Tulsi Gabbard NOT Taking Lobbyist Money! Corporate Dem’s Immediately Smear Her!

I really like Tulsi Gabbard. She stepped down from a post as a vice-president of the DNC to support Bernie Sanders during his 2016 presidential campaign and the DNC/Clinton machine attacked her for it, cutting off funding for her proposals in Hawaii. She’s an Iraq war veteran, is against regime-change wars and went to Syria to assess the situation there for herself, meeting with Assad at her own personal risk to see if a political solution to conflict with Syria and the US was possible, instead of warfare. Her findings contradict what the general public is fed here by mainstream news – essentially, she said that there are no “moderate rebels” in the country. Attacks are being carried out by terrorist groups, including ISIS and Al-Quaeda, and some of these groups are being armed by the US – hence her Stop Arming Terrorists bill.

Tulsi has rejected money from Wall Street and industries like big pharma, so that they would not influence her decisions in Congress. She opposes Citizen’s United, the deceptively-named legislation that allows unlimited sums dark money to flow freely to politicians as legalized bribery and yesterday announced that she will no longer accept PAC or lobbyist money, to free herself of the influence of special interest groups.

These are stances to be proud of, so naturally the Democratic Establishment is after her for it. Neera Tanden, president of the Center for American Progress (a faux-progressive think-tank) and a corporatist who has attacked her before, is already doing so again, playing a holier-than-thou card and tweeting “Well, I do think Assad using chemical weapons to murder children is worse than lobbyists. So maybe that differentiates me from you/Tulsi?”

This is ridiculous. Any politician who opposes corporate donors is immediately targeted by the corporatist wing of the democratic party. Neera seems to actually think that either accepting lobbyist money and doing their bidding instead of serving the public’s interests is a laudable value or that its acceptable to sell out the public interest in favor of donors wants so long as she’s not directly killing children. BOTH acts are contemptible and NEITHER should be undertaken.