 |
| Marjorie Taylor Green |
If anyone has followed this blog, you will know that I have a very low opinion of Marjorie Taylor Green. In my opinion, she is a certifiable dingbat nutjob. You can read some of my previous posts about MTG by following this link. Not only have I negatively opined about her, but have contributed to her primary opponent for the upcoming election.
Just to summarise why I have such a negative view of MTG, consider this: Marjorie Taylor Greene is a Q-anon supporter. She was a regular contributor to a conspiracy website. She has supported almost every right-wing conspiracy theory circulating. She touts the Pizzagate theory, the Clinton Kill-list, mass shootings as a false flag theory, and 9-11 as an inside job theory. She has advocated executing Democrat politicians. She has equated the Democrat Party with Nazies. She continues to claim Trump won the election in a landslide and that the election was stolen. Her Covid-19 theory is that Dr. Fauci is criminally liable for helping create the virus as a bio-weapon. She has suggested that space lasers caused fatal wildfires in California. And, she was only one of eight Congressmen to cast a pro-Putin vote to protect Russian oligarchs from having their assets frozen.
So, obviously, I am no fan of MTG. Nevertheless, it would have been a blow to liberty if she would have been denied the right to run for reelection. In Georgia, a group of voters had challenged her eligibility to run claiming she engaged in insurrection after taking office. The specific justification of the challenge was based on a section of the 14th Amendment that says no one can serve in Congress “who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress ... to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same.”
It was amazing to watch Ron Fein, the advocate for removing her argue his case. At one time MTG, in urging people to attend a protest march in Washington, had said this was our "1776 moment." The attorney advocating her removal from the ballot argued this was a code for encouraging a violent overthrow of the government. If that is what it takes to make one guilty of insurrection if one reads my blog closely they may find I am guilty. I have attended rallies and no doubt applauded such statements. Does applauding such rhetoric make me guilty of insurrection?
He tried to make much out of her support for the Second Amendment. He asked her if she had said the Second Amendments' purpose was so an armed public could oppose tyranny. Of course, it is, but he tried to say that that view proved she supported insurrection.
He asked her if prior to the January 6th riot she had given capitol tours or maps of the capitol to anyone. She said no she had not and added, "by January 6th I didn't even know where the bathrooms were." Even if she had given tours and maps, that is not a crime; that is something a congressman's office does.
On and on, they tried to make the case that she had some association with some of the rioters. She denied it. They had nothing. It was almost comical at times how deep they were reaching to try to prove she was somehow involved in plotting the overthrow of the government. In one video shown at the trial one of the riot leaders referred to her as "my good friend." She said he was an acquaintance and the court spend time trying to determine if he was a "good friend" or someone she casually knew. This is amazing. In politics or business or entertainment, the lesser-known person may refer to the better-known person "as my good friend." The celebrity knows a lot of people.
She gave no evidence against herself and her response to most things was, "well, I don't recall" or "I don't remember that." I believe her. They tried to raddle her; she kept her cool. While I still think she is a nutjob, I found she is kind of a likable person and they badgered her on the stand. She had my smypathy.
I watched hours and hours of the trial and I found it fascinating. If you want to watch it, follow this Youtube link. It is in segments, but I think it is all there. Sample any of parts 1-3 to get a feel for the trail. The prosecutor had no case based on law or evidence. To see that watch the closing arguements in part 4. Advocacy is not the same as inciting insurrection. Hyperbole is not insurrection and "to engage," is not the same thing as expressing an unpopular opinion.
While justice was served and she was not removed from the ballot, I fear that this can have a chilling effect. Even winning, can result in loss of time on the campaign trail and spending money to defend oneself instead of spending it on campaign expenses. I think the challengers should be forced to reimburse her expenses.
This attempt to remove Marjorie Taylor Green is more of a pattern of attempting to silence voices with which the left disagrees. We see it on Facebook and other social media in which conservatives are banned or shadowbanned. We see it with forcing people to pretend that a man is a woman and mandating which pronoun to use or lose one's job. We see it when credence is given to the labeling of pro-life and advocates of secure borders groups as "hate groups" by the Southern Poverty Law Center. We see it on college campuses in which administrations will bow to protest and disinvite conservative speakers. Political correctness and cancel culture are having a chilling effect on free speech. I fear the recent creation of a Ministry of Truth (The Department of Homeland Security's Disinformation Governance Board) will lead to further criminalizing of improper thoughts and speech.
Watching the hours of the Marjorie Taylor Green hearings had me routing for Ms. Green. I still think she is a dingbat nutjob and hope she loses her election, but I like my liberties more than I dislike Marjorie Taylor Green and our liberties are under attack like never before.
Top Stories
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment