Thursday, November 14, 2019

Tulsi Gabbard, What Does Being a ‘Woman of Color’ Have To Do With It?

By Adam Dick

Last week I wrote about an apparent contradiction between Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) talking up her 16-plus years in the United States Army and her criticizing certain US military interventions overseas in a recent interview at the ABC show The View. Since her criticism of such interventions is at the heart of her presidential campaign, I suggested that it would be helpful for Gabbard to offer an explanation to dispel the apparent contradiction.

Also in her The View interview, Gabbard brought up being a “woman of color” in challenging people saying she is an unwitting asset of the Russian government, as she put it, “working against the interests of our people and our country, the country that I am willing to lay my life down for.” Said Gabbard:

So, if you’re saying it’s not deliberately, then you are implying that I am too stupid and too naïve and lack the intelligence to know what I am doing. That is extremely offensive to me and to every woman of color.
Come again?

The unwitting Russian asset pejorative has been deployed against plenty of not of color men too. President Donald Trump and libertarian communicator Ron Paul are two prominent examples of individuals who have been called Russian assets, both witting and unwitting. Critics have slung the unwitting Russian asset label at people — be they men, women, people of various races, etc. — who they see as not sufficiently accepting anti-Russia claims of one sort or another or as opposed to US government actions sold as means to challenge purported threats from Russia. And, of course, some women of color have made this sort of accusation.

Nonetheless, Gabbard claims that calling her an unwitting Russian asset is “extremely offensive” to her and every other woman of color. Why? What does she think being a woman of color has to do with it? Her claim sounds like rubbish.

The above originally appeared at the Ron Paul Institute.


  1. Tulsi is using the race card to simply shut up her accusers and detractors.

  2. It's obvious, she's using the left's "intersectionality" against them.

    Now of course "intersectionality" points only count for people who are in lock step 100% agreement with left dogma and narrative but it forces them to show how suddenly the points don't count or quietly back away.

  3. This is not the first time Gabbard has used the “women of color” angle. Maybe she is turning the crazy left BS back at them but, IMO she is only a little better than most other politicians.

    Two things separate her: being at all anti-war and coming across as sincere. But if she is really sincere she wouldn’t care about being a “women of color” because it doesn’t matter. Not unless she wants to be like Pocahontas who used her (fake) women of color status for advancement. Neither Gabbard nor Warren look like women of color so they feel the need to “remind” us of their victimhood. That’s all for show and very insincere.

    It is still interesting that Gabbard is 100% establishment other than on some aspects of war and she has come under so much attack.

    War is the health of the state.