The only honest Democrat speaks

Tulsi Gabbard warns of the weaponization of bureaucracy

Gabbard is the only Democrat who speaks up against the dire changes Obama and Biden have made in our Republic. The IRS, DHS and DOJ are being used to grasp and hold power. This is not the country we grew up in, when Nixon tried a fraction of what Biden has made routine, he was an instant pariah. At least Nixon hired private goons to do his illegal searches.

And in addition, the EPA has brought back “Sue and Settle” to bypass its own rulemaking procedures, blocking even the handful of legally mandated oilfield lease sales.

And a complacent, partisan press looks the other way as the Rule of Law is shredded.

116 thoughts on “The only honest Democrat speaks

  1. RE: “And a complacent, partisan press looks the other way as the Rule of Law is shredded.”

    I’d be more inclined to describe the press as complicit.


    1. Murdoch was certainly complicit, no doubt. When his journalists get on stage with a candidate, that is pretty complicit in my book. Especially when his cable network had, and still has I think, the biggest audience on the US.

      Don’t forget the talk radio empire on the right.

      And a nice handful of major newspapers.

      I am sure these are what you meant.

      Liked by 2 people

  2. You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

    How is DHS weaponized?

    DOJ? Keep in mind that the separation between the President and the DOJ is much greater now than under the last administration. You might have forgotten how Trump kept shuffling AG and deputies to be “his attorneys”. How he dumped Barr because he found no fraud in the election despite an unprecedented pre and post election investigation without being requested by the states. How he actually had Clark draw up a false letter to sow chaos in GA and other key states.

    IRS? The Lerner scandal was a tempest in a teapot. The IRS was swamped by applications for tax free political organizations, predominantly from the right, and the rest is history. It may not have been handled as well as it should have been, but hardly weaponizing.

    87,000 hires over the next 10 years will bring the IRS close to mid-nineties staffing. Out of the 87,000, only 6500 are agents (10% authorized to be armed for serious cartel and crime investigations), again over the next 10 years. Most are staff and customer service, which had been stripped so that people cannot get through with questions.

    So in my opinion, Gabbard is playing the victim role as only a Republican can, but she claims to be a Democrat.

    I do agree that the current political morass is not the country we grew up in. Past presidents didn’t try to overturn election with violence or chicanery. They also didn’t keep our nations top secrets in desk drawers when they retired.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. DHS? Parents considered terrorists for getting angry when their children are indoctrinated, masked and ostracized if not vaccinated.

      DOJ? Seriously? Supposed contents of documents taken in the search, which remained protected for 20 month sin Trump’s possession, are leaked to NYT and WAPO.

      IRS? Taxpayer private info is leaked to the press and turned over to Congress for no legislative purpose.

      Plenty more.

      And the IRA funds the environmental groups suing the EPA to enact through settlements policy that would not make it through the normal rule making process.

      There has never been such a corrupt administration, not even Nixon.


          1. That documents pertaining to the nuclear capabilities of an adversary were there.

            There aren’t that many possible candidates.

            Of course, it could be just a lie to harm Republicans, in which case, no harm done right?


          2. Funny. You cried the blues when there was speculation about nuclear secrets, but no evidence of it. Now there is evidence and you still complain.

            Right wing victim hood knows no bounds.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. What evidence? There is only a possibly false leak, and an assessment of another country’s capability is not a US nuclear secret. It is a military or diplomatic secret.


          4. You make no sense. Nuclear secrets are top secret whether they are ours, allies or adversaries. What we know about others is not useful if the they know what we know about them.

            Again you were making a big deal because media speculated that it might be nuclear secrets. You wanted transparency. You wanted a list. So the leak is confirming what you demanded to know.

            There are at least 10 nuclear states. None that was leaked said who. Besides, as sloppy as Trump is the country probably already knows. Inadvertently or purposely.

            Liked by 1 person

          5. 120,000 files were inadvertently leaked. A screw up. Inexcusable, like all breaches which happens all to commonly, public and private. How many were donors to conservatives? Liberals? Unions?

            Liked by 2 people

      1. “ Parents considered terrorists…”

        The rest of the story is that there were physical threats made by some parents against school board members. Probably better to have gotten some AR-15’s and shot it out rather than investigate. That seems to be the American way thanks to 400 million guns the 2nd Amendment crowd has managed to flood our nation with.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. A physical threat made to a school board member is certainly something LOCAL law enforcement should look into.

