The White House via Wikimedia Commons

Despicable!

The White House via Wikimedia Commons

The left has lost its mind over President Trump’s perfectly constitutional decision to nominate Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. In the latest outbursts from the left’s collective psychotic break, progressives have taken to Twitter to make threats over replacing Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Here are the most outrageous:

Beau Willimon

Peabody Awards via Wikimedia Commons

Beau Willimon is an American playwright and screenwriter whose credits include Netflix’s “House of Cards.”

Reza Aslan

roanokecollege via Wikimedia Commons

A failed CNN host, Reza’s Twitter history includes several particularly odious threats, including one were he strongly hinted at beating up Covington Catholic High School student Nick Sandmann.

Emmett Macfarlane

Victor Vucicevich via Wikimedia Commons

Macfarlane is a professor at Ontario’s University of Waterloo. He’s written a book about the Supreme Court of Canada. Sounds exciting, eh?

Laura Bassett

Bassett is currently a freelancer and GQ columnist.

EDITORS NOTE: We at AAN appreciate you and your support of our work to counter the mainstream media narrative. Please share our news with your friends and family and encourage them to sign up for our newsletter.

READ NEXT: Supreme Court Gives Trump Decisive Victory >>

Advertisement
Help President Trump Stop Joe Biden [ACT NOW]



Comments

  1. Start liberal dem bloodsucking parasitical ticks, when you start we will bury all of you, no more talk no more voting we start killing you and it will be mercilesss

    1. Their places should go up since they like talking about burning things down. Start with their place of work and home

          1. So you believe that it’s not wrong to threaten to burn? So why — by what logic — do you threaten those who do what — by your statements, not mine — you have declared not to be wrong?

          2. I think I may have read your comment backwards. I realize now that it is likely you were not making a threat. If that’s the case, I apologize.

      1. NO. th’ Colossal DIFFERENCE is that we are DEFENDING ourselves via the only way it’s rationally possible. Rabid, HOWLING lib-TARDS are akin to Vermin, pond SCUM, roaches, and EBOLA. And, the “cure” is to K1LL. You don’t “reason” with a… cockroach…

          1. No. You assume who are my fellows simply because you assume my beliefs, even though I have expressed none of the beliefs I am said to hold.

      2. You and your fellow liberals are counting on the conservatives to be placid and let you continue to destroy people’s lives but that’s coming to a halt. By the way, we don’t fight your kind of evil with tolerance and understanding. If you want to be violent, then we’ll be violent right back.

        1. I write a few sentences that do not contain any liberal ideas, yet you somehow conclude incorrectly that I am a liberal. (For example, I said absolute nothing to indicate the slightest desire for destruction of lives or anything else.) I count on conservatives to believe and to act like the conservatives we profess to be. A core conservative belief is in freedom — for those you disagree with most as much as for yourself. If it is wrong — as every civilized person knows it is — to suggest that conseratives’ homes be burned because of what they, it is just as wrong to suggest the same for liberals’ homes. As evil as then continuing riot are, they are a matter for law enforcement, not individuals. If law enforcement doesn’t do its job, the answer is to fix that problem, not vigilante justice. As I said, acting to do what one thinks needs to be done outside the law is acting like the violent left does. Evil deeds do not fight (but rather join with) evil.

          1. I agree with your ideals but this has been going on too long and if police or government can’t solve the problem then there needs to be another alternative.

          2. The alternative, whether by election or recall to change the leadership or by federal action, is to get law enforcement to do its job. The rioters claim to be rioting for social justice. (Many, if not most, appear to be rioting for the sake of rioting.) They will tell you that racial injustice has been going on too long, that government can’t (or won’t) solve the problem, and there is must be an alternative. Or course, they are wrong. But replace “racial injustice” with “rioting” and you have exactly your statement. The reasons for action in each case are different, but the mindset is the same: conditions are such that one is justified in discarding the law and doing whatever one views as necessary. The riots need to be stopped and there needs to be a return to the rule of law, which cannot happen except through the law.

