Tulsi Gabbard for President

[yankeedoodle]

She called Donnie-boy "Saudi Arabia's bitch."  That's a good start.

Rebel Democrat Tulsi Gabbard hints at 2020 run with a tour of first primary states
https://www.rt.com/usa/445503-gabbard-presidency-run-2020/?utm_source=browser&utm_medium=aplication_chrome&utm_campaign=chrome

Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) has indicated her desire to run for president in 2020. The outspoken anti-war advocate said that she is thinking of how she can "best be of service" to the US in a meet-up in New Hampshire.

Speculation has been rife that Gabbard, who backed Bernie Sanders in 2016, is contemplating a presidential bid of her own. However, the popular Hawaii Democrat was tight-lipped about the prospect so far, despite making a series of appearances at high-profile progressive events, firing up her base in Iowa and New Hampshire, the first and the second states to host nationwide party primary elections.

Gabbard was in New Hampshire to drum up support for her progressive cause on Sunday, when she was asked whether she had already set a date for the big announcement. Short of providing an unequivocal response, Gabbard said that she has been "seriously thinking of how I can be best of service to our country."

If she ventures to join what is expected to become a crowded field of Democratic contestants, Gabbard might have to face off with Sanders, who also recently signalled another run.

Asked whether the Vermont Senator's decision would influence hers, Gabbard made clear a possible clash is not on the list of her concerns.

"I think you'd better ask him what his plans are, I'm thinking about how I can be best of service to our country," she doubled down.

Addressing a packed audience at Rockingham County on Sunday, Gabbard covered many nationwide issues, such as the dominance of big corporate money in US politics and the "counter-productive" interventionist policy of the successive US administrations.

"I've been meeting with progressive leaders and activists who are doing the work that's necessary on the ground to make the kind of change that we need to see across the country at the local level and the national level," she told Honolulu Civil Beat in the wake of the meeting.

Rumors of Gabbard's anticipated run have been circling for several months. In September, she headlined a summit of several hundred progressive and grassroots activists in New Hampshire.

In October, Gabbard was one of the keynote speakers in the annual Johnson County Democrats fundraiser in Iowa, where she was reportedly cheered on by supporters to consider a presidential campaign.

Gabbard resigned as Democratic National Committee (DNC) vice-chair in early 2016 to endorse Sanders and has long since fallen out with the Democratic establishment.

She angered the mainstream left by going on a private fact-finding mission to Syria in 2017, during which she met with President Bashar Assad and other officials. Gabbard, an Iraq War veteran, argues that the US's primary goal in Syria is to topple the Assad government through terrorist proxies on the ground.

The anti-interventionist congresswoman, known for speaking her mind, recently drew a massive backlash for pointing out that the Trump administration acts "as protectors of AQ [Al-Qaeda] in Syria/Idlib."

Gabbard also recently called Trump "Saudi Arabia's b*tch" for his decision to stand with Saudi Arabia in the aftermath of the killing of Washington Post contributor Jamal Khashoggi.

If Gabbard does run, she would be joining what promises to be a tightly-contested field, as several prominent Democratic party figures have already indicated similar intentions, including Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, Kamala Harris of California and Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who recently said that she would "take a hard look" at the prospect of running in 2020.

Former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton is not entirely out of the game either, as rumors of her launching another presidential bid endure.

[yankeedoodle]

Tulsi 2020: Hawaii congresswoman says she's running for president
https://www.rt.com/usa/448623-gabbard-tulsi-running-president/?utm_source=browser&utm_medium=aplication_chrome&utm_campaign=chrome

Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) is running for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination. The Samoan and Hindu congresswoman is an Iraq War veteran and an outspoken critic of US 'regime change' policy in Syria.

"I have decided to run and will be making a formal announcement within the next week," Gabbard told CNN's Van Jones, the network revealed on Friday evening. The interview will air on Saturday evening.

"There are a lot of reasons for me to make this decision. There are a lot of challenges that are facing the American people that I'm concerned about and that I want to help solve," she said, mentioning healthcare access, criminal justice reform and climate change as her key platform issues.

There is one main issue that is central to the rest, and that is the issue of war and peace.

Gabbard was elected to Congress in 2012 and currently serves on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. She served in a medical unit of the Hawaii National Guard and was deployed in Kuwait and Iraq.

In 2016, Gabbard resigned as Vice Chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), after endorsing Bernie Sanders for president. Sanders eventually lost the nomination to Hillary Clinton, who went on to lose the election to Donald Trump.

[maz]

The establishment are using the blue check mark LGBT attack dogs on her.

Also, I never remember ever reading anything about her religion, and now she is being labelled as a "Hindu extremist."

Funny, she's been in Congress for how many years now? Two or three, wait I looked it up, almost 6 years now and this is only just coming up now?

Tulsi Gabbard's Homophobic Remarks Surface After 2020 Presidential Announcement

It's been one day since Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) announced she was running for president in the 2020 election, and parts of her conservative past are already coming back to haunt her.

Those come in the form of homophobic remarks the congresswoman made over a decade ago. At least twice the Hawaii Democrat publicly called the LGBTQ community and supporters of same-sex marriage "homosexual extremists."

In one instance in February 2004, Gabbard, at the time a 22-year-old state representative, was testifying against a bill aimed at legalizing same-sex civil unions.

"To try to act as if there is a difference between 'civil unions' and same-sex marriage is dishonest, cowardly and extremely disrespectful to the people of Hawaii," she said. "As Democrats, we should be representing the views of the people, not a small number of homosexual extremists."

Six months later, Gabbard spoke more candidly while replying to an email originally sent to her father, Mike Gabbard, who was a Republican city councilman in Honolulu running for Congress.

"I smell a skunk," Gabbard told Honolulu Magazine. She was responding to an email that was originally addressed to her father asking about his ties to the leader of a Hare Krishna movement in Hawaii, according to the magazine.

"It's clear to me that you're acting as a conduit for The Honolulu Weekly and other homosexual extremist supporters of Ed Case [Mike Gabbard's opponent]," she wrote.

Gabbard was elected to the U.S. House in 2012 and became the first Hindu member of Congress, as well as one of Congress' first female combat veterans.

She quickly became a star of the Democratic Party with her own rogue brand of progressive leadership.
Subscribe to The Morning Email.
Wake up to the day's most important news.

Gabbard's remarks from 14 years ago were bound to resurface as she walked even further into the national spotlight with her presidential bid.

And while Gabbard, 37, has evolved since then ― she once backed a bill targeting discrimination based on sexual orientation and famously endorsed Bernie Sanders' presidential bid at the expense of her post as Democratic National Committee vice chair ― some people, including journalists from Hawaii to D.C., wouldn't let her off easy for her homophobic remarks.

Gabbard may back legislation that supports the LGBTQ community, but it's unclear if her personal views have evolved with her career.

A 2016 profile of the combat veteran published in Ozy suggests otherwise: "She tells me that, no, her personal views haven't changed, but she doesn't figure it's her job to do as the Iraqis did and force her own beliefs on others," noted reporter Sanjena Sathian.
RELATED COVERAGE

Gabbard was elected to the U.S. House in 2012 and became the first Hindu member of Congress, as well as one of Congress' first female combat veterans.

She quickly became a star of the Democratic Party with her own rogue brand of progressive leadership.

Gabbard's remarks from 14 years ago were bound to resurface as she walked even further into the national spotlight with her presidential bid.

And while Gabbard, 37, has evolved since then ― she once backed a bill targeting discrimination based on sexual orientation and famously endorsed Bernie Sanders' presidential bid at the expense of her post as Democratic National Committee vice chair ― some people, including journalists from Hawaii to D.C., wouldn't let her off easy for her homophobic remarks.

Gabbard may back legislation that supports the LGBTQ community, but it's unclear if her personal views have evolved with her career.

A 2016 profile of the combat veteran published in Ozy suggests otherwise: "She tells me that, no, her personal views haven't changed, but she doesn't figure it's her job to do as the Iraqis did and force her own beliefs on others," noted reporter Sanjena Sathian.

[yankeedoodle]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74ciO5JzgCk

[yankeedoodle]

The establishment are using the blue check mark LGBT attack dogs on her.

Also, I never remember ever reading anything about her religion, and now she is being labelled as a "Hindu extremist."

Funny, she's been in Congress for how many years now? Two or three, wait I looked it up, almost 6 years now and this is only just coming up now?

Tulsi Gabbard's Homophobic Remarks Surface After 2020 Presidential Announcement 

Tulsi really has them freaked out.  She was raised outside the zio-indoctrination system, and she doesn't give a fuck about Israhell.  Notice that they are implying that she is in a "cult," which is interesting, since the biggest and most evil cult in the world is Israhell-worshipping zionism, which she doesn't give a fuck about, and they know that they have no influence over her. 

Gabbard...was raised as part of a group called the Science of Identity Foundation, led by a man named Chris Butler.
[...]
Gabbard was, indeed, homeschooled.
[...]
Regardless of any progressive positions Gabbard embraces, all of this speaks to a worldview formed as part of an authoritarian cult that should be deeply troubling to any Democrat.

Can Democrats Trust Tulsi Gabbard?
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/01/15/can-democrats-trust-tulsi-gabbard/

Fox News host Laura Ingraham, for example, on Monday evening cited Gabbard as being among the Democrats "who criticize Israel for nothing."

Why Conservative Media and the Far Right Love Tulsi Gabbard for President
https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-conservative-media-and-the-far-right-love-tulsi-gabbard-for-president 

[yankeedoodle]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=18&v=IqJw-bp9uZY

As she enters White House race, demonization of 'Kremlin's crush' Tulsi Gabbard goes full tilt
https://www.rt.com/news/450513-tulsi-gabbard-nbc-media-demonization/?utm_source=browser&utm_medium=aplication_chrome&utm_campaign=chrome

The sky may have been clear in Hawaii when Tulsi Gabbard read her speech promising to fight "greed and corruption," but she enters her bid under a cloud of negative media coverage and accusations of being Russia's darling.

At first glance Gabbard would seem almost too perfect for the Democratic candidate to face Trump in 2020: a 37-year-old part-Samoan woman, who previously broke off a promising career in local politics to volunteer for combat zone service in Iraq, and is unfailingly popular with voters on her home island.

"What our country needs now more than ever is the spirit of Aloha. That spirit of respect and love for one another and for our country," she said in a launch speech that the 2008 Barack Obama, himself, might have found too idealistically bland.

Hours earlier, in a two-author NBC investigation an entirely different picture had been painted of the "controversial" Gabbard – the centerpoint of "the first stirrings of an upcoming Russian campaign" in which the Kremlin "propaganda machine" would seek to inject pro-Russian positions into the Democratic Party's discussions and debates with help from "inauthentic accounts."

I'm Not With Her
To understand why Gabbard is not treated as a customary feel-good story of a woman breaking multiple glass ceilings, but as a tool of the Kremlin, several pages of her biography need to be revisited.

The first, her resignation from the senior post of Vice President of the Democratic National Committee in protest at the lack of scheduled debates between frontrunner Hillary Clinton and the rising Bernie Sanders, whom she subsequently went on to endorse.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=b87RZ_mQU6Y

The second, a now-famous meeting with Bashar Assad in 2017, and Gabbard's insistence that Washington should not engage in "regime change" or sponsorship of radical militant organizations in Syria or anywhere else.

Those two incidents alone have pitted Gabbard against two major establishment forces, and that is before one gets into the details of her socialist-tinged platform from healthcare for all to anti-Wall Street policy proposals. Or her support of stronger border control, which puts her at odds with her party's official position.

Friendly fire
None of Gabbard's stances are beyond debate, but she may not even get as far as debating them in public with the other Democrat nominees, if her campaign is dead on arrival. And the media hasn't been her friend.

All candidates face scrutiny and an airing of their skeletons, but not only has she received less airtime than fellow relative novices Cory Booker and Kamala Harris, but the overall coverage of Gabbard has been uncharacteristically toxic, perhaps comparable only to the Democratic ostracism of Howard Schultz, following the former Starbucks CEO's unbidden decision to enter the race.

The favored genre has been the expose.

In the past month alone: CNN has dug up Gabbard's activism and comments, some dating back to the late 1990s, when she was a teenager, against same-sex marriage, for a campaign backed by her legislator father. The Intercept has accused her of associating with Hindu Nationalists, while the Daily Beast has published an article under the title 'Horseshoe theory: Why Conservative Media and the Far Right Love Tulsi Gabbard for President', in which it was emphasized that the "enigmatic" Gabbard had "earned substantial praise" from, among others, white nationalist David Duke. Huffington Post accused her of hypocrisy for accepting money from arms manufacturers in the past, even though she never concealed that fact, and is in reality one of just several members of the House who explicitly refuse campaign donations.

Politico published a detailed dissection of her campaign being "in disarray" based on detailed unattributed revelations from the inside, while Daily Kos, the Democrat politics blog, has already endorsed her rival for the 2020 Congress run, which equates to the real election in a district where the Democrats have never lost against the GOP.

'Defended' her in an article – how dare they?
On Friday, came NBC's coup de grace.

"An NBC News analysis of the main English-language news sites employed by Russia in its 2016 election meddling shows Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, who is set to make her formal announcement Saturday, has become a favorite of the sites Moscow used when it interfered in 2016,"  wrote the authors, one of whom Ben Popken, concluded that the Kremlin "has a crush" on Gabbard when he posted his article to Twitter.

The "analysis" – which appears to have been a name search – found that 20 articles have been published on Gabbard by RT (is it 21 now?), Sputnik and Russia Insider, twice as many as Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders. And not just that, but in these articles Gabbard was not mentioned "perfunctorily" but "celebrated" and "defended" despite her "lack of voter recognition."

Even supposing that all that is correct, does RT have to cover Joe Biden every time it mentions Tulsi Gabbard? Elizabeth Warren? Julian Castro? Should CNN stop putting Kamala Harris in almost every piece about the race? As a non-US news outlet is RT allowed to find her non-interventionist views more interesting for its international audience than those of a status quo Democratic runner? What about as an alternative media outlet? Should covering a candidate who "lacks voter recognition" be considered suspicious? How much of this is sufficient to justify accusations of meddling and being branded a "Russian troll" and presumably sanctioned? Does all of this apply when the US media writes about Juan Guaido in Venezuela?

But wait, there are also "experts who track inauthentic social media accounts" who back this up.

"A few of our analysts saw some chatter on 8chan saying she was a good 'divider' candidate to amplify," New Knowledge's director of research Renee DiResta told NBC. 8chan? Chatter? Also New Knowledge? The establishment Democrat tech outfit that has just been caught planting and creating fake Russian bots in the Alabama election as part of a false flag operation. They are your experts, NBC?

Even much of Dem-voting Twitter was appalled at such a ham-fisted smear job. Though not Bill Browder... or Ashton Kutcher.

Incompetent, threat or victim of smear campaign?
The media are now fulfilling their own prophecies, as they publish pieces about the "rocky" or "chaotic" start to Gabbard's campaign. As she keeps going on the defensive – apologizing for the gay marriage remarks, standing firm on Assad meeting – the Hawaiian representative may survive or wilt.

But two questions remain: Is Gabbard just a stumbling novice with odd views, or is the media trying to systematically bury her, as opposed to informing their readers, all because she presents a threat to accepted positions? And secondly, is it doing so at the behest of and with help from a network of influence, be it DNC operatives, or Washington insiders? If the answer to the first question is "the latter" or to the second is "yes," perhaps instead of spending so much time on our website, investigative reporters should have a look at the provenance and motivations behind some of their own coverage.

Igor Ogorodnev, RT

[yankeedoodle]

The immediate and relentless attacks on Tulsi continue. 

The poor girl's a Rooskie, they say. 

'Neocon warmongers': NBC slammed for drawing on dodgy Russiagate org in Gabbard smear
https://www.rt.com/usa/450613-nbc-gabbard-new-knowledge-smear/?utm_source=browser&utm_medium=aplication_chrome&utm_campaign=chrome

NBC's claim Tulsi Gabbard is supported by a Kremlin propaganda effort is based on data from a cybersecurity firm already exposed for creating fake Russian bot accounts, prompting a sharp rebuke from Gabbard and mockery online.

The network published an article  https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/russia-s-propaganda-machine-discovers-2020-democratic-candidate-tulsi-gabbard-n964261?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma  claiming "Russia's propaganda machine" had discovered Gabbard, and said experts tracking Russian-linked social media saw "stirrings of a possible campaign of support."

It has since been revealed by The Intercept that the NBC report relied on the claims of a discredited cybersecurity firm exposed in December as making up fake Russian bot accounts to create misleading stories about Russian influence.

Gabbard shared the Intercept's article Sunday, saying NBC "used journalistic fraud" to discredit her campaign in order to "to smear any adversary of the establishment wing of the Democratic Party – whether on the left or the right – as a stooge or asset of the Kremlin."

The NBC article cited the firm New Knowledge, which created fake Russian troll accounts on Facebook and Twitter in order to drum up false claims that the Kremlin was meddling in the Alabama Senate election to undermine Democrat Doug Jones and promote his rival, Republican Roy Moore. According to an internal report seen by the New York Times, the company boasted about such, saying it had created an elaborate 'false flag' operation.

New Knowledge CEO Jonathon Morgan created the false accounts and then used them to mislead both the public and the US national media.

The organization wrote a Senate Intelligence Committee report on Russian social media election interference. It created the Alliance for Securing Democracy's Hamilton 68, a dashboard which claims to track Russian disinformation through monitoring social media accounts it says are linked to Russian disinformation and has been criticized for not being conclusive (by one of its own creators) and for not being transparent about its methodologies.

It also created a similar dashboard, Disinfo2018, which the NBC article referenced, claiming it had discovered that three of the top URLs shared by social media accounts deemed to be Russian propagandists were about Gabbard.

Out of the 15 top URLs listed by Disinfo2018, one was a Medium article from journalist Caitlin Johnstone and the other two were unspecified tweets, amplifiers of the Disinfo data said.

However, according to a screen grab posted by one of those sharing the data, the tweets listed consist of Hillary Clinton calling Trump a puppet, Meghan McCain slamming Gabbard for her past anti-LGBT stance, journalist Max Blumenthal referencing a Joe Rogan episode where Gabbard talked about North Korea, and a Washington Post tweet of an article reporting that Russian voter targeting doesn't exist.

NBC has not yet amended its story or responded to queries on social media about the article's claims.




And, in this little video, the poor girl has to sit quietly while some bitch bullies her about opposing faggots getting married.

Gabbard: I apologized years ago for anti-gay comments
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/02/03/tulsi-gabbard-regrets-anti-gay-comments-nr-sot-vpx.cnn/video/playlists/this-week-in-politics/

[yankeedoodle]

Tulsi Gabbard accuses NBC of trying to smear her as 'Kremlin stooge' to 'discredit' her 2020 campaign
https://www.businessinsider.com/tulsi-gabbard-lashes-out-at-nbc-over-russia-propaganda-report-2019-2

Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, who's running for president in 2020, has accused NBC News of attempting to smear her as a "Kremlin stooge."

A recent NBC report suggested there are signs Russian propagandists are working to back Gabbard's candidacy.

In a tweet, Gabbard said NBC "used journalistic fraud to discredit our campaign."

The Hawaii congresswoman, who has controversial positions on foreign policy, also seemed to embrace the notion NBC is part of a broader effort to undermine her campaign because she has views contrary to the Democratic establishment.

Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, who's running for president in 2020, on Sunday lashed out at NBC News over a report suggesting Russian propagandists have started to back her candidacy.

Gabbard, who formally launched her campaign on Saturday, in a tweet accused NBC of employing "journalistic fraud to discredit our campaign."

The NBC report, published Saturday, said that analysis shows "the main English-language news sites employed by Russia in its 2016 election meddling shows Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii ... has become a favorite of the sites Moscow used when it interfered in 2016."

The report added, "Since Gabbard announced her intention to run on January 11, there have been at least 20 Gabbard stories on three major Moscow-based English-language websites affiliated with or supportive of the Russian government." The pro-Russia outlets listed include RT, Sputnik News, and Russia Insider.

The report also said that experts who track Kremlin-linked websites and social-media accounts found evidence of "what they believe may be the first stirrings of an upcoming Russian campaign of support for Gabbard."

Glenn Greenwald, one of the founding editors of The Intercept who is perhaps best known for his reporting on the Edward Snowden leaks, slammed NBC in an article that questioned the credibility of one of the sources cited in the report — the cybersecurity firm New Knowledge.

Greenwald cited a New York Times report that said New Knowledge was involved in an effort to mimic the tactics of Russian trolls in order to aid Sen. Doug Jones' campaign against Republican Roy Moore in Alabama. On this basis, Greenwald contended NBC's "whole story" on Gabbard "was a sham."

Ben Popken, one of the reporters behind the NBC story, responded to Greenwald's article in a series of tweets. Popken said there's "a lot wild conflation and hyperbole over New Knowledge," and he didn't feel it amounted to enough to reject the firm as a source.

Greenwald in his story accused NBC of attempting to "smear Gabbard as a Kremlin favorite," saying it's a move right out of the "playbook" of those seeking to undermine adversaries of "the establishment wing of the Democratic Party." He pegged NBC as among the entities working to uphold the status quo and prop up the establishment.

Gabbard has a history of taking controversial foreign-policy stances, and was widely criticized in 2017 after she visited Syrian President Bashar Assad — an ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin. She compounded the backlash by expressing skepticism about reports of Assad using chemical weapons against civilians.

In response to NBC's story, Gabbard seemed to latch onto Greenwald's suggestion that there's an active effort to paint the Hawaii congresswoman as a "Kremlin stooge" to derail her campaign for president.

[yankeedoodle]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gr4HEQsAsKM

[yankeedoodle]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=272&v=QlXhRBsOwpA

[yankeedoodle]

Phil Giraldi gives Tulsi a very positive write-up:

Is Tulsi Gabbard for Real?
America Is Ready for a Genuine Peace Candidate
http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/is-tulsi-gabbard-for-real/

The lineup of Democrats who have already declared themselves as candidates for their party's presidential nomination in 2020 is remarkable, if only for the fact that so many wannabes have thrown their hats in the ring so early in the process. In terms of electability, however, one might well call the seekers after the highest office in the land the nine dwarfs. Four of the would-be candidates – Marianne Williamson a writer, Andrew Yang an entrepreneur, Julian Castro a former Obama official, Senator Amy Klobuchar and Congressman John Delaney – have no national profiles at all and few among the Democratic Party rank-and-file would be able to detail who they are, where they come from and what their positions on key issues might be.

Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts has a national following but she also has considerable baggage. The recent revelation that she falsely described herself as "American Indian" back in 1986 for purposes of career advancement, which comes on top of similar reports of more of the same as well as other resume-enhancements that surfaced when she first became involved in national politics, prompted Donald Trump to refer to her as "Pocahontas." Warren, who is largely progressive on social and domestic issues, has been confronted numerous times regarding her views on Israel/Palestine and beyond declaring that she favors a "two state solution" has been somewhat reticent. She should be described as pro-Israel for the usual reasons and is not reliably anti-war. She comes across as a rather more liberal version of Hillary Clinton.

And then there is New Jersey Senator Cory Booker, being touted as the "new Obama," presumably because he is both black and progressive. His record as Mayor of Newark New Jersey, which launched his career on the national stage, has both high and low points and it has to be questioned if America is ready for another smooth-talking black politician whose actual record of accomplishments is on the thin side. One unfortunately recalls the devious Obama's totally bogus Nobel Peace Prize and his Tuesday morning meetings with John Brennan to work on the list of Americans who were to be assassinated.

Booker has carefully cultivated the Jewish community in his political career, to include a close relationship with the stomach-churning "America's Rabbi" Shmuley Boteach, but has recently become more independent of those ties, supporting the Obama deal with Iran and voting against anti-Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) legislation in the Senate. On the negative side, the New York Times likes Booker, which means that he will turn most other Americans off. He is also 49 years old and unmarried, which apparently bothers some in the punditry.

California Senator Kamala Harris is a formidable entrant into the crowded field due to her resume, nominally progressive on most issues, but with a work history that has attracted critics concerned by her hard-line law-and-order enforcement policies when she was District Attorney General for San Francisco and Attorney General for California. She has also spoken at AIPAC, is anti-BDS, and is considered to be reliably pro-Israel, which would rule her out for some, though she might be appealing to middle of the road Democrats like the Clintons and Nancy Pelosi who have increasingly become war advocates. She will have a tough time convincing the antiwar crowd that she is worth supporting and there are reports that she will likely split the black women's vote even though she is black herself, perhaps linked to her affair with California powerbroker Willie Brown when she was 29 and Brown was 61. Brown was married, though separated, to a black woman at the time. Harris is taking heat because she clearly used the relationship to advance her career while also acquiring several patronage sinecures on state commissions that netted her hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The most interesting candidate is undoubtedly Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, who is a fourth term Congresswoman from Hawaii, where she was born and raised. She is also the real deal on national security, having been-there and done-it through service as an officer with the Hawaiian National Guard on a combat deployment in Iraq. Though in Congress full time, she still performs her Guard duty.

Tulsi's own military experience notwithstanding, she gives every indication of being honestly anti-war. In the speech announcing her candidacy she pledged "focus on the issue of war and peace" to "end the regime-change wars that have taken far too many lives and undermined our security by strengthening terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda." She referred to the danger posed by blundering into a possible nuclear war and indicated her dismay over what appears to be a re-emergence of the Cold War.

Not afraid of challenging establishment politics, she called for an end to the "illegal war to overthrow the Syrian government," also observing that "the war to overthrow Assad is counter-productive because it actually helps ISIS and other Islamic extremists achieve their goal of overthrowing the Syrian government of Assad and taking control of all of Syria – which will simply increase human suffering in the region, exacerbate the refugee crisis, and pose a greater threat to the world." She then backed up her words with action by secretly arranging for a personal trip to Damascus in 2017 to meet with President Bashar al-Assad, saying it was important to meet adversaries "if you are serious about pursuing peace." She made her own assessment of the situation in Syria and now favors pulling US troops out of the country as well as ending American interventions for "regime change" in the region.

In 2015, Gabbard supported President Barack Obama's nuclear agreement with Iran and more recently has criticized President Donald Trump's withdrawal from the deal. Last May, she criticized Israel for shooting "unarmed protesters" in Gaza, but one presumes that, like nearly all American politicians, she also has to make sure that she does not have the Israel Lobby on her back. Gabbard has spoken at a conference of Christians United for Israel, which has defended Israel's settlement enterprise; has backed legislation that slashes funding to the Palestinians; and has cultivated ties with Boteach as well as with major GOP donor casino magnate Sheldon Adelson. She also attended the controversial address to Congress by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in March 2015, which many progressive Democrats boycotted.

Nevertheless, Tulsi supported Bernie Sanders' antiwar candidacy in 2016 and appears to be completely onboard and fearless in promoting her antiwar sentiments. Yes, Americans have heard much of the same before, but Tulsi Gabbard could well be the only genuine antiwar candidate that might truly be electable in the past fifty years.

What Tulsi Gabbard is accomplishing might be measured by the enemies that are already gathering and are out to get her. Glenn Greenwald at The Intercept describes how NBC news published a widely distributed story on February 1st, claiming that "experts who track websites and social media linked to Russia have seen stirrings of a possible campaign of support for Hawaii Democrat Tulsi Gabbard."

But the expert cited by NBC turned out to be a firm New Knowledge, which was exposed by no less than The New York Times for falsifying Russian troll accounts for the Democratic Party in the Alabama Senate race to suggest that the Kremlin was interfering in that election. According to Greenwald, the group ultimately behind this attack on Gabbard is The Alliance for Securing Democracy (ASD), which sponsors a tool called Hamilton 68, a news "intelligence net checker" that claims to track Russian efforts to disseminate disinformation. The ASD website advises that "Securing Democracy is a Global Necessity."

ASD was set up in 2017 by the usual neocon crowd with funding from The Atlanticist and anti-Russian German Marshall Fund. It is loaded with a full complement of Zionists and interventionists/globalists, to include Michael Chertoff, Michael McFaul, Michael Morell, Kori Schake and Bill Kristol. It claims, innocently, to be a bipartisan transatlantic national security advocacy group that seeks to identify and counter efforts by Russia to undermine democracies in the United States and Europe but it is actually itself a major source of disinformation.

For the moment, Tulsi Gabbard seems to be the "real thing," a genuine anti-war candidate who is determined to run on that platform. It might just resonate with the majority of American who have grown tired of perpetual warfare to "spread democracy" and other related frauds perpetrated by the band of oligarchs and traitors that run the United States. We the people can always hope.

[yankeedoodle]

Tulsi's official website:  https://www.tulsi2020.com/

[yankeedoodle]

Tulsi issues a challenge on the day shit-for-brains shabbos goy Donnie-boy declares that there is a "national emergency" because he can't get anybody to pay for his fucking "wall."

This girl will kick Donnie-boy's ass. 

Tulsi Gabbard presents bill to stop Trump from pulling out of INF treaty
https://www.rt.com/usa/451577-tulsi-gabbard-stop-inf-pullout-trump/?utm_source=browser&utm_medium=aplication_chrome&utm_campaign=chrome

Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard has introduced a bill to Congress which would prevent President Donald Trump from withdrawing the US from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF).

Speaking at a press conference on Friday morning, Gabbard said that Trump's decision to pull out of the 1988 treaty was "reckless," was "exacerbating a new Cold War" with Russia, and could spark another arms race.

"Walking away from this agreement doesn't solve our problems, it makes them worse. It doesn't bring us closer to peace, it moves us closer to war," she said.

Gabbard said she was introducing the bill, called the "INF Treaty Compliance Act," not only to prevent the escalation of a new Cold War, but to "stop more American taxpayer dollars from being wasted on military adventurism that makes our people and our country less safe."

She said that rather than scrapping the treaty, the US should be working to expand it and bring in other countries, including China.

The bill would prohibit "a single taxpayer dollar from being used for weapons that would breach the treaty," she said.

The bill is co-sponsored by three of Gabbard's House colleagues including freshman congresswoman Rep. Ilhan Omar.

Both Washington and Moscow have repeatedly accused each other of violating the terms of the nuclear pact — and earlier this month, Russia said it would quit the treaty in a "mirror response" to Trump's decision.

[yankeedoodle]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCwAAqBWWiI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_uRUsBYlpk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcrTy8huVH8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7rjA3riNUI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qILle_LrdV0

[yankeedoodle]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2rQQbvYYxo

[yankeedoodle]

Twenty Things You Probably Didn't Know About Tulsi Gabbard
Read about them here:  https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/02/tulsi-gabbard-2020-presidential-campaign-twenty-things-to-know/

[yankeedoodle]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7qN9QMIDFg

[yankeedoodle]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5Zd4PRIMdI

[yankeedoodle]

God bless Tulsi for addressing this issue.

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: Burn pits, the Agent Orange of our generation
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/rep-tulsi-gabbard-burn-pits-the-agent-orange-of-our-generation

Marine Cpl. Nicholas James Wrobel passed away due to respiratory and cardiac failure. He was 24 years old. Air Force Tech. Sgt. Jessica Sweet died of acute myelogenous leukemia. She was 30 years old and left behind a husband and three young children. Army Col. David McCracken lost his life to Glioblastoma Multiforme brain cancer at age 46, leaving behind his wife and children.

All were exposed to the toxic fumes and chemicals released by burn pits while deployed.

While over 175,000 veterans have voluntarily registered their names in the Burn Pit Registry, the Department of Veterans Affairs has admitted there are 3.7 million service members who may be eligible due to their exposure to these same toxic burn pits.

As a soldier in the Hawai'i Army National Guard, I deployed twice to the Middle East. Like everyone else in our camp, I breathed in the toxins from burn pits every single day. Many service members developed respiratory illnesses that we commonly called "the crud" — a persistent hacking cough that never seemed to go away. While deployed, we dealt with the ever-present residual stench from the burn pit fires.

Burn pits have been used at U.S. military bases across the Middle East to burn trash, human waste, petroleum, rubber, and other debris, releasing hazardous smoke into the air. While initially thought of as a temporary measure until incinerators were installed, many burn pits continued to operate, with some still in use today.

Make no mistake: Burn pits are the Agent Orange of our generation of veterans.

After coming home, many of our friends started to come down with rare cancers, lung diseases, neurological disorders, respiratory problems, and more. Too many have died without their service-connected illness being acknowledged.

More and more we hear of families whose loved ones returned from war only to be lost to the residual effects of burn pit exposure, many having lost the fight to get the care and support they needed from the VA.

Our government must take action to recognize the toxins our service members have been exposed to during their service, research the effects, and provide the care they need. Otherwise, we will see a repetition of the same tragedy that our Vietnam veterans exposed to Agent Orange decades ago went through.

So far, the VA has rejected most disability compensation claims. This is unacceptable.

Earlier this year, Rep. Brian Mast, R-Fla., and I joined forces and reintroduced our legislation, the Burn Pits Accountability Act. This legislation has over 170 co-sponsors and the support of over 30 healthcare and veteran service organizations.

Groups like Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America and Burn Pits 360 are sounding the alarm. Last month, Burn Pits 360 brought affected military families to Capitol Hill. They were joined by physicians to share their stories and findings about the disastrous harm this crisis is doing to veterans.

When a patient seeks medical care, that care is improved when the physician has an accurate and detailed medical record of the patient. Our legislation requires the military to track and accurately report every service members' exposure to burn pits as a necessary first step toward getting the treatment and care they need and deserve.

This will ensure that we have the data necessary to better understand burn pits' impact and ensure the VA has the resources and knowledge it needs to best treat and compensate those affected.

Last year, I spoke with a Vietnam veteran in Hilo, Hawai'i, who was dying from cancer. He struggled to speak to me in a whisper just days before he passed away, and he shared the struggles he endured as he fought to get the VA to recognize his exposure to Agent Orange so he could get the care he needed.

The last thing he said to me was, "You can't help me, but promise me that you will help make sure no other veterans go through what I've gone through."

For him, and for every veteran, Congress must take action to honor and care for those who have sacrificed so much, putting service above self. Let's honor their service and pass the Burn Pits Accountability Act now.




Given Tulsi's willingness to address issues such as burn pits, is it any wonder why we can also read this:

Where's Tulsi? The Hill forgets Gabbard when listing candidates who qualify for primary debates
https://www.rt.com/usa/459002-tulsi-gabbard-omitted-candidate-list/

A report by The Hill on Democratic candidates qualifying for the party's debates has one glaring omission – Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard.

The Hill cited a New York Times report detailing all the Democratic candidates who have made the cut to appear on the debate stage during the primaries. Gabbard is among 10 candidates who have qualified by surpassing both the donation and polling thresholds, and yet she was the only one of those candidate who was missing from the Hill's report on Thursday.

The NYT article even included a Venn diagram of all the candidates, which featured Gabbard smack bang in the middle of it. The article was from April 30 and shows San Antonio Mayor Julián Castro as having qualified only on polling, but he has since reached the donor threshold.

The Democratic National Committee rules require candidates to have raised donations from at least 65,000 unique donors with at least 200 donors in 20 different states, or hit at least one percent in at least three approved polls, to appear at the primary debates.

Gabbard's supporters have accused elements of the mainstream media of failing to give her adequate coverage.

The first primary debates take place in Miami in June and will be split into two parts to account for the large number of candidates.




There's always a trade-off.  Oddly, "The Hill" manages to expose people on Capitol Hill about the truth about the holohoax http://theinfounderground.com/smf/index.php?topic=25142.0 , but, they want to ignore Tulsi, who everybody on Capitol Hill knows about, anyway; this, perhaps, being her continuing punishment for resigning from a top Democratic National Committee post in 2016 to support Bernie Sanders.   

[yankeedoodle]

https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1128291372375707648

[yankeedoodle]

https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1129008856971923456

[yankeedoodle]

They are REALLY out to get Tulsi.   

Tulsi Gabbard's Campaign Is Being Boosted by Putin Apologists
https://www.thedailybeast.com/tulsi-gabbards-campaign-is-being-boosted-by-russophiles

Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard's campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination is being underwritten by some of the nation's leading Russophiles.

Donors to her campaign in the first quarter of the year included: Stephen F. Cohen, a Russian studies professor at New York University and prominent Kremlin sympathizer; Sharon Tennison, a vocal Putin supporter who nonetheless found herself detained by Russian authorities in 2016; and an employee of the Kremlin-backed broadcaster RT, who appears to have donated under the alias "Goofy Grapes."

Gabbard is one of her party's more Russia-friendly voices in an era of deep Democratic suspicion of the country over its efforts to tip the 2016 election in favor of President Donald Trump. Her financial support from prominent pro-Russian voices in the U.S. is a small portion of the total she's raised. But it still illustrates the degree to which she deviates from her party's mainstream on such a contentious and high-profile issue.

Data on Gabbard's financial supporters only covers the first three months of the year. In that time, her campaign received just over $1,000 from Cohen, arguably the nation's leading intellectual apologist for Russian president Vladimir Putin.

Tennison donated to Gabbard no fewer than five times, eventually reaching the per-cycle individual contribution limit in mid-March. Tennison and her group, the Center for Citizen Initiatives, have long worked to improve U.S.-Russia relations, in part by organizing junkets to the nation both before and after the fall of the Soviet Union. She's also been an outspoken Putin supporter, dubbing him a "straightforward, reliable and exceptionally inventive man" in a column last year. Tennison wrote that column in spite of her detention in Russia two years earlier, when she was accused of attempting to covertly advance U.S. foreign policy interests in the country.

Gabbard also got a $1,000 contribution from "Goofy Grapes," who listed his or her occupation as "comedian" and employer as Redacted Tonight, a current events comedy show on Russian state-backed broadcaster RT. That show's host, comedian Lee Camp, told The Daily Beast that the person who made the donation "is no longer an active member of Redacted Tonight. And separately, it is company policy to not donate to political campaigns."

Camp, for his part, routinely promotes the Russian government line on major world affairs, most notably the invasion of Ukraine, political unrest in Venezuela, and the Syrian civil war.

To the extent that those donors toe the Kremlin line on issues such as Syria, they're more squarely in line with Gabbard's own views than those of any other Democratic presidential candidate. As a member of Congress, she has personally met with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and cast doubt on widely accepted reports that he deployed nerve gas weapons against his own people.

Gabbard has also been one of the few prominent Democrats in the country to downplay the findings of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russia's meddling in the 2016 election. The report found no evidence of a conspiracy by the Trump campaign to support that meddling. But it did provide extensive details of that malicious influence campaign, and of the Trump administration's efforts to impede the special counsel's investigation.

But while her House colleagues ramp up their own investigations, in part based on those findings, Gabbard has called for the country—and her party—to move on. "The conclusion that came from that Mueller report was that no collusion took place," she told Fox News last month. "Now is the time for us to come together as a country to put the issues and the interests and the concerns that the American people have at the forefront, to take action to bring about real solutions for them."

That reflects the attitude of a small set of the American left wing, a non-interventionist faction that eyed collusion allegations with suspicion. And that's very much the school of thought from which Cohen and other Gabbard donors hail.

But the list of controversial donors to Gabbard, as detailed by her filings with the Federal Election Committee, doesn't end there.

Susan Sarandon, the famous actress who earned the enduring wrath of Democrats for her support of Green Party candidate Jill Stein in the 2016 election, gave Gabbard $500.

Ali Amin, the president of Primex International, wrote two checks of $2,800 to Gabbard's campaign. Amin, who runs the international food distribution company, pleaded guilty in 2015 to charges that he'd transferred more than $17 million between Iran and the United States as part of an unlicensed business transaction.

After being asked about those donations, Cullen Tiernan, a spokesperson for Gabbard, said the campaign would be returning them. Tiernan also noted that Amin had given to fellow 2020 contender Sen. Kamala Harris' (D-CA) Senate campaign in 2018. Ian Sams, a spokesman for Harris, said the Senator refunded Amin's donation in July 2018.

Gabbard's campaign did not return a request for comment. Her election effort raised nearly $4.5 million in the first quarter of 2019, but that included hefty transfers from her House campaign committee. She has used that money to mount a rather unorthodox bid for the Democratic nomination. Gabbard had only one paid staffer during that same three month period, choosing instead to hire consultants for key posts on her campaign—a staffing decision that seemed likely done to avoid making hefty payments for things like health care coverage and payroll taxes.

Gabbard's media strategy has also been counterintuitive for a national Democrat. She has made several appearances on The Joe Rogan Experience podcast, which, while being one of the most popular platforms on that medium, is a haven for Trump-supporting guests. Gabbard also is among the few Democrats who has a captive audience on Fox News, owed largely to her willingness to criticize Barack Obama, as well as her party's planks on both Russia and foreign policy in general. Tucker Carlson, a primetime host on that network, has publicly defended her.

Though she has not courted their support, some prominent figures in the white nationalist community have flocked in Gabbard's direction. David Duke, the former KKK leader, has heaped praise on her. And on several occasions, Richard Spencer, the avowed white supremacist, has tweeted favorably about her, including once again this week.

[yankeedoodle]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPmpXrbtEwI

[yankeedoodle]

Tulsi was, no doubt, told that she must say something to the American Jewish Committee, but she never mentioned Israhell.  Good girl!!

Kamala Harris mentions Israel 14 times, Tulsi Gabbard 0, in messages to Jewish org
https://mondoweiss.net/2019/06/messages-mentions-gabbard/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=messages-mentions-gabbard

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=82&v=xXskfLafU2A

[yankeedoodle]

From Phil Giraldi:
Tulsi Gabbard Pushes No War Agenda – and the Media Is Out to Kill Her Chances   
http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/tulsi-gabbard-pushes-no-war-agenda-and-the-media-is-out-to-kill-her-chances/

Voters looking ahead to 2020 are being bombarded with soundbites from the twenty plus Democratic would-be candidates. That Joe Biden is apparently leading the pack according to opinion polls should come as no surprise as he stands for nothing apart from being the Establishment favorite who will tirelessly work to support the status quo.

The most interesting candidate is undoubtedly Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, who is a fourth term Congresswoman from Hawaii, where she was born and raised. She is also the real deal on national security, having been-there and done-it through service as an officer with the Hawaiian National Guard on a combat deployment in Iraq. Though in Congress full time, she still performs her Guard duty.

Tulsi's own military experience notwithstanding, she gives every indication of being honestly anti-war. In the speech announcing her candidacy she pledged "focus on the issue of war and peace" to "end the regime-change wars that have taken far too many lives and undermined our security by strengthening terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda." She referred to the danger posed by blundering into a possible nuclear war and indicated her dismay over what appears to be a re-emergence of the Cold War.

In a recent interview with Fox News's Tucker Carlson, Gabbard doubled down on her anti-war credentials, telling the host that war with Iran would be "devastating," adding that "I know where this path leads us and I'm concerned because the American people don't seem to be prepared for how devastating and costly such a war would be... So, what we are facing is, essentially, a war that has no frontlines, total chaos, engulfs the whole region, is not contained within Iran or Iraq but would extend to Syria and Lebanon and Israel across the region, setting us up in a situation where, in Iraq, we lost over 4,000 of my brothers and sisters in uniform. A war with Iran would take far more American lives, it would cost more civilian lives across the region... Not to speak of the fact that this would cost trillions of taxpayer dollars coming out of our pockets to go and pay for this endless war that begs the question as a soldier, what are we fighting for? What does victory look like? What is the mission?"

Gabbard, and also Carlson, did not hesitate to name names among those pushing for war, one of which begins with B-O-L-T-O-N. She then asked "How does a war with Iran serve the best interest of the American people of the United States? And the fact is it does not," Gabbard said. "It better serves the interest of people like [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Bibi Netanyahu and Saudi Arabia who are trying to push us into this war with Iran."

Clearly not afraid to challenge the full gamut establishment politics, Tulsi Gabbard had previously called for an end to the "illegal war to overthrow the Syrian government," also observing that "the war to overthrow Assad is counter-productive because it actually helps ISIS and other Islamic extremists achieve their goal of overthrowing the Syrian government of Assad and taking control of all of Syria – which will simply increase human suffering in the region, exacerbate the refugee crisis, and pose a greater threat to the world." She then backed up her words with action by secretly arranging for a personal trip to Damascus in 2017 to meet with President Bashar al-Assad, saying it was important to meet adversaries "if you are serious about pursuing peace." She made her own assessment of the situation in Syria and now favors pulling US troops out of the country as well as ending American interventions for "regime change" in the region.

In 2015, Gabbard supported President Barack Obama's nuclear agreement with Iran and in 2016 she backed Bernie Sanders' antiwar candidacy. More recently, she has criticized President Donald Trump's withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal. Last May, she criticized Israel for shooting "unarmed protesters" in Gaza, a very bold step indeed given the power of the Israel Lobby.

Tulsi Gabbard could well be the only genuine antiwar candidate that might truly be electable in the past fifty years, and that is why the war party is out to get her. Two weeks ago, the Daily Beast displayed a headline: "Tulsi Gabbard's Campaign Is Being Boosted by Putin Apologists." The article also had a sub-headline: "The Hawaii congresswoman is quickly becoming the top candidate for Democrats who think the Russian leader is misunderstood."

The obvious smear job was picked by ABC's George Stephanopoulos, television's best known Hillary Clinton clone, who brought it up in an interview with Gabbard shortly thereafter. He asked whether Gabbard was "softer" on Putin than were some of the other candidates. Gabbard answered: "It's unfortunate that you're citing that article, George, because it's a whole lot of fake news." Politico the reported the exchange and wrote: "'Fake news' is a favorite phrase of President Donald Trump...," putting the ball back in Tulsi's court rather than criticizing Stephanopoulos's pointless question. Soon thereafter CNN produced its own version of Tulsi the Russophile, observing that Gabbard was using a Trump expression to "attack the credibility of negative coverage."

Tulsi responded "Stephanopoulos shamelessly implied that because I oppose going to war with Russia, I'm not a loyal American, but a Putin puppet. It just shows what absurd lengths warmongers in the media will go, to try to destroy the reputation of anyone who dares oppose their warmongering."

Tulsi Gabbard had attracted other enemies prior to the Stephanopoulos attack. Glenn Greenwald at The Intercept described how NBC news published a widely distributed story on February 1st, claiming that "experts who track websites and social media linked to Russia have seen stirrings of a possible campaign of support for Hawaii Democrat Tulsi Gabbard."

But the expert cited by NBC turned out to be a firm New Knowledge, which was exposed by no less than The New York Times for falsifying Russian troll accounts for the Democratic Party in the Alabama Senate race to suggest that the Kremlin was interfering in that election. According to Greenwald, the group ultimately behind this attack on Gabbard is The Alliance for Securing Democracy (ASD), which sponsors a tool called Hamilton 68, a news "intelligence net checker" that claims to track Russian efforts to disseminate disinformation. The ASD website advises that "Securing Democracy is a Global Necessity."

ASD was set up in 2017 by the usual neocon crowd with funding from The Atlanticist and anti-Russian German Marshall Fund. It is loaded with a full complement of Zionists and interventionists/globalists, to include Michael Chertoff, Michael McFaul, Michael Morell, Kori Schake and Bill Kristol. It claims, innocently, to be a bipartisan transatlantic national security advocacy group that seeks to identify and counter efforts by Russia to undermine democracies in the United States and Europe but it is actually itself a major source of disinformation.

No doubt stories headlined "Tulsi Gabbard Communist Stooge" are in the works somewhere in the mainstream media. The Establishment politicians and their media component have difficulty in understanding just how much they are despised for their mendacity and unwillingness to support policies that would truly benefit the American people but they are well able to dominate press coverage. Given the flood of contrived negativity towards her campaign, it is not clear if Tulsi Gabbard will ever be able to get her message across. But, for the moment, she seems to be the "real thing," a genuine anti-war candidate who is determined to run on that platform. It might just resonate with the majority of Americans who have grown tired of perpetual warfare to "spread democracy" and other related frauds perpetrated by the band of oligarchs and traitors that run the United States.

[yankeedoodle]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k89DHUYH_Ow

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wI3e7GUWPIA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7Y4XuIoeek

[yankeedoodle]

Gabbard Drops Truth Bomb: 'Stop Pretending' Saudi Arabia Is Our Ally
Tulsi Gabbard says US must stop pretending Saudi Arabia is an ally
https://newspunch.com/gabbard-stop-pretending-saudi-arabia-our-ally/
 
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard has bravely declared that one of her first acts as president would be to "stop pretending" that Saudi Arabia is an ally of the United States.

"You can go down a laundry list of things that show that even as much as the policy establishment claims Saudi Arabia is an ally of the United States and they're battling terrorism and all of these things — they're simply not true," Gabbard told Hill.TV on Friday.

"Their interests are not serving the interest of the American people," she warned.

"Saudi Arabia is one of the biggest voices pushing this administration towards a war with Iran — that would be directly counter to the interests of the American people and purely for Saudi Arabia's benefit," the Democratic presidential candidate said.

Thehill.com reports: The longshot candidate won praise for her breakout moment during the first night of this week's Democratic presidential debates.

Gabbard drew attention for a heated exchange with Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) about U.S. involvement in the Middle East. Gabbard, an Iraq War veteran, pushed back on Ryan's claim that the Taliban was behind the 9/11 attacks.

"The reality of it is if the United States is not engaged, the Taliban will grow. And we will have bigger, bolder terrorist acts, we have got to have some presence there," Ryan said of needing a military presence in Afghanistan.

Gabbard disputed his plan, saying that the Taliban "was there long before we came in and will be there long after we leave. We cannot keep U.S. troops deployed to Afghanistan thinking that we are going to somehow squash this Taliban."

Her comments come after Trump and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman posed next to each other for a photo of world leaders at the Group of 20 summit in Japan. The two leaders were spotted exchanging pleasantries and making conversation.

Trump did not choose where he stood in the photo, but the image comes amid tensions between lawmakers on Capitol Hill and the White House on its position on Saudi Arabia.

Lawmakers expressed outrage over the killing last year of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi, who had been a critic of Saudi leadership. The Trump administration failed to meet a deadline to issue a report to Congress on who was responsible for Khashoggi's death, while many lawmakers have accused the crown prince of directing the killing.

The Senate last week voted to block Trump's Saudi arms deal, setting up a potential veto in the White House.

[yankeedoodle]

From Phil Giraldi:

Who Won the Debate?
Tulsi Gabbard let the genie out of the bottle
http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/who-won-the-debate/

Last Wednesday's debate among half of the announced Democratic Party candidates to become their party's nominee for president in 2020 was notable for its lack of drama. Many of those called on to speak had little to say apart from the usual liberal bromides about health care, jobs, education and how the United States is a country of immigrants. On the following day the mainstream media anointed Elizabeth Warren as the winner based on the coherency of her message even though she said little that differed from what was being presented by most of the others on the stage. She just said it better, more articulately.

The New York Times' coverage was typical, praising Warren for her grasp of the issues and her ability to present the same clearly and concisely, and citing a comment "They could teach classes in how warren talks about a problem and weaves in answers into a story. She's not just wonk and stats." It then went on to lump most of the other candidates together, describing their performances as "ha[ving] one or two strong answers, but none of them had the electric, campaign-launching moment they were hoping for."

Inevitably, however, there was some disagreement on who had actually done best based on viewer reactions as well as the perceptions of some of the media that might not exactly be described as mainstream. The Drudge Report website had its poll running while the debate was going on and it registered overwhelmingly in favor of Hawaiian Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard. Likewise, the Washington Examiner, a right-wing paper, opined that Gabbard had won by a knockout based on its own polling. Google's search engine reportedly saw a surge in searches linked to Tulsi Gabbard both during and after the debate.

On the following day traditional conservative Pat Buchanan produced an article entitled "Memo for Trump: Trade Bolton for Tulsi," similar to a comment made by Republican consultant Frank Luntz "She's a long-shot to win the presidency, but Tulsi Gabbard is sounding like a prime candidate for Secretary of Defense."

Tulsi, campaigning on her anti-war credentials, was indeed not like the other candidates, confronting directly the issue of war and peace which the other potential candidates studiously avoided. In response to a comment by neoliberal Congressman Tim Ryan who said that the U.S. has to remain "engaged" in places like Afghanistan, she referred to two American soldiers who had been killed that very day, saying "Is that what you will tell the parents of those two soldiers who were just killed in Afghanistan? Well, we just have to be engaged? As a soldier, I will tell you that answer is unacceptable."

At another point she expanded on her thinking about America's wars, saying "Let's deal with the situation where we are, where this president and his chickenhawk cabinet have led us to the brink of war with Iran. I served in the war in Iraq at the height of the war in 2005, a war that took over 4,000 of my brothers and sisters in uniforms' lives. The American people need to understand that this war with Iran would be far more devastating, far more costly than anything that we ever saw in Iraq. It would take many more lives. It would exacerbate the refugee crisis. And it wouldn't be just contained within Iran. This would turn into a regional war. This is why it's so important that every one of us, every single American, stand up and say no war with Iran."

Tulsi also declared war on the Washington Establishment, saying that "For too long our leaders have failed us, taking us into one regime change war after the next, leading us into a new Cold War and arms race, costing us trillions of our hard-earned tax payer dollars and countless lives. This insanity must end."

Blunt words, but it was a statement that few Americans whose livelihoods are not linked to "defense" or to the shamelessly corrupt U.S. Congress and media could disagree with, as it is clear that Washington is at the bottom of a deep hole and persists in digging. So why was there such a difference between what ordinary Americans and the Establishment punditry were seeing on their television screens? The difference was not so much in perception as in the desire to see a certain outcome. Anti-war takes away a lot of people's rice bowls, be they directly employed on "defense" or part of the vast army of lobbyists and think tank parasites that keep the money flowing out of the taxpayers' pockets and into the pockets of Raytheon, General Dynamics, Boeing and Lockheed Martin like a perpetual motion machine.

In the collective judgment of America's Establishment, Tulsi Gabbard and anyone like her must be destroyed. She would not be the first victim of the political process shutting out undesirable opinions. One can go all the way back to Eugene McCarthy and his opposition to the Vietnam War back in 1968. McCarthy was right and Lyndon Johnson and the rest of the Democratic Party were wrong. More recently, Congressman Ron Paul tried twice to bring some sanity to the Republican Party. He too was marginalized deliberately by the GOP party apparatus working hand-in-hand with the media, to include the final insult of his being denied any opportunity to speak or have his delegates recognized at the 2012 nominating convention.

And the beat goes on. In 2016, Debbie Wasserman Shultz, head of the Democratic National Committee, fixed the nomination process so that Bernie Sanders, a peace candidate, would be marginalized and super hawk Hillary Clinton would be selected. Fortunately, the odor emanating from anything having to do with the Clintons kept her from being elected or we would already be at war with Russia and possibly also with China.

Tulsi Gabbard has let the genie of "end the forever wars" out of the bottle and it will be difficult to force it back in. She just might shake up the Democratic Party's priorities, leading to more questions about just what has been wrong with U.S. foreign policy over the past twenty years. To qualify for the second round of debates she has to gain a couple of points in her approval rating or bring in more donations, either of which is definitely possible based on her performance. It is to be hoped that that will occur and that there will be no Debbie Wasserman Schultz hiding somewhere in the process who will finagle the polling results.

Yes, to some critics, Tulsi Gabbard is not a perfect candidate. On most domestic issues she appears to be a typical liberal Democrat and is also conventional in terms of her accommodation with Jewish power, but she also breaks with the Democratic Party establishment with her pledge to pardon Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange and Edward Snowden. She also has more of a moral compass than Elizabeth Warren, who cleverly evades the whole issue of Middle East policy, or a Joe Biden who would kiss Benjamin Netanyahu's ass without any hesitation at all. Gabbard has openly criticized Netanyahu and she has also condemned Israel's killing of "unarmed civilians" in Gaza. As a Hindu, her view of Muslims is somewhat complicated based on the historical interaction of the two groups, but she has moderated her views recently.

To be sure, Americans have heard much of the same before, much of it from out of the mouth of a gentleman named Donald Trump, but Tulsi Gabbard could well be the only genuine antiwar candidate that might truly be electable in the past fifty years. It is essential that we Americans who are concerned about the future of our country should listen to what she has to say very carefully and to respond accordingly.

[yankeedoodle]

Here's a closer look at her life and career to date, in photos.
https://www.businessinsider.com/tulsi-gabbard-bio-photos-2020-democratic-candidate-2019-7

[maz]

[tweet]1170336318599114755[/tweet]

People are eating up her posts when she shows off her workouts