Front Page mag - A Project of the David Horowitz Freedom Center
Daniel Greenfield Ping List Notification of new articles.
I am posting Greenfield's articles from FrontPage and the Sultan Knish blog. FReepmail or drop me a comment to get on or off the Greenfield ping list.
I recommend an occasional look at the Sultan Knish blog. It is a rich source of materials, links and more from one of the preeminent writers of our age.
FrontPage is a basic resource for conservative thought.
Lou
![](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-fiGVhiSe7Es/UC2iXPZr6dI/AAAAAAAAIBo/dnH7JqKKqVQ/s1600/sidepicture.jpg"left")
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.
To get on or off the Greenfield ping list please reply to this post.
So the states that don’t join the “confederacy” will have stronger economies.
The Obama/Kerry “Paris accords” called for the United States to send $100 billion annually to third world leaders ( not known for their managerial skills and honesty) to develop “clean” energy. Will the vile Democratic leaders of these states tax their dopey constituents who elected them and send the money?
...ping....
Bttt.
5.56mm
What Brown is doing is in fact repeating what the Democrats did which led to the Civil war in 1861. But I see the makings also of the Democrats through all the leaks and undermining of the Federal government now as a coup attempt because they lost an election. Now we have a confederacy forming. I knew the Democrats were power hungry but I doubted they would attempt a revolution, but it seems they are. And no the millennials are not going to fight a war for the confederates. And I doubt president Trump will deploy troops. But I think simple calculated arrests of the conspirators in the middle of the night would end the insurgency. Who do these people think they are? What do they think gives them the right to throw away over 200 years just to satisfy their party objectives?
Um, I think these "confederate states" can reach some sort of agreement with Europe and not call it an official treaty, thus side-stepping any treason.
Talk about over-inflated language.
Fixed
I would guess the liberal governors will argue that Mr. Greenfield’s conclusion that Brown et. al. are in violation of the Constitution is incorrect on the basis that the Paris Climate Accord is not a “treaty” in the understood meaning of this word.
http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/69/state-treaties
Based on this commentary, I think it would come down to exactly how Brown et. al. enjoin with the foreign nations in this accord. If he attempts to pledge California’s involvement in such an accord, I think he is violating the US Constitution. Conversely, if he merely agrees to actions in kind with such an accord, but doesn’t explicitly join it, I think he will skirt the Constitutional question.
The political, theological, and philosophical differences in the US are irreconcilable. The logical answer is for the two sides to split. What we see happening now is positive. The blue states, of their own volition, are peacefully moving to separate themselves from the Republic. This is good and should be encouraged.
Let them cecede for real - we’re on a collision course with the left, this is a great opportunity for each side to go their own way and avoid another bloody civil war, which seems more and more inevitable.
LOL - as usual - NOT pulling any punches...