          3. These bastard BLM and Antifa people are going to absolutely raise unholy hell very soon. You BEST be ready to defend yourself, because it’s gonna get REAL ugly.

      3. That’s not true, liberal anarchists want to bring the fight to ME!
        I will NOT be bullied by a bunch of thugs, l WILL respond with deadly force!

        1. Do you live in a riot area? You have a right to protect yourself when necessary, but not to go looking for trouble.

          1. the town i live in suffered millions in damages from looting and rioting in the name of black lives matter, it was disgraceful…my personal home suffered no damage, even though this occured less than a quarter mile from where i live…if they did decide to attack in my residential neighborhood, and i or my family were threatened, and my residence attacked…blm or not…they better bring body bags as i will shoot to kill…..and i am licensed and i hit what i aim at.

          2. Yes ! The USA, the riot area. Any America being attacked requires support and defended, period. To standby and watch the anarchists take one city and one neighborhood at a time until they arrive in my city, town and neighborhood is to late. An attack on any innocent american or property is an attack on all Americans.

          3. Gee, Bob, That’s big of you giving me a right to “protect myself”. Does that right extend to me protecting my 95 year old neighbor? (Just asking… not that your opinion matters to me operationally.)

          4. I am not giving you the right. I was just acknowledging that you have that right so that, hopefully, I would not be accused of not wanting people to defend themselves. Yes, this includes defending a neighbor. Perhaps I should have used broader wording. But a right for defense applies, by definition, to defense. It is not the right to, as a number of commenters here appear to want, appoint oneself judge, jury, and executioner over those doing wrong. That is opposite to the foundations of our legal system. So it comes down to whether one supports or opposes that system and the rule of law. One cannot do both.

      4. So we just stand by and watch. There are enough psychos to take the threats literally. Those that make the threat watch it happen and laugh. Prevent defense does not work. Proactive defense is the only answer.
        We have already had violent shooting of congressional reps and an attack after the repub convention.
        The the communist left has declared war on the America way of governing and it’s people.
        We will defend against all enemies foreign and domestic.
        That has been my “Oath of Office” for 57 years.

    2. I killed better enemies than this leftist scum in Vietnam. Let them bring it.. should be fun. Semper Fi!!

  2. It’s to bad it’s not their places to burn first. They like talking about burning things down it should be their homes. The doj needs to pay these Cowards a visit locking then up putting them in gitmo without any communication. Ruth will be haunting all those democracts who used her for political gain and not caring for her health. I were her I haunt every democract including these who make threats

      1. These assholes are terrorist they don’t get a trial they go straight to Gitmo and i would love to be one of the guards.

        1. I assume that you are talking about Americans, not those captured on a foreign battlefield. I’m sure that your are aware that the Constitutional way to determine if an American is guilty is through a trial. Imprisoning without trial is the way dictatorships do things and is an attack on American values as much as the actions of those you consider terrorists.

          1. Of course not. Why do you even ask, since I have never remotely suggested that and, in fact, have already answered the question?

          2. Terrorists on American soil are terrorists. Arrest and a midnight flight to GITMO or internal black prisons for interrogation/ water boarding.

          3. Before you treat them as terrorists, you need to determine if they are terrorists. The American way to determine that is through arrest, trial, and conviction. Do not discard the law in the guise of protecting the law.

      2. Terrorist are arrested And can be held forever without due process. The law since 9/11. GITMO is the place you hold terrorists.

        1. The Supreme Court has ruled against infinite detention without due process, eeven for those at GITMO, which is explicitly for non-Americans.

          1. Whether or not there should be action depends entirely on the nature of the action. Standing for the rule of law is not weak.

  3. If the left want to die in place try and destroy America and our constitution. You forget there are more Americans who believe in our country and constitution and we will bury everyone who tries to destroy it. You cowards talk bad but have no clue about a war and the devastating cost.

  4. I’ll Give a response to each page ! page one, arrest the lot and charge them with terroristic threats against the Nation and constitutional correctness….

