Previous Post
Next Post

“The Southern Poverty Law Center has a similar view of the Oath Keepers, unsurprisingly, and describes them as one of the largest radical anti-government groups in the United States, based on ‘a set of baseless conspiracy theories about the federal government working to destroy the liberties of Americans.'” – Oath Keepers confirm militia will attend controversial Crissy Field rally [via]

Previous Post
Next Post


    • Agree. Active duty Oath Keepers are nothing but talk. These guys aren’t giving up their salaries, pensions and benefits to disobey an unlawful order.

      • Really. You should look at the event that inspired its founding: Soldiers refusing to do door to door gun seizures during Katrina. Look up the videos and see for yourself. They get criticized from every side for wanting to do something positive. The left will eventually win because we always turn on our own ideological allies over minor bullshit. There are Sheriffs across the country who are turning a blind eye towards enforcement of un-Constitutional gun laws.

    • Exactly. You can’t trust a bunch of “former” cops to ever challenge the state. Plus, on at least one occasion, they’ve employed an illegal alien that choked a Trump supporter in Houston. Just a bunch of dirtbags or wannabes tbh.

    • I like the oathkeepers in theory, and I think they mean well. But their strong affiliation to infowars ruins it for me.

        • If the info Alex Jones presented about “the frogs” was accurate (major “if” I know) then “the great they” did kinda sorta turn the frogs gay.

          From an enviro/zoological perspective amphibians are like canaries in a coal mine given the nature of their skin. Environmental contaminants affect them quicker and to a greater degree than they do mammals

          But yeah gay frogs – you gotta love it 🙂

      • Same thing as I said in the post above about railing against ideological allies. Like it or not, Infowars is a HUGE part of the reason that Hillary isn’t in the White House right now. He acts like an idiot often, and it cranks my blood pressure when I hear his voice….but…. I can admit that they have broken numerous important news stories days or even weeks ahead of any other information source.

    • I honestly have no idea what the point of the Oath Keepers are. They claim to support the Constitution but they slink off when it might actually matter. The ultimate BUT group. I defend the 1st Amendment but OH SHIT someone is about to say something unpopular RUN AWAY! They strike me as silly people, but it’s America and everyone has the right to LARP in public.*

      *Not really.

    • Exactly. They arent called the OathCuckers for nothing. Here is a quote from the linked article that perfectly illustrates why the OathCuckers are full of shit:

      If a white nationalist is scheduled to speak at the Crissy Field rally, Rhodes said, he pledged to pull the Oath Keepers out.

      So much for supporting the constitution and free speech. They only support free speech they approve of.

      • There are white, nationalists…. of which I am one. Then there are “White Nationalists” which includes a motley crew including full nazi regalia wearing misfits and tweakers who openly and proudly advocate fascism. Literally. I wouldn’t risk my neck for someone who is just a nazi version of Antifa.

        • By today’s standards, everyone who expressed concern that the 1965 Immigration Act would shift the demographic balance was a “white nationalist.” So, too, were progressives like Ted Kennedy who swore the law wouldn’t have that effect. Who cares about that stuff except Nazis, right?

          The left progressively changes the definition of terms over time, and the civic nationalist “right” absorbs the propaganda without a moment’s thought.

        • chedolf said: “The left progressively changes the definition of terms over time..”

          One of the current whoppers of definition creep is the word “violence”. They are redefining it to mean virtually anything offensive to certain classes of people, including speech, in order to justify responding with actual violence. A leftist quoted in a recent article (CNN or WaPo) refers to the public presence of a Confederate statue as an ‘act of violence’ against ‘people of color’.

  1. One might think that the SPLC would be more concerned with the regressive Communist’s that make up their ranks. GMB

  2. Paranoia over what? Oath Keepers are about the same as 3%’ers and I support them. They’re not racists at all.
    They do take the Bill of Rights/Constitution seriously and more people should.
    Freedom of speech is protected but as the saying goes, “Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should”.
    Hate speech? Absolutely not. That goes for Neo Nazis and the left. You incite violence through speech and you’re only abusing your right.

    • Sorry bro, but hate speech and incitement are absolutely protected. The legal standard is imminent illegal action. This has been settled law for half a century.

      There is no “hate speech” exception to the first amendment.

      • -Hate speech is 100% legal.

        -Speech that incites violence is illegal.

        You can be charged with a crime for inciting violence.

        • Who decides what speech is “inciting violence?” The snowflakes think anything that contradicts their “feelings” is inciting to violence. Some people seem to think that a cartoon they dislike is justification for threats of violence.

          The only people responsible for violence are those who directly indulge in it. Mere words cannot actually CAUSE anyone to become violent. That requires an act of will from the individual. The actual substance of most of the current “hate speech” is: “… let’s him and you fight.” They want to control the situation, not engage in anything that puts them at real risk. So they simply need to be ignored.

        • “Speech that incites violence” is NOT ILLEGAL. Martin Luther King did it DAILY. U.S. Catholic, Jewish, and other religious leaders do it DAILY.

          HOWEVER, the violence stems from the POS MFs in opposition.

          Someday, Catholics are going to go sour, and when JESUS comes back people like the SPLC better reach HIS bosom before we reach them.

          If you’re not from here, pound a handful of salt in your a_ _ before you attempt to potificate on our Rights or the system that supports it.

        • Again. Incorrect, otherwise every Muslim preacher in the US would be behind bars. You can only be charged if your particular incitement involves IMMINENT illegal action as a result.

        • That “inciting violence” has to be direct and immediate.
          For instance “America must burn!” is okey dokey artichokey. But “burn that American” is not.

        • Serge, You honestly think EVERY Muslim cleric is pro-violence because some Muslims follow violence advocated in the Koran? Do you also think EVERY Christian pastor/minister/priest incites violence? The Bible is also full of calls for violence.

        • @Nick

          False equivalency is false bolts for brains. Let me know when you hear of Christians mowing down crowds of Muslims with their cars every week while shouting “Deus Vult”.

        • For anyone willing to uphold the rights enumerated within it, a suicide pact is exactly what it is. Those rights are exactly what we will die for.
          If you are not willing to risk your life for freedom, even give your life that others may be free, you will eventually be subject to someone who is willing to sacrifice their lives to take it from you. And there are many that will do exactly that.

        • JWT +

          Chuck the Constitution if you want. Paragraph 2 of the Declaration of Independence recites why we’ll bury you with the chucked Constitution rolled up in your a _ _ , and replace it with similar or better upholding what we are willing to end others for to maintain [we’re already (technically) on our 3rd version of a U.S. Constitution, we’ll get it FURTHER right (correct) if need be, but the nay-sayers and much of their progeny and sh_t they cared about won’t be around to see that].

          Upholding the 2nd Paragraph of the Declaration of Independence is most certainly an ongoing obligation, and we anchor that notion in all of our Nation’s history/right/lore.

          “Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
          Between their loved home and the war’s desolation!
          Blest with victory and peace, may the heav’n rescued land
          Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
          Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
          And this be our motto: “In God is our trust.”
          And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
          O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!”

          [4th verse of the Star Spangled Banner.]

          200 + years old, bitches. Read it and weep.

      • First off, you still didn’t explain how just because some Muslims resort to violence you can claim all Muslim religious leaders promote violence. Second of all, based on their religious texts, both groups have a foundation for violence, and Christians have conducted terrorism in the name of their religion. The KKK and IRA for example have strong religious ties and murdered people, including through bombings. Historically, the mass murder of aboriginal peoples in many parts of the globe was carried out in the name of Jesus as “Christians” came to claim lands from “pagan” or “savage” people.

        I’m not anti-Christian at all. Reasonable people can read religious texts and not be violent extremists. I just find your logic very faulty (not uncommon with your posts).

        • “Christians have conducted terrorism in the name of their religion.”

          F they have not. If you’re standing up for some silent muslims (as “peaceful”) while the muslim hoarde around them goes apeshit, then you gotta say that Christianity is wholly and openly against tyranny and terrorism. There’s been some F’d up examples who have used the doctrine or the station to affect what they wished, but that’s not Christianity.

        • In the present there are clearly more Muslims committing acts of terrorism and violence, but there are also over a billion Muslims not doing so. Muslims represent nearly a quarter of the population.

