By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene has made surprisingly progressive statements, particularly regarding the conflict in Gaza. She criticized the relentless bombing of Palestinian civilians, emphasizing that many victims are women and children. Greene highlighted the graphic images of civilian casualties and called for an end to the violence, while also condemning the Israeli Defense Forces’ (IDF) treatment of Palestinians. This stance has been considered more progressive than those of other Democratic leaders.
Read the original article here
Mike Johnson says ICE shooting a priest doesn’t cross the line, and it’s difficult to know where to begin unpacking such a statement. It’s a declaration that immediately raises questions, not just about the specific incident, but about the speaker’s values, priorities, and the very definition of what’s considered acceptable behavior. It is a shocking statement that immediately tells us that Mike Johnson is a sick bastard who loves to cover up for his own personal needs.
The immediate gut reaction is, of course, outrage. If the exact same thing happened under a different administration, the response from those aligned with Johnson would be entirely different, and it would be front page news for months. The hypocrisy is glaring. The fact that a man of the cloth, engaged in a peaceful act of prayer, is targeted with violence, multiple times, by an agency of the government, should be a red line for everyone, regardless of their political affiliation. This should be something that is un-American.
The more you think about it, the more the implications of Johnson’s statement sink in. This isn’t just about disagreeing with a specific action; it’s about a fundamental disconnect from core principles of compassion, justice, and human dignity. The fact that he seems to be protecting pedophiles and promoting his own perverse interests shows just how far off the deep end he is.
Perhaps the most unsettling aspect is the question: if shooting a priest, a person of faith, doesn’t cross the line, then what does? If this level of force, directed at a person engaged in a peaceful act, is deemed acceptable, what other actions are permissible? If it’s okay to detain a child in a driveway to lure out their parents, then what does he consider acceptable? The answer, or lack thereof, is deeply disturbing.
It seems clear that Johnson’s definition of what crosses the line is very different from most people’s. It’s a definition that seems to be flexible, depending on the political alignment or the social standing of the people involved. It’s a definition shaped by power, hierarchy, and a deep-seated need to maintain control. The reality is, the line is only for rich, white, straight men, everyone else, who cares!!
Johnson’s actions seem to align with a worrying trend. Right-wing extremism is more frequent and deadly than left-wing violence. Their policies and rhetoric seem to be working to exactly what their policies describe: violence. They see violence as a tool to maintain their societal hierarchy. The message, intentional or not, is clear: “Know your place.”
The shooting of a priest by ICE, according to Mike Johnson, doesn’t cross the line. That statement, in itself, speaks volumes. It reveals a world view where power, control, and maintaining the existing order are paramount. It reveals someone who seems to have no understanding of, or respect for, the values that most people hold dear. It’s a disturbing reflection of the priorities of the man at the helm, and the state of the politics.