Let's keep things in perspective. There is a profound difference between the ideology of ISIS and Butler's cult. There is no comparison. It does matter who is doing the actual killing. There is a big difference between a self limiting cold virus and a deadly, flesh eating bacteria.
The Alternet piece was political and had no relation to Tulsi Gabbard's affiliation with the cult of Butler. In fact, there is no mention of the cult.
These articles that attack Tulsi for political reasons rather than for cult reasons miss the mark as far as this forum is concerned. They still avoid the elephant in the room which is her affiliation with the cult of Butler and how this informs her leadership. But even in her most virulent, anti-gay period, Tulsi never called for the killing of the LGBT population.
But we know very well how Butler's hate mongering towards homosexuality has affected young followers in his schools.
A cult is exposed by their actions and not their beliefs. I don't see Tulsi as a hate monger by her actions.
Tulsi takes donations from foreign governments like India. That makes Tulsi a typical politician and proves nothing about the cult. I suppose you could say she is pushing the Hindu agenda, but in reality it is an economic/political one. Not sure if anyone has noticed how much the Bushes, Obama, and the Clintons have all accepted money from India and other despotic foreign nations.
Here are the facts: Tulsi grew up in the Butler cult and has misled the public about her true affiliation, either by ommission or misdirection. Tulsi's staff and P.R. machine are known cult members. She married into the cult. The cult supports her. The important question is what is she required to do for them in return and if these favors are detrimental to the United States and her constituents?
I happen to like the fact that Tulsi stood up to those war-mongering Dems and Debbie Wasserman Shultz - all of whom are the flip side of the same neo-con Republican coin. I like that Tulsi took a political hit to work for Bernie Sanders. I like that she chose to attend a humanist conference. In case no one was paying attention, our government armed ISIS and has been a violent interventionist (for profit) for decades regardless of which party is in control. J'Accuse! WikiLeaks Founder Assange Claims Clinton is a Warmonger
Back on topic. Let's keep things in perspective. Our credibility is at stake if we exaggerate or do not back up our anti-Butler arguments with facts or connect the dots acurately. There are still more questions than answers at this point regarding Tulsi. Just how far does Butler's undue influence go? What if Tulsi gets on the correct side of things in spite of the cult?
My personal opinion is that this cult is not interested in violence but profit. Butler has discovered a good way to acquire wealth and have fun through politics. Have the Gabbards been involved in illegal activities such as insider trading to serve their guru? That is an important question. Is Tulsi's sincerity and ability to think critically questionable due to her cult affiliation? If so, in what ways? How can we prove this?
Have any of the Butler follower politicians been involved in drug money laundering or other illegal activities? Have any labor laws been broken from the use of children and free labor? What about tax evasion? Have Tulsi's and SOI's tax returns been sufficiently scrutinized?
Was Tulsi's silence on the Sri Shim death (along with her father's) due to their cult ties? Did she neglect her duty as a Congresswoman in this case? This certainly appears to be unethical and evidence of cult tampering. This is a hugely under-reported story.
But her aggressive questioning of John Kerry, asking that radical Islam be acknowledged, meeting with India's Modi, taking donations from lobbyists, attacking online gambling (which destroys lives and targets youngsters), or being insubordinate to Debbie Wasserman Shultz are political issues, not cult issues. Is she a virulent hate monger against LGBT or Muslims? No, there is no evidence. In fact, she argued against more interventionists wars, especially carte blanche ones.
I agree with Ian that it's a good thing that Tulsi is rubbing shoulders with some fine, non-cult folks. Maybe something good will come of it.
Does this make me a cult apologist for which some will claim and attack me on and off the forum? Not at all. Let's just be more credible in our arguments.
In the meantime, until some of these questions can be answered, Butler remains the Head of the Snake.
The Alternet piece was political and had no relation to Tulsi Gabbard's affiliation with the cult of Butler. In fact, there is no mention of the cult.
These articles that attack Tulsi for political reasons rather than for cult reasons miss the mark as far as this forum is concerned. They still avoid the elephant in the room which is her affiliation with the cult of Butler and how this informs her leadership. But even in her most virulent, anti-gay period, Tulsi never called for the killing of the LGBT population.
But we know very well how Butler's hate mongering towards homosexuality has affected young followers in his schools.
A cult is exposed by their actions and not their beliefs. I don't see Tulsi as a hate monger by her actions.
Tulsi takes donations from foreign governments like India. That makes Tulsi a typical politician and proves nothing about the cult. I suppose you could say she is pushing the Hindu agenda, but in reality it is an economic/political one. Not sure if anyone has noticed how much the Bushes, Obama, and the Clintons have all accepted money from India and other despotic foreign nations.
Here are the facts: Tulsi grew up in the Butler cult and has misled the public about her true affiliation, either by ommission or misdirection. Tulsi's staff and P.R. machine are known cult members. She married into the cult. The cult supports her. The important question is what is she required to do for them in return and if these favors are detrimental to the United States and her constituents?
I happen to like the fact that Tulsi stood up to those war-mongering Dems and Debbie Wasserman Shultz - all of whom are the flip side of the same neo-con Republican coin. I like that Tulsi took a political hit to work for Bernie Sanders. I like that she chose to attend a humanist conference. In case no one was paying attention, our government armed ISIS and has been a violent interventionist (for profit) for decades regardless of which party is in control. J'Accuse! WikiLeaks Founder Assange Claims Clinton is a Warmonger
Back on topic. Let's keep things in perspective. Our credibility is at stake if we exaggerate or do not back up our anti-Butler arguments with facts or connect the dots acurately. There are still more questions than answers at this point regarding Tulsi. Just how far does Butler's undue influence go? What if Tulsi gets on the correct side of things in spite of the cult?
My personal opinion is that this cult is not interested in violence but profit. Butler has discovered a good way to acquire wealth and have fun through politics. Have the Gabbards been involved in illegal activities such as insider trading to serve their guru? That is an important question. Is Tulsi's sincerity and ability to think critically questionable due to her cult affiliation? If so, in what ways? How can we prove this?
Have any of the Butler follower politicians been involved in drug money laundering or other illegal activities? Have any labor laws been broken from the use of children and free labor? What about tax evasion? Have Tulsi's and SOI's tax returns been sufficiently scrutinized?
Was Tulsi's silence on the Sri Shim death (along with her father's) due to their cult ties? Did she neglect her duty as a Congresswoman in this case? This certainly appears to be unethical and evidence of cult tampering. This is a hugely under-reported story.
But her aggressive questioning of John Kerry, asking that radical Islam be acknowledged, meeting with India's Modi, taking donations from lobbyists, attacking online gambling (which destroys lives and targets youngsters), or being insubordinate to Debbie Wasserman Shultz are political issues, not cult issues. Is she a virulent hate monger against LGBT or Muslims? No, there is no evidence. In fact, she argued against more interventionists wars, especially carte blanche ones.
I agree with Ian that it's a good thing that Tulsi is rubbing shoulders with some fine, non-cult folks. Maybe something good will come of it.
Does this make me a cult apologist for which some will claim and attack me on and off the forum? Not at all. Let's just be more credible in our arguments.
In the meantime, until some of these questions can be answered, Butler remains the Head of the Snake.