Thanks to the Middle-East Observer for sending me this video.
Notice how the public applauds when Gabbard says that the US GWOT wars were wrong?
The Saker
Saker Message:
Thanks to the Middle-East Observer for sending me this video.
Notice how the public applauds when Gabbard says that the US GWOT wars were wrong?
The Saker
She’s part of the way there but needs to understand the US and it’s military are just tools of the Zionists who control America. She might well understand this but doesn’t want to be JFK’d. Time will tell.
She need not be JFKed. The Zionazis need only invent some fraudulent example of ‘antisemitism’, the new Supreme Crime under the sky, and she will be lynched by the fakestream media and her ‘colleagues’. As easy as shelling peas. Mind you, if she fought, and looked like winning, the longest of long shots, her prospects of reaching old, even middle, age, would vanish like the morning mist.
The Democrats have come up with a plan to limit the ability of candidates they don’t like to be in the debates. The Dems are saying that each candidate must have 65,000 individual donors in order to qualify for the debates. I’ve not voted for a Democrat for president since Walter Mondale but deeply appreciate Tulsi’s courage to talk about foreign policy and name the CIA. None others are doing it. I sent her a donation.
I have too! That makes it only 64,998 to go! We seriously need this lady on the stage.
I sent her a donation also.
The attacks on her by the legacy media will be horrific. Let’s see how this plays out. If the media destroys her, then it will mean that America is not ready for a return of democracy. On the other hand, if her popularity increases despite the media attacks – then we know that real change is coming. If it is the latter then fasten your seatbelts.
As a member of Tulsi’s campaign email list, I today received more information about this.
— The specific rule says both 65,000 donors and gives a minimum of at least 20 states with 200 donors in each of those states. There is no minimum amount to the donation, so they mention “as little as $1”. There is also a deadline of May 15th. The rule is from the DNC, or Democratic National Committee, that runs the party. Yes, it was the same DNC, albeit with slightly different membership, that colluded with the Hillary campaign to deny Bernie the Presidency in 2016.
— In terms of progress, the Tulsi campaign says they have the 200 in 20 states requirement covered at this point. They say they had 42,475 donors (obviously at the moment this fundraising email was written) and thus need 22,525 more donors to be allowed by the Democrats to step onto the stage of a Democratic debate to speak to Democratic voters.
They’ve launched a motivational campaign called “Tulsi’s Donor Challenge” to encourage people already on her email list to get 10 of their friends to also give. I don’t sign up for such meaningless things, but I am hoping that 10 friends of the Saker community will go and donate to Tulsi’s campaign to get a voice for peace and sanity onto the Democratic debate stages.
Note, I refer to Rep. Gabbard by her first name because her campaign, including the latest letter from a volunteer, does so all the time and appears to encourage her supporters to do the same.
Note: I am not a lawyer, but I do believe it is required by law that a person must be an American to donate to these campaigns. Of course, given the giant loopholes in American election laws pushed through to make an American election operate as ‘one dollar, one vote’, it seems a given that the big-money, pro-war candidates all have foreign money coming into their campaigns, with lots of expensive lawyers telling them how to do it. But, I would still urge those who are not Americans to at least consult a lawyer to determine if they would be legally allowed to contribute to this without harm to themselves or to the campaign.
To all Americans reading this, Rep Gabbard needs your support. What is currently happening in America is what is known as the “wealth primary”. In this early stage, multiple candidates will be eliminated before the voters ever get the first chance to vote (or caucus). Her fundraising letters say that she needs to hit 65,000 donors to prove support to even get onto the debate stages beginning in July. Small donations count, so small that you can easily spend more in a trip to Starbucks.
Personally, I’d love to see her in the debates against the pro-death candidates. We can make that happen.
Search on Tulsi2020 and you can find her campaign website, although I suggest you do it on a non-google search engine since google has pentagon contracts it will want to protect.
You will of course be told by many, many voices all sorts of reasons as to why you should not support her. That of course is to be expected about any candidate which challenges the war machine. If you listen to those voices, you can tell me all about it when we are stuck together in the very long line of 7 billion people are queued up to reach St. Peter and the Pearly Gates after the war machine starts their nuclear war and kills us all.
Gabbard in SF:
Tulsi Gabbard Comes to San Francisco
https://dissidentvoice.org/2019/03/tulsi-gabbard-comes-to-san-francisco/
“Introduction by Rick Sterling
Tulsi Gabbard supports progressive domestic policy issues including criminal justice reform, healthcare-for-all, national and international steps to protect the environment. She has a high approval rating on gay issues.
What makes Gabbard really distinctive is her emphasis and approach to US foreign policy. While other candidates largely avoid the subject, Tulsi Gabbard says the issue is “central” to all other issues. She says we need to change the policy of “regime change wars” and “new cold war” with Russia and China. She advocates cooperation instead of conflict.
Gabbard said “We are at a greater risk of nuclear catastrophe than ever before in history.” She described the scare of an incoming nuclear missile attack which occurred in Hawaii last year. Even though the alert turned out to be false, the threat is real. “It should alarm every one of us here that leaders in Washington are either not paying attention, they don’t know, or they don’t care. This should alarm every one of us because that means not only are we not addressing this threat, but the actions that leaders in Washington are taking are actually making it worse.”
