The dangers of Xenophobia: The latest media attacks against Tulsi Gabbard
The latest attack against Tulsi Gabbard by The Daily Beast, and echoed by Politico and ABC news, has crossed into xenophobic land, and it highlights one of the main reasons as to why Tulsi is the right person to be Commander in chief.
Her courage, integrity, foresight, compassion, and intelligence are no platitudes, she has the record to prove them.
Courage: Volunteered to fight in our armed forces.
Integrity: Resigned from the DNC to prevent conflict of interests during the primary.
Foresight: Wants to have evidence of wrongdoing before attacking another country (Syria, Iran, Libya)
Compassion: Went to standing rock along with several other veterans to serve as human shields to the water protectors.
Intelligence: Crafted legislation to move us away from fossil fuels, protect our elections with paper ballots, stop arming terrorist groups for the sake of regime change.
In her interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, Tulsi called The Daily Beast report “Fake news”. As usual, Tulsi is calling things what they are.
1) From Lee Camp from Redacted: “He [The Daily Beast Author] goes on in the article to make up some stuff about me. He says I supported the Russian line on the invasion of the Ukraine, when in fact I don’t think I’ve ever spoken about it & my TV show was not yet airing when the Ukraine was the top of the headlines.”
2) From Lee Camp from Redacted: “ He [The Daily Beast Author] knowingly lied in his @dailybeast report on how TONS of Russian-connected people (actually 3… yes 3) have donated to Tulsi Gabbard. Apparently someone donated who put “Redacted Tonight” as their employer & their name as “Goofy Grapes.”
3) Sharon Tennison donated to Tulsi. Who is Sharon? Sharon Tennison, in the early 1980s determined in a period of desperation to try to reduce tensions between the two superpowers. Tennison and a growing group of business and professional Americans made the decision to try their hands at diplomacy and began putting together their first trip to the “land of the enemy.”
Center for Citizen Initiatives - Wikipedia
The Center for Citizen Initiatives is the brainchild of an American citizen, Sharon Tennison, who in the early 1980s…
4) Stephen Frand Cohen also donated to Tulsi. He is an American scholar and professor emeritus of Russian studies at Princeton University and New York University. His academic work concentrates on modern Russian history since the Bolshevik Revolution and the country’s relationship with the United States.
Stephen F. Cohen - Wikipedia
Stephen Frand Cohen (born November 25, 1938) is an American scholar and professor emeritus of Russian studies at…
The article calls Sharon and Stephen “Russophiles”. In this context the comment is extremely xenophobic. As someone who lives in Oregon, home a very vibrant Russo-American community, and someone who has many friends of Russian heritage, reading an article that uses “Russophiles” as something negative, is extremely troubling.
Russian Is Now the Third-Most Spoken Language in Oregon. Take a Look Inside the Vibrant but Hidden…
Russian is the third-most spoken language in Oregon, after English and Spanish.
I applaud Major Gabbard’s remarks, and I am extremely disappointed on George Stephanopoulos in bringing that report in his conversation with Tulsi Gabbard.
George omitted that Chelsea Clinton sits in the board of directors of The Daily Beast’s parent company.
Chelsea Clinton | IAC
Chelsea currently teaches at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health and previously worked at McKinsey &…
And that the Podesta e-mail leaks, show how Hillary Clinton’s campaign threatened Tulsi for endorsing Bernie Sanders over her.
FW: Disappointed - WikiLeaks
From: firstname.lastname@example.org To: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org Hammed dropped! From Darnell Strom Sent Monday…
To those of us who actually care for the facts find his report was victim of one of two things:
1) It either lacked the journalistic research to vet sources used in the interview.
2) It knew about the details of the report and still chose to use the material.
One option reflects incompetence, the other a lack of journalistic integrity, and neither is a great attribute for someone who calls themselves a journalist.