          But labeling parents across the country terrorists and thus the jurisdiction of DHS is simple intimidation of all parents speaking up against the abuses of the Teacher’s Unions and their allies.


      2. “…which remained protected for 20 month sin Trump’s possession, ”

        Protected. In a box in his office next to Time magazines. Where maids, club staff, members, his wife and family have access. The SA secrets are so vital that these are only available to a handful of people viewed in a secure and shield room with guards and log books.

        Liked by 2 people

          1. The photo was staged to show what they found, where they found it and how it was stored. Standard crime scene stuff.

            The papers were laid out to show content and the special covers color coded for classified documents. They were in his office. Not the clothes closet with a padlock.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. Staged.

            There was no reason for the photo other than political use. Certainly no evidentiary value.

            The FBI has become opposition research and propaganda for the Regime.


          3. Trump demanded transparency. Ignore the fact that warrant lists and affidavits are never released until indictments or trials. Never…except for this one man.

            So taking a photo of a cardboard box in his office would not corroborate anything, but showing the contents would. Propaganda? Or transparency demanded and received?

            This whole fiasco is surreal. A defeated president absconded with 11,000 documents that belong to us. Lots of top secret information included. He refused, lied about and spread the papers throughout his very public apartment in a beach club. He stonewalled for 20 months. We did bend over backwards to accommodate only to be ignored. And now Trump is the victim? Are you serious?

            Of course you are. And that is the real shame.


            Liked by 2 people

          4. When they staged the picture, they knew full well that many, if not all, of the Top Secret and Secret folders were empty, but they leaked the photo(unlawfully) to the press without disclosing that.

            Pure poltical propaganda.


          5. Did the court provide the picture to the press?

            That the photo was ALSO provided to the court as well as the press does not change the fact that it is propaganda.


          6. Trump was complaining about the lack of transparency. So a photo that indicated what was found in a cardboard box in his office clears the air.

            Normally search warrants and affidavits are not publicized to protect both the person whose property was searched and any witnesses. Trump would have none of that.

            So here we are.

            He got his pick for special master. My guess is that the DOJ feels confident that the documents as sorted out by the filter team was done properly. So let Trump have his pick verify. One less victimhood whine to deal with.

            Liked by 2 people

          7. Some were empty folders marked classified, which actually caused great concern. Some were cover sheets indicated the level of security.

            Again Trump demanded a response and that gave DOJ a chance to clarify and illustrate what was found, where and how.

            Trump is being treated with kid gloves. He is getting every opportunity to rectify his disregard for our documents and secrets.

            Not bad for a fired government employee.

            Liked by 1 person

          8. “Leaked? ”

            Your response to Tabor’s charge of criminal leaking with the straight-forward facts will not cause one iota of change in the nonsense he spews. He really seems to think that “facts” he pulls out of his ass are good enough for the “marketplace of ideas.” Your courtesy and patience are wasted on such people. But kudos for trying.

            Liked by 1 person

      3. “Parents considered terrorists for getting angry when their children are indoctrinated, masked and ostracized if not vaccinated.”

        Only the ones who threatened violence against school boards.

        “Supposed contents of documents taken in the search, which remained protected for 20 month sin Trump’s possession, are leaked to NYT and WAPO.”

        SUPPOSED. And as far as “protected” goes, you cannot be serious. (With the same disgust as John McEnroe.)

        “There has never been such a corrupt administration, not even Nixon.”

        Correct. Trump’s corruption and disregard for the LAW is well-documented.

        Liked by 1 person

          1. There you go again.

            And his continued claim of “executive privilege” since leaving office has been been in defiance of SCOTUS NOT taking up his claims and the lower court ruling standing.

            And once he got HIS Supreme Court, there would be no problems because the decisions were in HIS favor, because of HIS Justices.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Really?

            What decision from SCOTUS supports ending executive privilege when the President leaves office?

            It has not been litigated because no past President has failed to protect the privilege of his predecessor.


          3. “It has not been litigated “…

            Actually, it has. DC Circuit decision concerning EP stood because SCOTUS did not take it up.

            And the predecessor in this case has been proven to be careless with information and documents. Containing privilege is prudent for the protection of Naitonal Security.

