In addition to her many, many flaws, Taylor Greene, strong contender for the Worst Member of Congress in the Worst Congressional Class Ever, doesn’t understand the basic political rule expressed first by Napoleon: ‘”Never interfere with an enemy while he’s in the process of destroying himself.”
What an embarrassment. What an idiot! All around her the Axis is showing just how untrustworthy its members are by trying lie its way out of the uncomfortable reality exposed by Charley Kirk’s assassination while a disgusting number Democrats and progressives are cheering his death on social media. And what does she do? She issues a statement just as offensive and irresponsible so they can try to shift the conversation to “intolerance on the Right.”
Brilliant.
Here is what the Georgia Congresswoman (Be proud, Georgia Republicans!) wrote on “X” (in addition to the hat trick, she also won “Unethical Tweet of the Month” in tough competition):
“There is nothing left to talk about with the left. They hate us. They assassinated our nice guy who actually talked to them peacefully debating ideas. Then millions on the left celebrated and made clear they want all of us dead. To be honest, I want a peaceful national divorce. Our country is too far gone and too far divided, and it’s no longer safe for any of us. What will come from Charlie Kirk being martyred is already happening. It is a spiritual revival building the kingdom for Christ. But it will happen on the outside, not within the halls of our government. Democrats are hardened in their beliefs and will flip the switch back as soon as they have power. And, if you are expecting Republicans to fight against evil, with the power they currently possess, and end this once and for all, you are going to be extremely disappointed. This week Congress will be voting on another CR – Biden’s budget that FUNDS TRANSGENDER POLICIES, NOT our own Trump policy budget that funds what you voted for. We had 9 months to get it done, but for reasons I don’t understand or agree with, it wasn’t the priority. Government is not answer, God is. Turn your full faith and trust to our Almighty God and our Savior Jesus. Tighten your circle around your family and protect them at all times. I will pray for the left, but personally I want nothing to do with them.”
Then resign your seat, you stupid, stupid woman. Your job is to work with and contend with “the left,” specifically Democrats in the House. It is head-explodingly irresponsible for an elected official to advocate a “national divorce,” peaceful or not, and like the rest of the rant, idiotic, because—do I really have to explain this?—it is impossible, would cripple the country, and the very idea is a rejection of American pluralism and the underlying concept of democracy.
Greene is thinking like a Democratic totalitarian: “We have to hold power forever and by extreme means, because if the other party gets elected, they will undo all the wonderful things we did! Hey: lets kick all of the non-right-thinking citizens out of the country!” Then we get her brain-dead advocacy for a theocracy. “Government is not the answer,” so let us embrace Greene’s faith because she knows all.
In fact, Greene knows nothing: not what democracy is, not how a republic works (or doesn’t work), not what the Constitution says and means, not what her duties and responsibilities are as an elected member of Congress. The party leadership should strip her of all committee assignments, censure her, and use every tool available to make her resign and, I don’t know, start podcast for conservative cretins.
George Santos was a better member of Congress than Marjorie Taylor Greene, and he was worthless. Jamaal Bowman was more fit to be a member of Congress—you know, the fool who set off a fire alarm to delay a floor vote and claimed that he thought it would open the door. Cori Bush, whom EA declared in 2023 the “Incompetent Elected Official Of The Month, Year, Decade, Century, And Eon,” is John Quincy Adams compared to Greene.
AOC is a communist, but at least she doesn’t publicly argue for the dissolution of the nation and its government.
Ethics Alarms 
As a proud common sense conservative, I find her pronouncements cringe worthy. Do better Georgia!
It could hardly do worse!
I knew MTG had this in her.
Sheesh.
Can someone please primary this woman?
I have to say, a big part of the reason that we’re forced into CRs is Republican obstructionists in the House — they blast the CRs, but then they also block the appropriations bills that need to get passed to avoid the CRs.
Too many have never understood that ‘the perfect is the enemy of the good’. It’s not like the GOP has a supermajority in Congress. The art of the deal is also the art of the possible. Get what you can, declare victory, and move on. Speaker Johnson has done that as much as he can, and he’s worked wonders with a teeny tiny majority. Pelosi was perhaps better at running roughshod over her members to get things passed.