          Can you really say Christians who kill, maim, or intimidate in the name of their religious beliefs based in their interpretation of religious texts aren’t Christian terrorists?

        • Well, Nick, there are an awful lot of Muslims worldwide have a favorable view of Islamic extremists, like ISIS, Al-Nusra, etc.

    • “Hate speech? Absolutely not.”

      And who *exactly* gets to decides what’s ‘hate speech’?

      The trustworthy Leftists?


      • Here’s what I deem “hate speech”.
        Speaking about another person’s color of their skin, their religion or beliefs.
        To me it’s pretty simple.
        As far as speech inciting violence, I agree with most.
        Like was said in another comment.
        “Go burn the American flag”. Not inciting violence.
        “Go burn that American”. Yes to a point. If someone actually carried out what someone said then in my eyes, you’re inciting violence.
        Freedom of speech. All for it. Like I said, just because you can doesn’t mean you should.
        I don’t force my views on anyone. These are mine. I protect myself and my own from anyone who would do harm. I don’t care what side it may be.

        • What you consider “hate speech” is irrelevant. Once you open that door, you can’t close it. If you don’t like people saying mean things to you, don’t listen to them.

          Content based permissibility tests make the 1st amendment meaningless.

        • “Here’s what I deem “hate speech”. ”

          There is no such thing as “hate speech”. It is a term concocted by blubber heads. The intent of words do not make the words more forceful, or more despicable because someone declares that some words should not be permitted. Using the term “hate speech” to describe a person’s idea of what might be offensive to them only lends credence to the fictional term. Either all speech is protected by the constitution, or no speech is protected. Accepting and using the term “hate speech” means one agrees that words a person finds impolite can be regulated by government (or other totalitarian group).

        • It’s relevant to me as that’s not how I was raised nor how I raised my daughter. Irrelevant to others? Fine. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
          The words don’t hurt my feelings but shows me exactly where people stand.
          As for the government regulating what’s said, totally against it.

        • Serge, it is never justifiable to stop speech with force. I agree 100%.
          If the speech gets people to act on the words, then you stop the people acting on the speech.
          The person who made the speech may be held accountable under law. I’m not a lawyer though.
          If someone incites a riot, you deal with the rioters first then find the person responsible if there is one.
          I see that as different.
          Muslim clerics were brought up earlier. Some may speak of doing violence. Can they speak freely? Yes. If someone acts on what they said and implicates them, then they should be held accountable.

      • Here’s what I deem Hate Speech.

        “I hate (insert name or ethnic group) because he/she is (insert something different than yourself here).”

        Is it legal? Yes. Is it helpful? Hardly ever.

        I don’t really hate anybody. I’m indifferent to a quite a few of people, because I don’t give them the power to make me really angry.

        But if I were to say “I hate (insert name) because he/she is a hateful racist paranoid demagogue with delusions of grandeur” that would definitely be hate speech.

        And the only part of the above statement that wouldn’t be true is “I hate”.

        • There is a difference between something you are and something you chose to be. I don’t hate Germans, because, for the most part, being German is not a choice. I hate communists because supporting genocide is a choice.

          Better question remains. Is it ever justifiable to use force to stop speech? That’s where the alt left parts ways with most civilized people.

  3. Who could possibly be more “radical” than a group of citizens who swore an oath to protect and defend the constitution of the United States, and meant it? We can all agree that anyone who would take a vow and keep it is guilty of wrong-think, is a racist, sexist, homophobic and paranoid eater of plain oatmeal! These people are out of control, no milk, no sugar and no raisins! People who do not live in their parent’s basements and have jobs are the greatest threat this country has ever faced. If they are not stopped, we might wake up one day in a nation where the rule of law has been re-instated!

  4. Preventing attacks on the Constitution from anyone up to, and including, members of, or the entirety of, the U.S. Government IS PROTECTED. And the warning that such may AND SHOULD happen is enshrined in the 2nd Paragraph of the Declaration of Independence.

    If the SPLC has taken $0.01 from foreign entities (or hired foreigners to assist in or) to overthrow our Constitution [which is it’s stated goal with respect to the 2nd Amendment] that is Sedition. They need to be broken up and deported.

  5. Calling everyone “raciss” does not make it so. Southern Poverty Law Center labels anyone who disagrees “raciss” or violent. F##k ’em…

  6. This “fight” between the “white supremacist” and the BLM/AntiFA groups, is 100% manufactured. Both sides are being funded by the same people. Both sides are being run by people who wish for the Constitutional Republic to be destroyed. Both sides are using “rules for radicals” as their guide. Both sides are employing actors and paid goons to do their violence. The Oath Keepers would do well to AVOID this “fight” altogether, as well as everyone else. It is 100% a false flag effort, to distract the American people, to divide them, and to justify a more heavy handed government response to ALL Americans. People should protect themselves and their private property. Other than that, let the police deal with these law breakers and the politicians deal with the fall out when they bar the police from doing their jobs. Otherwise, good people are going to be dragged into a violent clash which they really do not support.

  7. I’m surprised the progs running San Francisco have not revoked the rally permit honoring their long running tradition of censoring speech they don’t like. There’s still time for the Heckler to exercise his Veto.

      • Brilliant move by the organizer.

        Stymying local officials was part of the plan, Rhodes said. Rhodes told me that Gibson planned his rally “on federal land for a very good reason, so the local mayor couldn’t do anything about it.”

        My guess is the NPS will issue the permit with stipulations wrt firearms, knives, bats, flagpoles, bike locks, urine bags, etc.

  8. The core belief of Oathkeepers is PASSIVE refusal to obey clearly illegal orders. Let’s hope that such orders are never (again) given to our military. FYI, during Katrina a Guard unit purposed that they would refuse to carry out any orders to confiscate firearms from law abiding citizens. The troops and NCOs communicated this up the chain of command and they were never given any such orders………..

    • “they were never given any such orders”
      Some troops absolutely were given such orders, and some troops carried them out. There is considerable video of this as well as news reports provided at the time.

    • Anecdotal Rev.

      Me, if TEOTOWAKI occurs, including post-hurricane, I will trust nobody employed by the government carrying a firearm.

    • I wonder if any of them actually have problems confiscating guns, arresting people who have managed to run afoul of the million stupid things now called “felonies” these days. As long as there is a “war on drugs,” for instance, every “cop” will be obeying illegal and immoral “laws” pretty much daily.

      It’s all what you call “constitutional.” There is nothing in the constitution that gives the government (at any level) legitimate authority over our health, education or much of anything else they claim today.

      Fix that, and “oathkeepers” might have some actual meaning.

  9. I freely admit that I don’t know jack about the Oath Keepers. So I went to their website. A significant portion of the videos they post show black members talking about the organization. So they have black membership and promote those black Americans on their web page as example members for recruitment.
    And I am to believe they are a racist organization?
    They also cite their support of the United States Constitution, including freedom of speech, religion, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to assemble, and also the right to disobey a direct order, specifically singling out any order to detain lawful Americans. In the article listed above, the representative of the Oath Keeps specifically says that if Nazi’s give him the opportunity, he will be “stacking Nazis”.
    And yet I am to believe they are themselves Nazis?
    By what they clearly promote, they like Black Americans, they hate Nazis. And the SPLC considers them a hate group. I think that says a whole lot more about the SPLC than the Oath Keepers.

    • The SPLC might provide a base level of useful research but they do not provide credible threat assessments. Their Oath Keepers entry being Exhibit A. Unfortunately, they’re the first go-to quote when journalists are looking for an opinion on militia groups.

      • It might be useful for you to spend a few minutes looking over the SPLC’s catalog of left-wing hate groups to see if they do in fact “provide a base level of useful research” .

    • But is it really a well regulated militia, or is it just a bunch of people role playing at GI Joe?

      From what I have seen, it seems to be mostly the latter.

      • I’m not really sure what that has to do with the topic at hand, but yes, by the definition of “well regulated’ and “militia”, or even what “well regulated militia” was understood to mean at the time of the writing of the 2nd amendment, as well as what was reaffirmed by the SCOTUS in 1903 and in 2008, the Oath Keepers would fall in line with what is considered part of the well regulated militia.

        To quote the Militia Act of 1792
        “That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, … every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock.”

