Dave Emory’s entire life­time of work is avail­able on a flash dri­ve that can be obtained HERE. The new dri­ve is a 32-giga­byte dri­ve that is cur­rent as of the pro­grams and arti­cles post­ed by the fall of 2019. The new dri­ve (avail­able for a tax-deductible con­tri­bu­tion of $65.00 or more.)

WFMU-FM is pod­cast­ing For The Record–You can sub­scribe to the pod­cast HERE.

You can sub­scribe to e‑mail alerts from Spitfirelist.com HERE.

You can sub­scribe to RSS feed from Spitfirelist.com HERE.

Please con­sid­er sup­port­ing THE WORK DAVE EMORY DOES.

COMMENT: Bernie Sanders asso­ciate Tul­si Gab­bard has report­ed­ly been con­tem­plat­ing an inde­pen­dent run for Pres­i­dent. A mem­ber of the Sanders Insti­tute, she nom­i­nat­ed Boinie at the 2016 Demo­c­ra­t­ic Nation­al Con­ven­tion and was bandied about as Sanders’ poten­tial Vice-Pres­i­den­tial can­di­date.

In past pro­grams, we have not­ed that:

• Gab­bard is a mem­ber of a branch of the Hare Krish­na Cult–a fas­cist mind con­trol orga­ni­za­tion.
• She sits on the advi­so­ry board of a Koch Broth­ers-fund­ed uni­ver­si­ty orga­ni­za­tion.
• She is heav­i­ly net­worked with Naren­dra Mod­i’s Hin­dut­va fas­cist regime in India.
• She is viewed favor­ably by Steve Ban­non, one of the lynch­pins of Amer­i­can fas­cism and reac­tion.

With her pos­si­ble role as a “spoil­er” in the 2020 Pres­i­den­tial cam­paign loom­ing larg­er, Gab­bard’s ado­ra­tion by Amer­i­can fas­cists and reac­tionar­ies is some­thing to be con­sid­ered.

In addi­tion to her endorse­ment by David Duke, she enjoys a great deal of sup­port from those on the oth­er side of the ide­o­log­i­cal aisle from Boinie. “Stephen K. Ban­non, Pres­i­dent Trump’s for­mer chief strate­gist, is impressed with her polit­i­cal tal­ent. Richard B. Spencer, the white nation­al­ist leader, says he could vote for her. For­mer Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Ron Paul prais­es her ‘lib­er­tar­i­an instincts,’ while Franklin Gra­ham, the influ­en­tial evan­ge­list, finds her ‘refresh­ing.’ . . . . And far-right con­spir­a­cy the­o­rists like Mike Cer­novich see a cer­tain MAGA sais quoi. ‘She’s got a good ener­gy, a good vibe. You feel like this is just a seri­ous per­son,’ Mr. Cer­novich said. ‘She seems very Trumpian.’ . . . . Then there is 4chan, the noto­ri­ous­ly tox­ic online mes­sage board, where some right-wing trolls and anti-Semi­tes fawn over Ms. Gab­bard, call­ing her ‘Mom­my’ and prais­ing her will­ing­ness to crit­i­cize Israel. In April, the Dai­ly Stormer, a neo-Nazi web­site, took cred­it for Ms. Gabbard’s qual­i­fi­ca­tion for the first two Demo­c­ra­t­ic pri­ma­ry debates. . . .”

Will she siphon enough votes away from the Democ­rats to help Trump in 2020. That would indeed be “Assis­tance.”

“What Exact­ly Is Tul­si Gab­bard Up To?” by Lisa Lerer; The New York Times; 10/12/2019.

Stephen K. Ban­non, Pres­i­dent Trump’s for­mer chief strate­gist, is impressed with her polit­i­cal tal­ent. Richard B. Spencer, the white nation­al­ist leader, says he could vote for her. For­mer Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Ron Paul prais­es her “lib­er­tar­i­an instincts,” while Franklin Gra­ham, the influ­en­tial evan­ge­list, finds her “refresh­ing.”

And far-right con­spir­a­cy the­o­rists like Mike Cer­novich see a cer­tain MAGA sais quoi.

“She’s got a good ener­gy, a good vibe. You feel like this is just a seri­ous per­son,” Mr. Cer­novich said. “She seems very Trumpian.”

Among her fel­low Democ­rats, Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Tul­si Gab­bard has strug­gled to make head­way as a pres­i­den­tial can­di­date, bare­ly crack­ing the 2 per­cent mark in the polls need­ed to qual­i­fy for Tues­day night’s debate. She is now inject­ing a bit of chaos into her own party’s pri­ma­ry race, threat­en­ing to boy­cott that debate to protest what she sees as a “rig­ging” of the 2020 elec­tion. That’s left some Democ­rats won­der­ing what, exact­ly, she is up to in the race, while oth­ers wor­ry about sup­port­ive signs from online bot activ­i­ty and the Russ­ian news media.Perhaps strangest of all is the unusu­al array of Amer­i­cans who can­not seem to get enough of her.

On pod­casts and online videos, in inter­views and Twit­ter feeds, alt-right inter­net stars, white nation­al­ists, lib­er­tar­i­an activists and some of the biggest boost­ers of Mr. Trump heap praise on Ms. Gab­bard. They like the Hawai­ian congresswoman’s iso­la­tion­ist for­eign pol­i­cy views. They like her sup­port for drug decrim­i­nal­iza­tion. They like what she sees as cen­sor­ship by big tech­nol­o­gy plat­forms.

Then there is 4chan, the noto­ri­ous­ly tox­ic online mes­sage board, where some right-wing trolls and anti-Semi­tes fawn over Ms. Gab­bard, call­ing her “Mom­my” and prais­ing her will­ing­ness to crit­i­cize Israel. In April, the Dai­ly Stormer, a neo-Nazi web­site, took cred­it for Ms. Gabbard’s qual­i­fi­ca­tion for the first two Demo­c­ra­t­ic pri­ma­ry debates.

Bri­an Levin, the head of the Cen­ter for the Study of Hate and Extrem­ism at Cal­i­for­nia State Uni­ver­si­ty-San Bernardi­no, said Ms. Gab­bard had “the seal of approval” with­in white nation­al­ist cir­cles. “If peo­ple have that iso­la­tion­ist world­view, there is one can­di­date that could best express them on each side: Gab­bard on the Demo­c­ra­t­ic side and Trump on the Repub­li­can side,” Mr. Levin said.

Ms. Gab­bard has dis­avowed some of her most hate­ful sup­port­ers, cas­ti­gat­ing the news media for giv­ing “any oxy­gen at all” to the endorse­ment she won from the white nation­al­ist leader David Duke. But her fre­quent appear­ances on Tuck­er Carlson’s Fox News show have buoyed her sup­port in right-wing cir­cles. . . .

. . . . She is like­ly to get harsh­er treat­ment back in Hawaii, where a cot­tage indus­try of researchers, for­mer oppo­nents and Demo­c­ra­t­ic strate­gists has sprung up to track her con­nec­tions and back­ground and ties to the teach­ings of the guru Chris But­ler, who found­ed The Sci­ence of Iden­ti­ty Foun­da­tion, and whose work she said still guides her. Ms. Gab­bard has said the focus on her rela­tion­ship with Mr. But­ler and her faith was fueled by anti-Hin­du big­otry.