            Liked by 2 people

      1. It does matter that you are going nuts over a single incident which went no where anyway as I recall. And the accuse the DHS of labeling ALL parents in the country as terrorists.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. DHS used that one incident to inject itself into local matters and to label parents angry at being dismissed by school boards at meetings as domestic terrorists, intimidating anyone who spoke


          1. Can you back up that it was a widespread campaign by DHS? People are still threatening school boards, banning books and fighting vaccines.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. The opinion suggests that a whistleblower may have informed Jordan who questioned Garland about a possible “threat tag” use against parents who dissented at a school board meeting.

            “Dissent” including threats of death and violence I suppose.

            So, have any tags been applied yet?

            Liked by 2 people

          3. Conspiracy 101. For every contradiction there is another explanation…

            Like a ball in a pinball machine, the story bounces from myth to myth and conspiracists keep the flipper going furiously to keep it alive.

            Liked by 2 people

      2. “Doesn’t matter, DHS assumed jurisdiction over a local matter.”

        Terrorism is not a local matter. It is part of the remit of DHS to combat it. People threatening violence to get what they want from public officials are terrorists.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. One person threatening a school board member is not terrorism. If there were an organized movement across the country to make such threats, you might have a point, but there isn’t. Those threats are spontaneous responses to arrogance displayed toward parents.

          Involving DHS is intended to suppress dissent by putting people in fear of being on some list that gets you searched every time you get on a plane or quietly makes you unemployable.

          Suppression of dissent is the goal.


          1. “One person threatening a school board member is not terrorism. If there were an organized movement across the country to make such threats, you might have a point, but there isn’t. ”

            How do you know there is not an organized movement to threaten school boards? You also said there was no conspiracy tied to Jan 6th. But that has been proven to be blow up like a busted plate of ketchup on a WH dining room wall.

            Suppression of dissent is a fear mongering phrase with no basis in fact.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. I have no duty to prove a lack of a national movement to terrorize school boards.

            It is your burden to prove there is if you seek to justify DHS involvement.


          3. That is probably why DHS got involved; to determine if there was/IS a national terrorist movement towards school boards and not jus the rantings of insane people who believe things that aren’t real.

            If there is no national movement, then the information concerning individuals terrorizing school boards can be turned back over to local officials.


          4. Sure, government, having gathered dossiers on dissidents, will just toss them out if there turns out no Federal issue is in play. If you believe that, you haven’t paid attention for the last 20 years.


          5. It’s not paranoia when 4000 years of history tells us that government no kept on a short leash inevitably turns on its people.

            With your family history, one would think you would be aware of that.


          6. Paranoia running rampant at the Compound.

            And if there IS found to be a national network or terrorists looking to threaten or harm school boards because they disagree, then what would you say? That they are just patriots trying to protect the children from … teachers?

            Liked by 1 person

          7. “Those threats are spontaneous responses to arrogance displayed toward parents.”

            Threats of political violence whether “spontaneous” or not is the remit of the Department of Homeland Security. And the “arrogance” which you say justifies such threats was with regard to vaccination and masking policy to protect lives. That and the non-existent teaching of “critical race theory.”

            Liked by 1 person

          8. “No, DHS security does not have jurisdiction over isolated, local threats.”


            How is DHS supposed to make those determinations without monitoring and investigating the people who threaten violence to achieve their political goals?

            Liked by 1 person

          9. “They are supposed to wait until local authorities request assistance.”

            Baloney. Read the Patriot Act as amended. The government has been given very broad powers to investigate terrorist conspiracies. If you do not want to get in their sights, don’t threaten to murder public officials.

            Liked by 1 person

          10. Then it should be repealed. But I doubt that the act was intended to be used against parents angry about the way their child’s school is run.

            Certainly threatening violence is wrong, and if a credible threat, criminal, but that is not a Federal matter.



            “School boards in Nevada and Arizona have moved to virtual meetings not because of COVID this time but because of security concerns. “They’ve added extra security guards and metal detectors in school board meetings that have never had those before. It’s really frightening some of the people.”


            “Calls, emails, personal threats and abuse over whatever issue it is – and it’s not just the school board members. It’s been the superintendents. I can tell you that I am seeing a significant departure of superintendents from their jobs because they have been threatened. Their families have been threatened. The children, if they have been in the schools, are being threatened.”

