Tulsi v Mittens

There is a certain amount of leeway for dissension within a party caucus. It is interesting to note how the dissension is treated within those political caucuses. Tulsi Gabbard is off the reservation a bit with her comments about the biolabs in Ukraine. Once going off the reservation, there is a strident call to marginalize her within the Democrat Party. There is obviously little room for dissent within the Democrats (which I call commies, because that's the way they act). Romney, as a comparison, voted to convict a President of his own party. Yet, the GOP faithful are expected to support him.

It might look like the GOP is more open. Certainly, dissent is tolerated. But Romney is more in line with the Democrats on many issues than he is with the GOP. That's why those in the party are called RINOS ( Republican in name only). Romney might as well be Biden on this issue. In fact, Romney might as well be the most extreme element of the Democrats on this issue. As Gabbard said, those within the administration itself have admitted the existence of the biolabs, so how is this controversial? Romney went as far as to call it treason.

Romney is so wrong that it is legally wrong. It isn't a matter of policy. It is a matter of law. The US Constitution defines treason explicitly. Gabbard is only stating fact that a member of the administration has confirmed. Where is the case for treason??? Besides that, Russia is not formerly an enemy. No declaration of war has occurred. No use of force has been approved by Congress. We aren't shooting at them and they are not shooting at us ( yet). There is no war between Russia and the USA ( yet ). I'm sure that there are a lot of those people who would like one, but that is not the reality ( yet). Therefore, there is no legal basis for the accusation. It might be treasonable to the party, but party loyalty to the extent that it breaks the law is the very defintion of treason. It is making war on the nation. Gabbard has every right to say what she believes to be true. There is no war taking place, but a war might give the Democrats the ability to start jailing people for treason for aiding and comforting the enemy.

If you were to ask the people if they think we should be fighting the Russians and I think the answer would be NO. But the commies would sure like an excuse to start a war. Romney gave the game away. The RINO faction would like to join the Democrats and declare war on Russia.

Who then are the traitors here?

The Soviet Union invaded Hungary and Czechoslovakia in the Cold War days. Those were not occasions for war then. Why this rush to war NOW? For "those in Rio Linda", the Russians dominated the Soviet Union. Russian communists dominated the Soviet Union. Maybe the USA didn't declare war then because the Democrats sympathized with the communists.

Of course, it may be more complicated than that. But the point is that the Democrats today are acting more like communists of yesteryear. That is why I call them out as being that. This includes the marginalization of Tulsi Gabbard and the rest of the hysterical reaction to opposition that they so often display. That behavior is the monolithic characteristic of communists, which they DEMAND. If they aren't communists, then why do they so often act like that?

Too bad Romney decided to join with communists. The GOP is tolerant of communists amongst them. Boy are they open minded.