A few months ago, I wrote about the remarkable lengths that the DNC is going to just to cheat Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) out of participating in the debates. (Plus, I wrote another report about that weird Soviet-spawned hippy-dippy cult she belongs to.)
Despite failing to gain much of a following nationally, she’s still in the race today. But the DNC is once again pulling its shenanigans by pretending that she doesn’t exist and she’s not a real candidate. Her campaign is like the Ron Paul 2012 saga all over again, but without the money bombs.
The DNC’s hypocrisy is incredible on this. They literally changed the debate rules to allow the fresh-out-of-nowhere Mini Mike Bloomberg join a debate. This was despite the fact that Bloomberg had not met a single debate threshold for any of the previous debates and didn’t officially announce his candidacy until November. He even skipped the first caucuses. But after the Democrats realized how badly they had botched things by propping up Geezer Biden, they hit the very tiny Bloomberg panic button.
The DNC changed its own rules on the fly, just to allow Mike Bloomberg to fail. Democrats are like the kid on the playground who always tries to change the rules because he’s too slow to tag anyone else.
The Democrats already shafted Gabbard in the New Hampshire debate. In multiple nationwide polls, she was ahead of Tom Steyer, Deval Patrick and Andrew Yang. Gabbard even came out ahead of Amy Klobuchar in the American Research Group poll. But all the other candidates were allowed into the debate, while she was excluded.
Here we go again. Tulsi Gabbard absolutely qualified for the March 15 Democrat debate after Super Tuesday. She won a delegate in American Samoa. Under the DNC’s rules before Super Tuesday, a candidate had to win at least one delegate to qualify for the debate. But then, zoinks!
Tulsi Gabbard met the debate threshold. So, much like they view the US Constitution, the Democrat debate rules have now become a “living, breathing document” that can evolve overnight.
Immediately after Gabbard supporters started to show their excitement because she’s still in the race, DNC Communications Director Xochitl Hinojosa (actually her real name) tweeted, “We have two more debates – of course the threshold will go up. By the time we have the March debate, almost 2,000 delegates will be allocated. The threshold will reflect where we are in the race, as it always has.”
Uh huh. Funny how that threshold didn’t apply in the New Hampshire debate for one specific candidate, isn’t it?
If you’re wondering why the DNC leadership hates Tulsi Gabbard almost as much as they hate Donald Trump, we have the answer to that as well. She’s been honest with the American people about the rampant criminality and war atrocities committed by the federal government.
They hate her because of a specific bill that she proposed, the Stop Arming Terrorists Act (HR 608). She gave an epic speech on the floor of the House of Representatives when she introduced the bill. Gabbard noted that the Executive branch was paying monthly salaries to members of Al Qaeda and ISIS as they were fighting to topple Bashar Al Assad’s regime in Syria (and beheading Christians in their free time).
Her bill would have banned all federal agencies from providing cash, weapons or other assistance to known terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS. And “other assistance” would include things like the pallets of refreshing, ice-cold bottled water that the CIA dropped out of a C-130 for ISIS fighters in northern Iraq in the middle of a battle against our Kurdish allies.
Gabbard’s unpardonable sin in the eyes of the Democrat Party was that she introduced the Stop Arming Terrorists Act and delivered that speech in December of 2016 – when Barack Obama was still in the White House.
That was her big no-no. Members of Congress were not supposed to talk about the Sainted One in that way. And that’s why the DNC is punishing her to this day, by excluding her from the debates and having their media lapdogs pretend that she doesn’t actually exist.
This all probably sounds very familiar to Republicans who supported Ron Paul in 2012.
None of this is a defense of Tulsi Gabbard’s policies, by the way. She’d be a terrible president, and just like all the other candidates, she’d get trounced when going head-to-head against Donald Trump in a debate. But it does show the depths the Democrats are willing to stoop to when they want to cheat someone.