Her 35 minute presentation at the University of San Francisco can be viewed here. Following is the text of her speech followed by her response to questions regarding Bernie Sanders, her religion and age.”
“Here” is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VOUuylYHIc&t=01s
“Following” being at the link above, worth reading, btw.
from Soraya Sepahpour Ulrich
“Gabbard fans ….
“Before this can happen, Christian Zionists believe, Israel must be in full control of the Holy Land—including the occupation and military rule of Palestinians in the West Bank. Hagee has built a political powerhouse on this belief. CUFI, which Hagee calls the “Christian AIPAC,” now boasts more than 4 million members. CUFI’s annual conference features the luminaries of the American political right, and even the occasional progressive, including rising Democratic star and Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard. The group has staged more than 2,500 pro-Israel events in the U.S., built a presence on more than 300 U.S. college campuses and led hundreds of U.S. pastors and right-wing congressional delegations on trips to Israel.”
The above is not an endorsement, btw. Was going to post a second comment last night, but no time till later and was too tired. I have serious reservations about her being straight here, especially about foreign relations. Both obama and trump were “stealth” agents on this account, saying what they knew would aide they’re being elected, but then continuing the zpc/nwo dominance strategy unabated once in place. Given her pandering to the zionazi-gay propaganda lines regarding Russia, Assad, Maduro, etc., I’m rather inclined to think her antiwar views may be as staged as obama’s and trump’s were.
There are obvious and notable differences between the Obama and Trump campaigns and that of Rep. Gabbard. Obama was the candidate of big Wall St. money. He went from nobody status to front-running contender status entirely because of his large fund-raising numbers from which the largest source was the Wall St. banks. Obama’s campaign claimed he was ‘anti-war’, but the only actual action by Obama that supported this claim was that as an Illinois state Senator he issued a statement against starting the Iraq War.
Trump was more of a demagogue who simply said whatever made the crowd cheer, and he found the crowds cheered when he campaigned against Bush by saying the Bushs’ war against Iraq was a mistake. He later expanded this to all regime change wars, and also adopted the longtime Republican fringe position that NATO was a bad deal for America. Trump never had taken an anti-war position, and in fact took the opposite position of simultaneously saying he wanted a big, bad, terrifying American military as a part of his MAGA hype.
Thus, two key contrasts with these two campaigns and the Gabbard campaign. While these other two were well financed and resourced campaigns that were searching for a message that would get them to power (which then found the crowds cheered when they said they were against war), the Gabbard campaign is a grass-roots financed campaign of a candidate who has staked out a consistent position against the American empire wars for several years now. She is not just claiming to be against war as a new thing, she has been there for some time now.
Her rise to any political prominence is entirely because of the positions she has courageously taken against the wars of the American empire. She would not be running for President except for these positions. And this clearly makes her a different case than Obama-The-Liar and Trump-The-Liar.
Every day now I encounter yet one more former progressive anti-imperialist media outlet that is shilling for the USA’s effort to destabilise and overthrow the Syrian government. This hit-piece by Eric Draitser in Counterpunch.org trying to smear a Syrian woman who opposes US meddling and funding of jihadist insurgency in her country really shocked me:
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/03/21/on-ilhan-omar-assad-fetishism-and-the-danger-of-red-brown-anti-imperialism/
Until now, both Eric Draitser and Counterpunch had been reliably opposed to imperialist wars. Yet here we have Draitser, who I am certain knos better, labeling SyrianGirl an “Assad fetishist” simply because she opposes foreign meddling, terrorism, and insurencies funded by America and its allies in her own country.
The same thing has happened to Tulsi. God bless her for trying to speak the truth.
Counterpunch has been going down the sewer for some time. The presence of the execrable Louis Proyect, who gave his name to that distressing symptom, ‘Proyectile vomiting’ was an early, bad, sign.
The belief that “the president of the USA” is a paradigm-changing position is an unfortunately common delusion.
In fact, it is one purely administrative, clerical post, exactly analogous to that of the “CEO” of any major corporation.
Just as the latter is fully answerable to the corporation’s owners (represented in turn by the corporate board of directors), the US “president” is fully answerable to the actual owners of the country’s wealth (represented in turn through that very-well-established opaque mechanism, colloquially referred to as the “deep state”). Just like any “CEO” is expected to perform efficiently, so is the US “president”. Job requirements include management of the sheeple, maintaining and increasing owners’ wealth by any means, coordinating plunder, wars, and so on. Incidentally, it goes without saying that nobody ever becomes a serious candidate for the “presidency” without being “pre-approved” by the owners.
Yeah, our Tulsi Gabbard is now suddenly going to change all that…
pindos will hopelessly wait for a superhero to rescue them
– there is a reason for all those superhero hollywood movies
Former UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter Says US Iran Policy Based On Lies (like Ziomedia)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iq_DlSmHEHM
Fascinating the number of people in this ‘community’ who oppose the notion of Americans voting for a candidate that wants to change into a course towards peace.
Anonymous, from where I stand, candidates are in it to become wealthy. Everyone with a functioning brain knows that US politics is theater, a sham, to cover the global looting operation of the banking cabal, using US military and propaganda network to keep people confused. The script that gets people into office, where the real money is made, is to tap into the geopolitical truths, give it lip service, and rake in the cash. If she gets into office, she will become like all others before her: compliant to her banker masters.