  5. When these threats are made, start the arrests, trial and prosecution. This CRAP has gone on for far too long and the American people are tired of the DEMOCOMMUNISTS getting away with everything thanks to the PROVEN “double standards”, only “enjoyed” by those individuals with a “D:” after their name.

  6. I read once that a person who has no recourse other than Vile Language is attempting to cover up a lack of intellect and education.

  7. First of all , as far as being prominent liberals, I have never heard of a β€œF”ing one of them. I’m sick of the hate leadership that comes from pelosi.she can go to H as far as I’m concerned

  8. they better remember one thing,they start it we will finish it and it won’t be murder it will be just us itroducing them to their maker.

    1. They have already started the war. Just need to cut funding, supply, comm & transportation. Pull them off the street one by one and imprison them. Black ops work. They are no different than isis.

  9. I find that Communists that talk tough and promote violence are the biggest cowards. Keyboards don’t fight back. They would never say this to a combat veteran or an Oathkeeper or Proud Boys member. They would never say this to any red blooded American’s face. Their balls get big on the internet then shrink to acorns in the real world. They really don’t want to go down that road, and they won’t.

  10. Bring it on. We have all the guns, they don’t like guns remember. Most of us have sat back and watch this crap go on. We have to work, feed our families and protect the Country but at some point we will stop watching, when that day comes it won’t be pretty. Don’t poke the Bear, you won’t like the outcome.

    1. They don’t like YOUR guns, John. Don’t underestimate your enemies!
      Most are fools, but they are led by Marxist savages. Who are very capable!

  11. there is no place in the US Constitution that legalizes the activities of seditionists, anarchists, communists, socialists, Islamists or any other ‘ists’ that advocate anti-American platforms. Jail them, give them a military tribunal, then jail or execute them all!

  12. Those calling for the destruction of the capital or Supreme Court should be the first ones arrested when the destruction begins. this may just be their official communication method to the anarchists. No paper or AI trail directly to the leadership of antifa & blm.

  13. These people talk big and tough. I’ll venture to say they were afraid to join the cub scouts when they were little boys.

  14. What is wrong with all these so called intellects. They should be arrested for inciting violence, thrown in jail and forget about them. These idiots know that a vacancy in the Supreme Court is automatically filled by the sitting President. Except, they hate this sitting President. Too bad suck it up little sunflowers and we hope it rains like the dickens on your parades. Don’t like our Constitution and our Democracy, I can help you pack your bags to some third world country and deny you re-entry. You are not Americans, you are a pack of liberal socialists and communists wanting to change our Nation. We the People will not allow it.

  15. Prominent Liberals? I think not, these are nobodies trying to be somebodies. I’m betting all talk and no action scumbags. The type that would write articles trying to get the masses to do their dirty work.

  16. Judge Amy Coney Barrett will be seated, and when the lib’s choose to start rioting ….they will find themselves facing more trouble than they’ll want!

  17. These goofball radicals deserve no attention, except a lot of people listen to them and act in very destructive ways. A house with a couple and their two young children was burned down with them in it in the middle of the night recently because they had a Trump sign in their yard. The escaped the flames but their house was a total lose. People have been violently attacked on the street for nothing more than wearing a baseball cap. This is what these messed up people create. Free speech, when it results in motivating others to commit violent crimes should be illegal.

  18. Psuedo Nazis’ at it again. Playbook taken right out of “Project Nazi: The Blueprints of Evil”. Wake up people!

  19. If President Trump wins reelection, he should go medieval against his opponents — starting with these guys. If _anything_ happens, he can get them for inciting a riot or something.

  20. The Senate simply must confirm a new Justice before the election. Because a 4-4 SC vote means accepting the ruling of the lower court, an 8-person Court would probably mean the President and the Republicans will lose every court challenge.

    In fact, Senator McConnell should not even send the nomination to the Committee for a hearing, since Barrett has been vetted/voted on before. The “Kavanaugh scenario” is already getting offensive and will only get worse. He should take it immediately to the floor, have severely limited debate, and hold a vote — even on the same day. When the Democrats complain about violating tradition, remind them they are talking about ending the filibuster and packing the Court.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *