The National  Memo Logo

Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.

Monday, December 09, 2019 {{ new Date().getDay() }}

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene

Photo from Marjorie Taylor Greene's Facebook

Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene was in her element at the Turning Point USA’s “AmericaFest” rally on Sunday. Using her moment on stage to in part call out the diversity of the attendees, the “Black people, brown people, white people, and yellow people” only to highlight that the event can’t possibly be racist.

Oh, okay. Who uses the words “yellow people?” Racists. That’s who, you QAnon-believing, anti-vaxxing, gun-toting blockhead racist.

In addition to her comments on race, she waxed poetic about former one-term President Donald Trump and a nice Jewish boy from Palestine named Jesus.

“And then there’s talk of freedom and loving America, and conservative principles, some crazy people in here were talking about how much they love this guy named Jesus. And I heard — someone I really like — I think I heard that a lot of people here like a guy named Donald J. Trump. And then I said, ‘Oh, oh, I know exactly what this is: the left calls this a white supremacist party.”

Yes, she was chumming the waters of her base bigly.

It didn’t take long before people began calling out her xenophobic and bigoted comments.

"I honestly haven't heard someone use ‘yellow people’ for decades," tweeted George Takei, the famed Star Trek star and activist.

"Referring to Asian Americans as 'yellow people' definitely isn't something a white supremacy cult would do," tweeted activist Nathan Schneider.

The term “yellow people” stems from “yellow peril,” a racist ideology dating back to the 19th century used to misrepresent people from Asia, painting them as a group to be feared and reduced to something less than white Europeans.

After her racist comments, Greene moved on to her usual swipes at fellow lawmakers, like GOP Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for “making a deal with Chuck Schumer” over COVID-19 vaccine mandates and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi over “completely eras[ing] gender this year.”

“No male, female, mother, father, sister, brother, daughter, son, he, she, him, her, all of those words are forbidden in Congress,” Greene said. “I’m kind of one of those gender people, I’m all about the male and the female.”

She also whined about the “lies” on her Wikipedia page and called the Jan. 6 insurrection a “Fedsurrection,” implying that the terrorists who attacked the Capitol were set up by federal agents.

Not to mention her complete paranoia suggesting that she’s being targeted by the Jan. 6 committee for trying to “stop” a “communist revolution.”

As MSN News points out, this isn’t the first and only time Greene has made racist and anti-Asian comments. She’s said in the past she would deport Chinese people loyal to the Chinese Communist Party.

"If I was in charge and I had my way, I would come down on China so hard," Greene said. "I would kick out every single Chinese in this country that is loyal to the CCP. They would be gone. I do not care who they are."

"You're gone, back to China," she added. "I don't care how much money you have, how much land you own, how many businesses you own, how much money you've donated to colleges and universities, I don't care about who your kid is, and how many students you've sent to colleges."

"If they are loyal to the CCP, they go back."

But, truthfully, should we be at all surprised that the GOP congresswoman would use a derogatory trope?

Greene joins GOP Oklahoma Sen. David Rader, who in October referred to Asian American families as “yellow families” when testifying before the legislature about racial inequality. Now former-Sacramento County Health Director Dr. Peter Beilenson faced a tidal wave of criticism when during a meeting about racism, he called Asian Americans “yellow folk.” Beilenson resigned two weeks later.


Start your day with National Memo Newsletter

Know first.

The opinions that matter. Delivered to your inbox every morning

Eric Holder

The failure of major federal voting rights legislation in the Senate has left civil rights advocates saying they are determined to keep fighting—including by suing in battleground states. But the little bipartisan consensus that exists on election reform would, at best, lead to much narrower legislation that is unlikely to address state-level GOP efforts now targeting Democratic blocs.

“This is the loss of a battle, but it is not necessarily the loss of a war, and this war will go on,” Eric Holder, the former U.S. attorney general and Democrat, told MSNBC, saying that he and the Democratic Party will be suing in states where state constitutions protect voting rights. “This fight for voting rights and voter protection and for our democracy will continue.”

“The stakes are too important to give up now,” said Damon Hewitt, president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, which for years has operated an Election Day hotline to help people vote. “Our country cannot claim to be free while allowing states to legislate away that freedom at will.”

In recent weeks, as it became clear that the Senate was not going to change its rules to allow the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act to pass with a simple majority, there have been efforts by some lawmakers, election policy experts, and civil rights advocates to identify what election reforms could pass the Senate.

“There are several areas… where I think there could be bipartisan consensus,” said David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, in a briefing on January 20. “These areas are all around those guardrails of democracy. They are all about ensuring that however the voters speak that their voice is heard… and cannot be subverted by anyone in the post-election process.”

Becker cited updating the 1887 Electoral Count Act, which addressed the process where state-based slates of presidential electors are accepted by Congress. (In recent weeks, new evidence has surfaced showing that Donald Trump’s supporters tried to present Congress with forged certificates as part of an effort to disrupt ratifying the results on January 6, 2021.) Updating that law could also include clarifying which state officials have final authority in elections and setting out clear timetables for challenging election results in federal court after Election Day.

Five centrist Washington-based think tanks issued a report on January 20, Prioritizing Achievable Federal Election Reform, which suggested federal legislation could codify practices now used by nearly three-quarters of the states. Those include requiring voters to present ID, offering at least a week of early voting, allowing all voters to request a mailed-out ballot, and allowing states to start processing returned absentee ballots a week before Election Day.

But the report, which heavily drew on a task force of 29 state and local election officials from 20 states convened by Washington’s Bipartisan Policy Center, was notable in what it did not include, such as restoring the major enforcement section of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was removed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2013. It did not mention the Electoral Count Act nor growing threats to election officials from Trump supporters.

“This won’t satisfy all supporters of the Freedom to Vote Act, but this is a plausible & serious package of reforms to make elections more accessible and secure that could attract bipartisan support,” tweeted Charles Stewart III, a political scientist and director of the MIT Election Data and Science Lab. “A good starting point.”

The reason the centrist recommendations won’t satisfy civil rights advocates is that many of the most troubling developments since the 2020 election would likely remain.

Targeting Battleground States

Keep reading... Show less

Donald Trump Now Leads An Authoritarian Movement

Politico Magazine published an article Thursday that perfectly embodies the failures of tabloid-style political journalism to address the fundamental dangers facing the country: “145 Things Donald Trump Did in His First Year as the Most Consequential Former President Ever.”

“In ways both absurd and serious, the 45th president refused to let go of the spotlight or his party and redefined what it means to be a former leader of the free world,” the article sub-headline states, sitting above a colorful image containing a photo of a smiling Trump and images that have defined his post-presidency, including his second impeachment, golf clubs, and a vaccination needle.

Keep reading... Show less
{{ }}