder to sholder, time to show these political hacks here in Schuylkill county they don’t tell we the people anything, it’s we the people who tell the government. If they want to fire the first shot let it begin right here in Schuylkill county , I changed the course of history , one person pushed back against a tyrannical anti constitution government, it’s time we show these tyrants we will not stand for any more violations on our constitution or our freedoms . Every militia , every csf member who can attend please do. P.s Pennsylvania is a open carry state n firearms will be present . So come with your flags n your firearms. MOLON LABE. I’m calling on all true Americans , all militia members, all true oath keepers to assemble, be ready to march on a tyrannical county government right here in Schuylkill county Pennsylvania, democrats are the true enemy of our country, our freedoms, our constitution, along with liberal news agency’s , liberal news reporters, much like hitlers nazis , time we clean these antiamerican thugs from office. TIME TO CHOSE SIDES IS UPON US” [sic on...everything]
So far, the mayor of Gilberton is standing by Kessler despite the fact that he has clearly shown that he is a danger to society. How can any law enforcement official be trusted by the community if they clearly have an unhealthy bias towards a large part of the citizenry? Those who have liberal beliefs clearly won’t be treated fairly by this officer. Therefore, he should either resign or be fired and replaced with someone who won’t scare members of the community into believing they may be the victims of a police shooting simply because they support Democrats.
As further proof that Kessler is violent toward Democrats, here’s a video of him shooting a scary clown target he refers to as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi:
Clearly, Kessler is not fit to lead any police force. Police officers are supposed to be impartial enforcers of the law and keepers of the peace. They are not supposed to advocate for violence against others, and they are not supposed to call for the violent overthrow of the democratically elected government they work for. This officer is clearly an extreme right-winger and it wouldn’t surprise me if he hates minorities and homosexuals as well. As we’ve seen recently, it’s easy for a racist to murder someone and get away with it by claiming self-defense. It would be even easier for a cop to get away with such violence, and that should make every citizen within Kessler’s jurisdiction very concerned.
Kessler isn’t the first right-winger to advocate for violence. Just last May, Mississippi state Rep. Andy Gipson openly called for executing homosexuals on his own Facebook page, sparking outrage across the country. In January 2013, a gun company CEO advocated for assassinating President Obama over the sensible gun control laws he was calling for in the wake of the Sandy Hook mass shooting. All the way back in 2010, Republican Senate candidate Sharron Angle called for “second amendment remedies” to oust Democrats from office. She was just one of multiple conservatives to do so.
This latest tirade should make everyone think hard about what conservatives actually stand for. Because they clearly have an obsession with gun violence and fantasize a lot about killing people and violently overthrowing government in order to get their way.
Source:http://www.blogger.com/feeds/22797374/posts/default/88245414326155819
Right-Wing Pennsylvania Police Chief Calls For Violence Against Democrats And The Government (VIDEO) Images
Right-Wing Pennsylvania Police Chief Calls For Violence Against ...
(408 x 271 - 116.52 KB - jpeg)
NH Cops Use Wiretapping Laws to Crackdown on Citizens Who Videotape ...
(369 x 480 - 289.49 KB - jpeg)
Beware of Homeland Security Training for Local Law Enforcement, by An ...
(480 x 315 - 31.79 KB - jpeg)
YORK/HOUSTON (Reuters) - Oil major BP Plc has secured U.S. government ...
(348 x 336 - 48.02 KB - jpeg)
Visit our News page 
Government surveillance and jihad Andrew McCarthy, who prosecuted the 1993 World Trade Center bombing case, has a way of cutting through the fog. His most recent column in National Review Online addresses the current controversy over government surveillance. It’s well worth taking the time to carefully read it. The National-Security Right Goes Silent On the NSA, the dog will not bark. By Andrew C. McCarthy http://www.nationalreview.com/article/351128/national-security-right-goes-silent-andrew-c-mccarthy 
ANDREW C. MCCARTHY The jihad rages on, but the War on Terror is over. There is no longer a national-security consensus — no longer the political support for wartime defense measures, much less offensive combat operations. While the enemy continues to fight, our will to break the enemy’s will has vanished. After a contentious week, that much is clear. The controversy swirling around shadowy intelligence programs hasn’t gotten to the bottom of those programs, but it tells us everything we need to know about . . . us. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s dog that did not bark is a metaphor worn out by journalists. This week, though, the lack of a bark was loud and clear: The bark of the national-security Right defending the wartime powers of the presidency. For a variety of reasons, many of the protagonists have developed amnesia about how we came to have the programs now provoking all the cavil: the debates over the PATRIOT Act and FISA (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act). After a series of attacks through the Nineties, the 9/11 atrocities destroyed the World Trade Center, struck the Pentagon, and killed nearly 3,000 Americans. In the savage clarity, our nation finally realized that what I’ve called “kinetic Islam” — a combination of militant jihadists and their sharia-supremacist enablers — was at war with the United States. The PATRIOT Act was a product of our vigorous and persuasive contention, on the national-security right, that the challenge was an enemy force, not a criminal-justice problem. That challenge demanded a national war-footing, not judicial due process. It was precisely this contention, moreover, that beat back the Left’s effort to intrude the judiciary into the collection of foreign intelligence — constitutionally, a paradigm executive function — when FISA was overhauled in 2008. In fits and starts over the years, progressives and libertarians have aligned against the war, for different reasons. Hardwired to find American fault in every dispute, the Left is sympathetic to Islamic supremacism’s indictment against the United States, if not its barbaric methods. Libertarians have been wary because war inexorably enhances the power of the state at the expense of liberty — Big Government is more to be feared than the jihad. That this fear is overstated does not mean it is frivolous. It is real, and has been stoked to a fare-thee-well by the “War on Terror.” The label itself betrays our cravenness. Unwilling to name the enemy for fear of giving offense, the government framed the challenge not as an aggressor but as an aggressive tactic. It encouraged Americans to go on with their lives as normal (lest “the terrorists win”). Necessarily, this ensured that the public would notice the war only in the government’s defense measures against the tactic. These were thus certain to become more onerous; after all, that was how politicians too timid to say “Islam” or “jihad” proved they were tough on . . . er . . . “violent extremism.” But these defense measures, erosions of liberty and privacy, could be abided only as long as the public felt profoundly threatened. That feeling would certainly not last, no matter how long we had troops on faraway battlefields, if the public was not (a) invested in victory over our enemies; (b) persuaded that being molested at the airport and similar indignities had something to do with achieving victory; and (c) convinced that the lack of similar-scale attacks in the years after 9/11 was due to the defense measures. The most compelling claim against the war effort, argued jointly by progressives and libertarians, was that there was no conceivable conclusion to a war of this nature. Wars against traditional enemies end when the enemy — usually, a nation-state — surrenders or strikes a treaty. But how can a war against a tactic end? Consequently, the argument went, the War on Terror would go on indefinitely, and with it the metastasizing security state. This argument is now muted on the Left. Bush-deranged progressives turn out to be quite comfortable with a security state as long as one of their own is running it. But for libertarians, the argument has grown ever more heated. Nothing, not even war, happens in a vacuum. Over the last six years, as libertarian angst churned over surveillance, detention, military commissions, and drone attacks, the progressive-lite GOP establishment gave way to hardcore Obama statism. As a result, libertarians, quite appropriately, have become a hugely influential opposition faction. They are a big part of the Tea Party’s energy, and the Tea Party is the dynamo of the Right. Increasingly, as the Right’s ne plus ultra has become stopping Big Government’s advance, conservatives and Republicans have been more willing to overlook libertarian objections to adhesive security measures — sometimes, even to see a good deal of sense in them. [CONTINUE READING ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ACT for America P.O. Box 12765 Pensacola, FL 32591 www.actforamerica.org ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure. The news items, blogs, educational materials and other information in our emails and on our website are only intended to provide information, news and commentary on events and issues related to the threat of radical Islam. Much of this information is based upon media sources, such as the AP wire services, newspapers, magazines, books, online news blog and news services, and radio and television, which we deem to be reliable. However, we have undertaken no independent investigation to verify the accuracy of the information reported by these media sources. We therefore disclaim all liability for false or inaccurate information from these media sources. We also disclaim all liability for the third-party information that may be accessed through the material referenced in our emails or posted on our website. HOW CAN I TELL OTHERS ABOUT YOUR ORGANIZATION? Send a personalized version of this message to your friends. HOW CAN I SUPPORT YOUR ORGANIZATION? Click here to give an online donation. 
