16 Mar 2017    8,337 views

In The 2020 Primaries, Tulsi Gabbard Will Be Running Against Dems Who Voted To Arm Terrorists

#{{newsTag.hashtagName}}
article image

If she runs for president, Gabbard will likely be competing with Democrats who voted against her Stop Arming Terrorists Act.

Debate 7
Debate 7
Login and Click Agree/Disagree first to Debate.
Why Agree? Write your opinion:
Why Disagree? Write your opinion:

Julian Assange’s press conference needed to be delayed following WikiLeaks’ epic first drop from its Vault 7 series, because the system being used to broadcast it was being pummeled with aggressive cyber attacks. When he was finally able to bring the conference online and start answering questions from the press, Assange said something in passing that should have received a lot more attention than it did.

When asked if there was any mention of terrorist groups or extremists in the leak drop among a list of targets for CIA cyber attacks, Assange said that there were not, which he called “conspicuous”, but added that this shouldn’t surprise anyone who’s made a study of the CIA because they have always been far less involved in fighting terrorism than the language used to justify their massive budget would have the American people believe. Despite being handed enough tax dollars to afford its own drone program and its own NSA-like domestic espionage program, the CIA does very little in the way of fighting terrorists. Why would it? Terrorist groups are a tool that the CIA and other deep state arms use to manipulate world affairs. You don’t attack your own weapons.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: Democratic Hawaiian Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard is the single most revolutionary politician on Capitol Hill today. Not only has she been on the correct side of every major progressive acid test since the paradigm-shifting progressive revolution began, but, more importantly, she’s been leading the charge against one of the most vile and pernicious behaviors of the American deep state. It is an established fact that America has been knowingly arming, funding and training terrorist factions in Syria, who are the only groups still fighting against the Assad government that the US establishment wants to overthrow. With her bipartisan Stop Arming Terrorists Act, Gabbard is forcing American politicians to take a stand on this unforgivable behavior in front of the whole nation.

Following Gabbard’s lead, outspoken non-interventionist Republican Rand Paul has now introduced the Senate version of this same Act, which means that if Gabbard decides to do what so many of us are screaming our lungs out for her to do and runs for president in 2020, she’ll likely be competing for the nomination with Democrats who‘ve voted against one of the two congressional bills. The legislation is expected to be met with resistance from the increasingly indistinguishable neocons and establishment Democrats, since it attacks longstanding policies backed by the Bush and Obama administrations, and by their military industrial complex donors and the plutocrats who benefit from America’s insane interventionist foreign policy. This, combined with the fact that presidential campaigns are often launched from the springboard of the Senate, means that if Gabbard makes a run for it she’ll probably be able to stand at a podium in front of the entire nation and say, “Yeah well most of my opponents voted to keep arming terrorists when I tried to stop it.” Which would of course be delightful. 

Someone forwarded me another smear piece on Gabbard today, which we can expect to see coming out with greater and greater regularity the more she rocks the boat and the brighter her star shines, but this one didn’t bother me like these insipid attack editorials used to. As we’ve discussed before, corporate liberals attack Gabbard for the same reason a group of bitchy high school girls spread nasty rumors about the pretty new girl in school; they perceive a threat to their status and they’re working to subvert it. The fact that the attacks keep coming means that they’re worried she’ll rise above them and upset the political context upon which they’ve built their careers. And they should be. 

As part of the new power struggle we’re seeing between the current administration and the deep state power structures, Trump is attacking the CIA’s favorite tools by launching an aggressive and violent campaign against ISIS, which has led to the sudden reemergence of the anti-war Democrat after an eight-year hibernation. My articles about the coalition between the neocons and the establishment Democrats to push for a war with Russia have been met with an increasing number of pushback saying we should be ignoring such things and focusing on Trump’s sending a thousand troops to kill terrorists in Kuwait instead. While it can certainly be argued that such military aggression is unnecessary (Jill Stein, whom Rand Paul’s father Ron praised as “the best on foreign policy” among 2016 presidential candidates, said that ISIS could be starved to death by a simple weapons embargo), fighting them is certainly better than pretending to fight them in order to justify extensive military interventionism while secretly arming and funding them.

Hence my claim that Tulsi Gabbard is the most revolutionary politician in the legislative branch. Pointing at something that America’s unelected power structures have been doing for a long time at the expense of countless lives and untold suffering all over the globe and yelling “That! Thing! Stop doing that horrible, horrible thing!” is the most anti-establishment thing that a US politician can do in the current climate, and Gabbard is doing it far more loudly and clearly than anyone else. Her desire to avoid needless violence and spare future generations of soldiers the agony of senseless warfare that she experienced as an Iraq war veteran has led her to confront head-on the powerful military industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned us of in his farewell address at the end of his administration. Throwing a monkey wrench in the deep state’s bloodthirsty interventionism will force an entire transformation in the way the world operates, from who’s in charge to the way the media operates to the way the economy is structured, so there is no greater act of rebellion than trying to draw America away from that direction.

It is likely that the Stop Arming Terrorists Act will fail to pass in both the House and the Senate, but it will have forced establishment politicians to show the American people where they stand, and true rebels like Tulsi Gabbard will always be able to point at that and say to the nation, “This person showed us what they are.” This has the potential to bring about some mighty tasty shifts in public discourse about the heretofore hidden manipulations of the deep state that we previously weren’t really permitted to talk about in mainstream discourse, which can change the way people perceive, think, and vote. I’m excited to see what happens.

 

---

 

Thanks for reading! If you enjoyed this, please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following me on Twitter, or even tossing me some money on Patreon so I can keep this gig up.