===================
You know on a slight tangent, there is a potential unintended benefit to gerrymandering. If you spread your party’s voters over more districts, then the majorities in each district get smaller. It can possibly have an effect of forcing candidates to not be extremists to get elected in the general.
Don’t know if that actually works, but it is nice to think about.
As they say in divorce counseling, “If you think your soon to be ex-spouse will be in your life less after divorce, think again. There are still the kids and money to fight over.”
I plead complete ignorance, which is bad, but who actually writes the spending bills? Some staffer of the majority leader? How does each representative get their pork package added to the bill? Do they just write a page and submit it through a portal? Is it the staffer’s job to cull the things they don’t like? Does anything get culled at all?
It’s too bad we don’t have any journalists in this country that do pieces of interest.
This is one of the main tasks of Congressional committees. There are twelve spending bills that need to be passed each year (well, except it’s been decades since it actually happened that way).
The relevant committee is supposed to hold hearings, write up the spending bill that they have responsibility for — say the Agriculture committee for the Dept of Agriculture’s budget) — debate the bill in committee, including amendments, and then pass it on to the full chamber, House or Senate. The full chamber then debates the bill, votes on amendments, and passes it to send to the other house.
Ideally the appropriations bills passed by each house are then sent to a reconciliation committee, which will combine them into a single bill and send that back to each house to be voted on. As I said there are twelve appropriations bills and committees to handle each one.
That is what congresspeople mean when they are talking about ‘regular order’. Not following regular order is what gets fiscal hawks up in arms because then you tend to end up with an omnibus bill, at the last minute, written (yes) by the leadership, and crammed full of pork, policy changes, and who knows what else. Those truly are bills that you have to pass to see what’s in them, and they are always last minute, up against the deadline, must pass bills.
One problem is that, say, the House Freedom Caucus rails against continuing resolutions and omnibus bills because they bypass the regular order. However that same caucus has been one of the key players derailing the regular order, because they don’t think the committee bills do enough to cut spending. They seem not to be aware of what is possible versus what they want, and the end result is that their obstruction just gets more CRs and omnibuses.
When we condemn Congress for not doing their job — this is the main part of their job, to write and pass these appropriation bills. And they just hate to do the actual work involved in doing so.
What a rambling post.
Marjorie Taylor-Greene, you ran for Congress, you were elected and now you serve in it. If you do not believe that the U.S. Government is beneficial to its citizens, you can leave. No one is forcing you to stay there anymore than they would force you to teach at a school you believe isn’t educating students, treat at a hospital you believe isn’t healing patients or flip burgers at a restaurant you don’t believe is feeding customers.
The last national divorce cost 650,000 lives and destroyed the economy of an entire section of the country for decades. There is no way to peacefully divorce our country. It would be apocalyptic. Do you really think God would be okay with that?
Which brings me to my next point – you don’t want to have anything to do with the Left? What did Paul write? “I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people – not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. If that were the case, you would have to leave this world entirely. But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.” I Corinthians 5:9-11.
Now, Marjorie, I’m not calling you sexually immoral. You just seem to think that you shouldn’t have anything to do with people who don’t agree with you, especially about religion. I do understand a great many of them are unpleasant, but so were a great many people Paul had to deal with. So, stay in Congress or leave Congress, whatever you want, but don’t appeal to the authority of God while you are advocating a national catastrophe that will affect, not only our entire country, but will ripple across the entire planet.
I, on the other hand, don’t have to deal with someone who claims to be a believer and continues to shamelessly serve as a stumbling block to others. Government isn’t the answer to all of our problems, but we do have to have one. Governments are instituted among men to secure our rights and derive their power from the consent of the governed.
“Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.” ~ Romans 13:1
“Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.” I Peter 2:13&14
“Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work,” Titus 3:1
“He changes times and seasons; he removes kings and sets up kings; he gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have understanding;” Daniel 2:21
“What a rambling post.”
Hers or mine?
Sorry. Hers.
Or, possibly, mine.
Yes, you mention our last national divorce and what it cost.
It is foolish in the extreme to just blithely talk about another Civil War. We have more than 10 times the population than in 1860, there are a lot more guns and other weapons around the country (and don’t believe that one side has a monopoly).
If you just extrapolated the original numbers, you might be looking at 10 million dead, but the reality I feel would be worse.
There is one little thing that they didn’t have back in the 1860s — the atomic bomb.
How many of our cities, how much of the countryside would get nuked in a new civil war? I’d hope that our military is too honorable to nuke their own nation — want to bet the whole country on that?
At any rate, MTG — are we perhaps in Julie territory here? Even if so, it’s a potentially dangerous Julie.
Sigh….If she just had the sense to stop after her third sentence….
“Sense” is the critical term here…
Here is a potential counterargument. I don’t think a national divorce is realistic, but who knows? Nonviolence is key. Any solution should not advocate violence.
Maybe humans are not meant to live in large societies past a certain point. Psychologically, maybe it’s easier for people to live in smaller areas and organize themselves that way rather than trying to force people who believe in abortion on demand and transing children to live with people who believe that God is the standard of morality. A large part of the left is now borderline nihilistic.
At some point, it is possible two groups cannot co-exist well. They can co-exist peacefully as long as no one is violent, but if one side decides to start killing over those differences, there is a point where you have to decide what to do. Do you let them kill you or just leave? I am for nonviolence, so a national divorce seems more appealing to me by the day.
Liberals are increasingly becoming very difficult to even get along with on a regular, everyday basis. They are constantly watching and testing and looking to attack anyone that questions them, even when the questions are warranted for the most extremist elements. It wasn’t always that way.
I have a family member who is being influenced by a radically liberal man my brother married. He is actually creating massive division in our family. He didn’t justify Charlie Kirk’s assassination, but he did accuse him of “hateful rhetoric.”
I personally think humans should consider smaller nations, and then people could choose the nation based on their ideas of good. I’m just thinking out loud because I don’t think a national divorce would ever happen, but Greene is right about one thing. A large part of the left now hates conservatives, and Christians especially. I don’t feel comfortable expressing my Christian ideals anymore. I now fear physical retribution from more people than before. It used to just be ANTIFA or activists, but now it could be any random person.
When a Democrat gains power again, I can only imagine what they will do to conservatives.
Marjorie Taylor Greene is not a great student of history either. President Lincoln did not agree to a national divorce; he secured the unity of the United States at the great costs of 650,000 human lives.
Personally I am quite uncomfortable about the unity talk I am hearing from politicians. Unity is not an abstraction. Unity does not exist on its own; it has a focus, center, and purpose. Proper unity can only be based on a foundation of truth.
During the Civil War slavery was abolished, and after the Civil War the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendment secured rights for the former slaves. The unity that Lincoln restored could only be based on the foundational truth that slavery is evil and has no place in the USA, and that the rights mentioned in founding documents of the USA also apply to the former slaves.
That means that if we need to preserve the unity of the United States we cannot skip the issue of truth, and after the funeral of Charlie Kirk simply go over to the order of the day. The assassination may have a similar political importance as the caning of Senator Charles Sumner by Representative Preston Brooks in 1856. The subtitle of the book “The Caning” by Stephen Pulio” is “The Assault That Drove America To Civil War”.
I do not intend to be apocalyptic with all the Civil War references, because I do not believe that we are there yet. And to stay within the marriage metaphor used by MTG in her unintelligent ramblings, I do not believe that the GOP is required to act like the battered wife who meekly returns to her abusive husband. So no kumbaya solution that leaves everything unresolved.
Here is the take from John Daniel Davidson from the Federalist today:
“In the days since Charlie Kirk’s assassination by a radical Antifa terrorist, a refrain has arisen in the corporate press and the political establishment that we must come together, lower the temperature, tone down the rhetoric, and condemn political violence on both sides. In order to have peace, they say, we have to have unity.
But there can be no peace or unity without first telling the truth, and the truth is that both-sides-ism, the polite fiction that the American left and right have a problem with political violence, is a damnable lie — and everyone peddling it is a moral coward. “
So in order for both parties in the nation to be on speaking terms again the following needs to happen:
My expectation is that will not happen.
So here is the second set of options to restore unity on the basis of truth:
My impression is that the second option is more likely.
The Democrats have made a deal with the devil by aligning itself with hard left radicalism. They are riding a tiger they cannot dismount without being eaten. They have painted themselves in a corner. That is why the messaging of the Democrat politicians after Charlie Kirk’s assassination is so awful.
Assume for a moment that the Democrat party distance themselves from Antifa, or BLM, or condemn Hamas and unambiguously support the existence of the state of Israel. This will lead to a revolt of the hard left radicals, and a possible rift in the party. But if they double down on radicalism they will continue to chase all the sane Democrats out of the party. Both scenarios lead to electoral death.
We will know more after the November elections. Take the scenario where Mamdani wins in New York, and the Republicans win the gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey, with two relatively moderate candidates. That would be a signal for the Democrats to double down on woke and radical. If in that scenario the midterm elections (2026) and Presidential elections (2028) go the way of woke and radical Democrats we have a bigger problem, comparable to what the UK is facing today, and in which the USA cannot and will not make any claim to being exceptional.
Comment of the Day. Up tomorrow.
Wow. Nicely done.
jvb
Agreed. I have nothing to say differently.
I think a salient point that has been, as of yet, largely ignored by everyone is this:
Yes, the left called (and calls) Trump and his supporters fascists, Nazis, etc. This is definitely something that needs to end, as it paints them as something evil that needs to be stopped.
However, no one has really explored what seems to have been the primary motivation for Tyler Robinson–he told his parents that Charlie Kirk spread too much hate. Knowing what we know (or at least have been told) now about his relationship with his roommate, who is said to be trans, I can only surmise that Tyler’s primary motivation was to stop an influential person from spreading hate about someone he loved.
One major problem: I’m no Charlie Kirk expert, but from what I’ve seen, he never spread hate about trans people. He seems to have argued the standard right-side cultural arguments–the stuff that would have canceled JK Rowling if she weren’t rich beyond all reason–trans people shouldn’t get special treatment, shouldn’t play on girls’ sports teams or put into women’s prisons, that medical records should reflect reality and use useful language (not “uterus-having persons”).
But this tactic, of labeling opposition to a political movement, especially one that seeks to change something fundamental about society, as “hateful” is incredibly effective. It’s likely responsible for the dramatic shift in acceptance of same-sex marriage and LGBT people in general. But no one seems to be willing to examine how this approach (let’s call it “x-phobic”) has been backfiring in its effectiveness lately–the trans movement put the cart before the horse here–but more importantly, has a severe negative effect on public discourse.
Many people take for granted that Charlie Kirk was a hateful, garbage person. Why? Because he opposed much of the LGBT political engine. That was enough for almost half of the population to determine that he is evil. It worked on Tyler. I doubt Tyler could point to anything Kirk ever said that was actually hateful towards gay or trans people, and not just opposed to something that some percentage of them were trying to change about society. But Tyler believed that Kirk promoted hatred, and this appears to be the primary motivation (and likely justification) for him to kill Kirk.
We need those on the left (I can’t think of any equivalence from the right, except maybe labeling lefties as unpatriotic) to stop labeling anyone who disagrees with them as hateful.
I am going to challenge the designation of Marjorie Taylor Greene as Ethics Dunce of the Day. That honor should in my opinion go to Pam Bondi. Pam Bondi want to criminalize hate speech. I am watching YouTube as I am writing this, but I understood that Matt Walsh wants her fired. I agree.
Oh, you know I agree…
But Pam’s idiotic comment was revealed to me after the post…
You beat me to it. I saw her comment and thought, “Uh, Pam, you might just want to run that by Trump – he has said a thing or two about that.”
jvb
Ugh…I have to believe that such a measure would never ever stand up to SCOTUS scrutiny.