Treason

[mdh]

An article by Daniel Greenfield:

But when government officials refuse the orders of the duly elected government because their allegiance is to an ideology whose agenda is in conflict with the President and Congress, that’s not activism, protest, politics or civil disobedience; it’s treason.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2661...iel-greenfield

Think Sharia Law, where not being one of us means death; the black clad thugs of Berkeley, combating free speech.

[skuthorp]

A little over the top, quite hysterical in fact.
I repeat, 22%.

And if you wish to contemplate civil war http://www.rsvlts.com/2015/09/17/bat...tam-photos/#12

The man is a danger to the state.

[Peerie Maa]

Think Sharia Law, where not being one of us means death; the black clad thugs of Berkeley, combating free speech.

You are silly.

[Paul Pless]

quite hysterical in fact

nailed it

[Keith Wilson]

That is possibly the most ridiculous article on politics I've read in the past ten years, maybe longer. It would be funny if it couldn't serve so easily as a justification for real fascist repression.

[Ian McColgin]

No wonder so many righties are hysterical. They project their totalitarian agenda on all the moderate middle. I have worked with mental health patients whose complex invented realities came closer to truth than this.

[LeeG]

An article by Daniel Greenfield:

But when government officials refuse the orders of the duly elected government because their allegiance is to an ideology whose agenda is in conflict with the President and Congress, that’s not activism, protest, politics or civil disobedience; it’s treason.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2661...iel-greenfield

Think Sharia Law, where not being one of us means death; the black clad thugs of Berkeley, combating free speech.

You have quite the hysterical media in one package there.

http://www.davidhorowitzfreedomcente...tical-warfare/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad_Watch

[Keith Wilson]

mdh, A straightforward simple question: Do you really believe what's in that article?

[Norman Bernstein]

Stupid beyond all possible understanding. Instead of making the case for a 'treasonous' left, it actually supports the opposite.

[TomF]

Wow. It's really hard to know where to start.

[Bluefin2]

I do think some our university profs get dangerously close to treason.

[Norman Bernstein]

I do think some our university profs get dangerously close to treason.

Explain how.

[TomF]

I do think some our university profs get dangerously close to treason.

How about Republican Senators in 2016?

[Ian McColgin]

I've addressed the liberals who fling the term "treason" too casually because liberals as a group often pay attention the the meanings of words, the facts those words represent, and the truths that may thus be found. I shan't bother attempting to educate Bluefin2 on this because he's long proven that he's both fact free and unconcerned with the meanings of words.

I'm pretty sure that TomF [at #13] was making a poetic reference and that he knows that the Republican lockstep refusal to participate in our nation's democratic governance, the Republicans' eight years of obdurate obstructionism, was blind, stupid, extremist; but it was not 'treason'.

[oznabrag]

Daniel Greenfield is a Moron.




This civil war is the very same the last one. There are no cannons or cavalry charges, yet, but the inhuman monsters who believe they have a right to own both the means of production AND the labor are at war with those of us who understand that 'all men are created equal, and no amount of money makes one man worth more than another.'


In 1776, it was the Left who seceded from Britain. The Right doesn’t want to secede. It wants to rule. Political conflicts become civil wars when one side refuses to accept the existing authority. The Right has rejected all forms of authority that it doesn’t control.

It has gone so far as to deny a sitting President the opportunity to discharge his Constitutional DUTY to appoint a Justice to a vacancy on the Supreme Court.


The Right has rejected the outcome of all the presidential elections in the past 100 years that were not won by Republicans. It has rejected the judicial authority of the Supreme Court when it decisions don’t accord with its agenda, with Roe v Wade as a clue. It rejects the legislative authority of Congress when it is not dominated by the Right, as witness the ACA.

It rejected the Constitution so long ago that it hardly bears mentioning, raising such treasonous usurpers as Ronald F Reagan to the status of Sainthood.

All in all, the Republican's regard for the Constitution and the Rule of Law is not worth a bucket of warm spit.

In fact, they no longer even understand what a 'republic' is.

Pathetic cowards.

[oznabrag]

I do think some our university profs get dangerously close to treason.

Explain how.

Yes, Bloofie, do.

[Osborne Russell]

No wonder so many righties are hysterical. They project their totalitarian agenda on all the moderate middle. I have worked with mental health patients whose complex invented realities came closer to truth than this.

Big time.

Comical how they try to invent an establishment of their own, demonstrating that the motive is simple envy, not principle. He's a shill, man.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

[Gerarddm]

My contempt knows no bounds. It reaches far out, further than Voyager I and II.

A small note, however: free speech is just that. If the regressives want to display their ignorance publicly, then let them be exposed publicly. Coordinated silent protest, satire, and other forms of political disembowelment are better than petty street violence or suppression of thought.