        To quote Article 10 of the Constitution
        “The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age…”

        Alexander Hamilton made it very clear when he said, in the Federalist papers:
        “The militia is a voluntary force not associated or under the control of the States except when called out.”

        And to quote President Kennedy
        “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.”

        • Ok then. A well regulated militia of paranoid nuts who see COBRA lurking around every corner.

          Not the least bit scary.

        • Idaho Boy, again, I don’t know much about them, but in perusing their website and a few YouTube videos, I don’t see where they are espousing any crazy conspiracy theories. Can you point out events or official statements by the organization that would say otherwise?

        • T-Bob, if they are able bodied men over the age of 17 and not members of the militia as defined by the Constitution, then many of them need to be rounded up and arrested, as they are violating very long established US law.
          Did they not register for Selective Service?

  10. Last time the oathkeepers came through houston they showed their true colors and looked really bad.

    They showed up to counter protest the removal of a statue, and the only thing they did was argue and bully all the other right wing groups in attendance. They walked around flashing their guns to look cool, muzzle sweeped half the crowd, started telling all the other groups where they can stand and what they can do, as if god chose the oathkeeps to be in charge of every group there.

    The one thing they didnt do, was get in the face of the liberals and antifa activists. The oathkeepers had an illegal alien member in their group and the guy snuck up on a random right wing, business casual wearing, white guy and choked him out.

    The oathkeepers are a bunch of larping losers, boomer cucks, and their fat wives… who think a tapco’d out ar and a poorly configured plate carrier is proof of their own superiority.

    The oathkeepers will hurt the second amendment crowd in the same way that the alt right was hurt when one loser nazi acted out.

  11. Joe R,

    “Jewish leader are inciting violence every day”?? Put down the bong, man.

    The vast majority of American Jews and their leaders are semi-professional victims. They prefer to hide than to fight. I’m sorry that you weren’t at my synagogue board meeting last night. I almost had to bite my tongue.

    • I think you read me wrong. In this day and age (let that even include the past 80 years) there has been violence perpetrated on blacks and religious (yes, I include the non-gentiles). Said violence was (purportedly) against what speech was invocated from members of those groups.

      I’m not falling into the trap of the threat of “violence” or the call for the need for violence, shutting down the speech of religious or racial groups if the speech does not call for violence. Violence is the problem.

  12. If you believe the SPLC you need to reevaluate your sources of information.
    Their agenda is not freedom.

  13. According to the linked article, the rally is to be held (if permitted) on federal grounds. The specific reason for that is to have the local government piss its pants that they cannot do anything to stop the rally. If someone, either side, starts a riot or begins thrashing someone, that action could result in federal criminal charges (well, yeah, maybe). The feds cannot legally bar the rally on the notion that the content of speeches violates the law. Feds would need to find some other (flimsy) excuse.

    This one could be fun to watch. Bring beer and popcorn,

    • If Charlottesville is any indication, the barricades will be setup to bottleneck rally goers through a phalanx of counter-protesters.

      If you’re a rally goer, the location would be troubling. At the tip of SF along the shoreline with Berkeley to your east. I’d give it a high probability of violence from counter-protesters.

  14. Using the current definition of a “Terrorist” group, SPLC meets the criteria and should be under constant observation and investigation by the FBI.

  15. So how does the SPLC rate the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, when Obama’s buddy Jeremiah Alvesta Wright Jr. Was Pastor?

  16. You can lump the ADL right in there with the SPLC. Ideological hate groups, based on identitarian politics is a hall mark of the left.

    Which is a reminder to those reading here that the KKK, White Supremacy and National Socialists groups are not of the Alt-Right. They are fake right, and will always be so.

    For those of you who are confused on what the Alt-Right is, here is a nice visual aide.

  17. All I have ever seen of the “oathkeepers” is rhetoric, not action. Mostly looks like a bunch of retirees wanting to reclaim their “former” glory.

    • What action do you want to see? They take an oath to never violate the constitution of peoples civil rights. Until someone tries to confiscate firearms or round people up and put them in camps you wont see any action from them.