            There is more to the coincidence of anti-CRT threats than just an occasional lively meeting. Proud Boys are showing up, sitting in the front row with bandanas and regalia.

            View at

            The widespread nature of the threats against board members, superintendents, teachers, administrators merits a national investigation. This is not ALEC, where right wingers write the actual legislation and get Republicans to back it. What is happening at the local levels are threats of violence and intimidation. Yet, the issues are nationwide. I think we need to address this nationally, and that would be a matter of Homeland Security or the FBI. Both are charged with policing domestic terror issues. And threatening people is terrorism.

            Liked by 2 people

          12. How many actual attacks on School Board members have there been?

            People get angry when they believe their children are abused but as best I can tell, they are expressing that anger at the ballot box.


          13. Don, please. The articles were all about CRT and anything race related in schools.

            How many actual attacks does it take to terrorize families and children of administration and board members.

            People get angry when people try to extort via threats. Presidents as well as parents are no exception to the law. But it seems to be fine so long as it fits the right wing agenda.

            Liked by 2 people

          14. So, none, right?

            People get angry when their public servants look them in the eye and lie to them, especially about their children.

            CRT is not taught in schools, but it is pervasive in the curriculum and the classrooms.

            It is even getting into medical schools.

            Everyone is due equality in America, but no one is due equity.

            So, yes, you tell parents, or worse, their children, that having married parents, who are engaged in their child’s education, who help with the homework, coach little league, or serve as scoutmasters that those things make the children unfairly privileged and they are going to be pissed.

            Good parenting is not something to be held against a child.


          15. Where did I say that?

            I said the anger was understandable, and if you have witnessed recent school board meetings in VA Beach, you would see the arrogance and condescension by the majority members is infuriating enough that I can understand some intemperate words, but I have never excused acts of violence.

            In some ways, it’s our own fault. we have largely ignored school board elections, letting the teacher’s union pretty much choose their own bosses, but no more.

            For years my daughter was uninterested in politics, but she went to a school board meeting last year and came home an activist.


          16. “I said the anger was understandable,”

            So, you have no trouble understanding the anger of parents roused up by nonsense about CRT but the anger of black people at continuing discrimination and police abuse is a mystery to you? The former are just reacting naturally, but the latter are “leftists” out to undermine our country with political violence?

            Liked by 2 people

          17. No, the former is real, the latter is mostly imaginary.

            Are Blacks more likely to be stopped by police? Sure, but why?

            Could it be that they match the description of someone involved in a recent crime? Whose fault is that? The police or the criminal?

            We have done a lot in this country to stamp out racism, but we can’t stamp out reality, or its consequences.


          18. “No, the former is real, the latter is mostly imaginary.”

            Mostly imaginary? Good grief.

            I am tempted to point out how completely racist your bullshit is but you would be offended so I won’t. I will just remind you that the evidence trumps your silly comment.




            Liked by 1 person

          19. Wow, you still don’t understand correlation vs causation.

            Who is more likely to resist the police?

            As mentioned before, who is more likely to match the description of someone recently involved in a crime?

            Marijuana use may well be equal, but how about PUBLIC use? Especially while driving?

            You are reversing causation.


          20. “Wow, you still don’t understand correlation vs causation.”

            How do you breathe with your head so far up you ass?

            That is a total nonsense response to the cited overwhelming evidence that black people are STILL being systematically victimized by the police and the criminal justice system. All just some sort of massive coincidence? Really?

            Liked by 1 person

          21. Coincidence? Of course not.

            It is the entirely predictable consequence of behavior.

            If a crime is committed by a Black man driving a silver Toyota, do the police stop everyone driving a silver Toyota?

            If innocent Black men are stopped, whose fault is that, the police or the criminal who looks like them?

            If Black men resist the police far more often than White men, whose fault is it when it turns out badly? DO you have evidence that there is a racial disparity in outcomes among those who violently resist arrest?

            Police must operate in the environment they find. If it results in racial disparities, then perhaps the Black community should look to their own behavior.


          22. “If a crime is committed by a Black man driving a silver Toyota, do the police stop everyone driving a silver Toyota?”

            You are full of shit. Again.

            Stops for the “crime” of Driving While Black have very rarely been anything to do with some crime committed by someone else. There is no reason to believe that blacks are more likely to violently resist arrest than anyone else or that black marijuana smokers are more blatant. None.