  18. Relevant court cases: Brandenburg v Ohio; Terminiello v Chicago; Matal v Tam; Snyder v Phelps; Virginia v Black. Hate speech is protected, incitement to violence/riot must have an affirmative action/direction, not be simply a byproduct of people reaction.

    • With the caveat that “incitement to riot/violence” refers to what one’s supporters do, not what one’s opponents do to stop you from speaking.

  19. The SPLC is part of the propaganda branch of the national socialist Deomocratic party of America. They utilize their perceived bipartisan stance to act out their bias.

    It’s nothing but the formal wing of neo marxist terror groups ANTIFA or BLM.

  20. It’s only hate speech if you hate what they speak. To that person it seems normal. but hey, We let senators and movies starts talk about assassinating Trump and nobody goes to jail? I’ll bet if we said that about Obama you’d be locked up for life.

  21. Let’s not forget that you can stand on top of a car and scream Burn this place down
    And when they do burn Ferguson down you won’t have to worry about being charged with inciting a riot
    Because you are part of a special group
    Hateful speech depends on who you are more than what you say

  22. The quickest path to gun control: the Republican flirtation with the extreme right, the KKK, the neo-Nazis, the alt-right, the white nationalists, …

    “You’re makin’ a mistake.” ~ Quote from “Death Wish,” Paul Kersey character.

    • Except that there is no “flirtation” with any of that gutter trash to speak of, only knowingly and demonstrably false assertions made by the talking head presstitutes in the whorestream media.

      About the only “flirtation” there is, and you can’t even really call it that, is the full-throated defense of their free speech rights. That’s it.

      The quickest path to gun control is actually to continue to let those Dumbass-o-KKKrats to gain any more power, anywhere. Oh, but don’t let those Repugnicans out of your sight, either, as they’re no less shady.

  23. When nut case groups like these advocate overthrow of the Government they actually achieve the opposite of what they believe in. Its the perfect excuse for the “people in power” to band more and more types of weapons and have full support of the proletariat because both groups go into a full panic mode. And in some cases justified as the White Supremacists are dangerous Nazi maniacs who want White Power and Privilege , mass murder of minorities, a dictatorship of the Far Right and establishment of a “State Religion” which of course would be theirs.

    • Except that they’re not at all advocating for the violent overthrow of the government, either. You have them confused, purposefully mind you, with ANTIFA. What’s actually a perfect excuse for the State to ban and confiscate more weapons is people like you propagating known lies. And no, it’s never justified so long as there is no actual physical violence taking place, and ALL of what we’ve seen far has for a fact been deliberately instigated first by extreme leftists like ANTIFA. No ANTIFA agitation? No violence. Simple as that. Oh, and by the way, only “state religion” would be the “Religion of the State” that places the State on the same level of a god-thing which, of course, would be yours and your leftist fellow-travelers’.

      • To Excedrin headache and pain in the ass

        reading Quote of the Day: The SPLC’s Oath Keepers Paranoia

        Except that they’re not at all advocating for the violent overthrow of the government, either. You have them confused, purposefully mind you, with ANTIFA. What’s actually a perfect excuse for the State to ban and confiscate more weapons is people like you propagating known lies. And no, it’s never justified so long as there is no actual physical violence taking place, and ALL of what we’ve seen far has for a fact been deliberately instigated first by extreme leftists like ANTIFA. No ANTIFA agitation? No violence. Simple as that. Oh, and by the way, only “state religion” would be the “Religion of the State” that places the State on the same level of a god-thing which, of course, would be yours and your leftist fellow-travelers’———————quote

        You take first prize as the most ignorant Hill Jack on this forum. The left which showed up and overwhelmed the Herr Trump Nazi’s was not parading around armed to the teeth with deadly assault weapons.

        The Left did not march with Nazi Torches shouting Nazi slogans and terrorizing a the Jews of that town.

        The Left did not put two armed Trump Nazi Storm Troopers with assault rifles in front of a Jewish Synagogue screaming threats at them.

        The Left does not train on weekends in the woods (As has been reported this week around the world by even distinguished foreign news programs like France24News) advocating overthrowing the Government and murdering minorities.

        The Left does not promote hatred of minorities and immigrants and refuges.

        The Left does not attack abortion clinics and kill people.