            You have obviously given up trying to hide your deeply embedded racist stereotypes which are on full display with this “thinking.”

            Liked by 1 person

          23. Really?

            Of the Black men killed by police in recent years, how many were not resisting arrest?

            Have you ever driven in Norfolk?

            Public marijuana use is pretty blatant in North of the railroad tracks in Park Place and you see people driving and smoking almost every day. I have no problem with using marijuana, but I do have a problem with driving under the influence.


          24. I live in Norfolk. Going through Park Place is normal for me when shopping, etc. I see few if any driving and smoking grass. Mostly cigarettes and texting, however.

            Just my own anecdotal observation, I see more texting from young men and women on the way to office jobs based on dress. Texting has been shown to be as impairing as DUI, but nobody thinks they are not special.

            Liked by 1 person

          25. “Of the Black men killed by police in recent years, how many were not resisting arrest?”

            How many were resisting arrest or were armed?

            A Black pastor was recently arrest while watering a neighbors yard. He lived across the street and said so. He was on private property and the police demanded an ID. He did not produce one and they arrested him. He had to post bail. Charges dropped eventually. But ask yourself if you were watering your neighbors yard. Would police even bother to stop to demand an ID?


            Note that his attorney said he did not have to show ID on demand since he was in private property.

            Liked by 1 person

          26. Is the higher number of Blacks killed by police the result of racism or a cultural predisposition to fight the police.

            You are unable to point to any significant number of cases of Black men being killed by police who were not resisting.

            No one has a right to resist a lawdul arrest.


          27. You think it’s funny?

            While it’s true that criminals are disproportionately Black, it is not true that Blacks are largely criminals. The vast majority are not.

            The minority of Blacks who are criminals create hardship for those who are not.

            But that is not because of racism by the police.


          28. “Where did I say that?”

            With damned near every single post lately. Anyone with an 8th grade reading comprehension level can see what you are ssying in defense of those you agree with and attack those you disagree with.

            The word is HYPOCRITE.

            Liked by 1 person

  3. Speaking of “weaponizing” the DOJ:

    “The Justice Department told us, ‘Hey, you have just indicted two allies of the president, Chris Collins, who is a Republican congressman from upstate New York, and Michael Cohen, who was the president’s lawyer and fixer, and it’s time for you guys to even things out and indict a Democrat before the midterm election,'” Berman said. “It was something we never heard or seen before.”

    Liked by 2 people

    1. So, Berman is selling a book. OK, but he could name names

      “Berman wrote that the Justice Department asked him to “even things out”

      The whole Justice Dept? Or someone in particular?

      The 2nd District of NY Attorney’s office was on a jihad against Trump since before the 2016 election. Asking for equal treatment is not weaponizing the office. Why was Kerry not indicted? He very plainly broke the law. As did Hillary.

      So, why are you upset that the Trump administration suggested equal treatment before the law in the run up to the 2018 midterms?

      Looks to me like the 2nd District on NY was weaponized against Trump even while he was in office.


          1. They might have been pursuing Trump and family since Fred made a living out of screwing the US for fun and profit.

            Most con men have long records of legal entanglements. No reason for Trump to be an exception.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Unequal treatment before the law is OK as long as it’s Trump?

            Where are the subpoena’s for Epstein’s clients? Hunter’s business associates and family?

            Your tribe is protected, your opponents are pursued and intimidated, but that is OK with you.

            And you call other people fascists.


          3. “Unequal treatment before the law is OK as long as it’s Trump?”

            It is certainly NOT okay. It is long past time for Trump’s multiple get-out-of-jail-free cards to be tossed. No one is above the law. It is long past time for him to be held accountable.

            Liked by 1 person

  4. Hunter’s laptop had been with Trump’s DOJ and FBI for quite some time. Apparently there is no case there…except among the cult, of course.

    Epstein? Trumps good friend who, like himself, liked women but on the younger side. That Epstein?

    Liked by 2 people

      1. You forgot Prince Andrew. And probably countless other wealthy and influential folks that may have enjoyed Epstein’s favors. We have photos and praises from Trump, however. Others not so much.

        Trump can ponder his relationship while wearing a jumpsuit in a GA prison. Threatening GA officials with prosecution for not “finding” an exact number of votes in a recorded and heavily witnessed phone call is both a felony and ignorant.

        Only the felony is illegal. Ignorance?

        Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s