        The Left does not attack churches and kill black people and Indian Sigh’s in their temple as happened in the U.S.

        The Left is not the biggest group of terrorists committing murderers in the U.S. as the fanatical far right extremists have done. Murders in abortion clinics, Churches, the desecration of Jewish cemeteries all done by the Far Right Fanatics. The attack on two Muslim girls by a Right Wing Fanatic with a knife that killed to men trying to help the girls.

        The Left has not advocated making Christianity a “State Religion” and banning all other religions.

        The Left has not banned LGBT people from buying birthday cakes In bakeries like the fanatical far right Christians have done which by the way blasphemes their own Christian religion. The Far Right Fanatics are experts at blasphemy

        The Left does not advocate building gas chambers as the Far Right Nazi’s have done.

        • “The Left does not advocate building gas chambers as the Far Right Nazi’s have done.”


          To quote Radar O’Reilly, “Wait for it.”

          People who want to exclude speech they do not like, will want to exclude thoughts they do not like, then people they do not like. The “Left” is using all the classic fascist tactics present through modern history.

        • You take first prize as the most ignorant projectionist on this forum. The left, which showed up and underwhelmed Herr Shillary’s Nazi’s were parading around armed to the teeth with modern sporting rifles, a la “Redneck” Revolt. (There is no such thing as an “assault weapon”, period, Mr. Dumass-O-KKKrat.)

          The Oath Keepers did not march with tiki torches shouting Nazi slogans nor terrorize anyone.

          The left celebrates or conveniently ignores every fatality caused by their own fanatics, including the attempted murder of Scalise and the actual murder of a GOP committeemen in Pennsylvania, rwspectively.

          The Oath Keepers did not put two armed KKKillary Nazi storm troopers with modern sporting rifles in front of a Synagogue, nor did they scream threats at anyone.

          The Left celebrated the Black Panther Party’s intimidation of voters in Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania.

          The Oath keepers do not train in the woods, advocate overthrowing the government, or murdering minorities. No “distinguished” “news” programs reported them doing that, either.

          ANTIFA has, in fact, issued a call for trainers to set up a regimen for them (in the woods), they do not recognize the authority of any government, and they advocate murdering anyone who doesn’t believe exactly as they do.

          The Oath keepers do not promote hatred of minorities, immigrants, or refugees.

          The Left promotes hatred of majorities and immigrants from Western Europe and the Pacific Rim.

          The Oath Keepers do not attack abortion clinics or kill people.

          The Left’s “hit lists” helped their zealots kill people at Family Research Council centers, and they celebrate that, too.

          The Oath Keepers do not attack churches and kill black people, or Sikhs in their temples.

          The Left applauds Muslims who burned Churches in Egypt and leave minority Christian refugees in Iraq and Syria to die.

          The Oath Keepers are not the biggest group of terrorists committing murders in the U.S., as the fanatical far-left extremists have done.

          Murders in court houses, airports, and the desecration of churches — all done by the Far Left fanatics — who then MAKE UP “crimes” against left-wingers who are later caught RED-HANDED doing it to themselves. The attack on the Inland Regional Center by a Left Wing Fanatic and his wife (who were both registered Dumbass-O-KKKrats like you) with illegally-acquired and modified rifles and explosives.

          The Oath Keepers have not advocated making any religion a “State Religion,” nor banning all other religions.

          The Left wants to ban all other religions but “The Religion of the State” and, perhaps, Islam.

          The Oath keepers have not banned anyone from buying anything like the fanatical far left Statists have done, by banning poor people and minorities from buying guns for self-defense with their Byzantine gun control laws. The Far Left Fanatics are experts at hypocrisy AND blasphemy.

          The Oath Keepers do not advocate building gas chambers, either, as the Far Left Nazis have done.

          The Left does, however, promote any and all manner of violence against everyone and everyone who does not two the party line to the letter — and even tried to gas The Deploraball.

          We’re talking about the Oath Keepers, Mr. Dumabass-O-KKKrat. NOT neo-Nazi scumbags that are in-fighting with the Marxist LARPers in ANTIFA.

          It’s even in the article title. Do please work on your reading comprehension, assuming you even know what that is much less how to improve upon it.

Comments are closed.