The editing feature did not make the following corrections to my last post regarding the following article:Tulsi Gabbard: The Curiously Conservative and Nepotistic Network of a Democratic Candidate
The writer is not able to connect all the dots because he doesn't know who is and who is not a Butler follower. We do.
He does find it curious that known Republican donors all of a sudden donated to Mike and Tulsi when they changed parties. Tulsi had a "change of heart" and I guess so did this suspicious block of donors. The writer also noticed that the same people who donated to other Butler followers (Reed, Hoshijo, Nishiki, Mike Gabbard) also donated to Tulsi's campaign. He doesn't quite figure out that their success is more than family nepotism, but a cult voting block.
He also doesn't know where the enclaves of cultists reside and how to trace the money coming from outside of Hawaii (Citrus Heights, California area; Cottonwood, Arizona area; Poland (and other eastern European countries); Philippines; New Zealand; Australia; and possibly China; etc.) which makes "following the money" more difficult.
She won the election any way. She also gained support from typical sources and local, non-cult support. As I have written before, Hawaii is all about OHANA and religious tolerance, so they don't bat an eyelash that so many family members and members of her religious group donated funds to her campaign. If she does a good job representing Hawaii, she will have a long career like her father. Neither of them could win by the cult alone.
The real story lies in whether Butler is illegally funneling money into political campaigns and plying undue influence on his politician/followers. The head of the snake should be the real target of scrutiny.
Yes, it is against everything American to be prejudiced against people who practice different religions. That is as long as practitioners do not harm others or break the law of the land. Just look at the problems pluralistic and liberal countries are having with radical Islam and Sharia law (Sweden, France, Denmark, Netherlands, Great Britain). It begs the question, how can followers of a religion that condones honor killing and forced clitorectomies and other abuses be a part of a government or leadership without tempering their beliefs to conform with civilized behavior?
How can a follower of a leader who claims he is the "guru of the world", God's representative on earth, who says he can read minds and travel to other planets be good judges and lawmakers?
Deception on guru's orders? We know what Butler preaches and practices. We know that his politician followers keep his name and influence unspoken. They think they have covered their bases by using euphemisms such as "bhakti yoga and Catholicism", "Hinduism and taking an oath on the Bhagavad Gita", and claiming to be a part of "Gaudiya Vaishnavism". No doubt all of these press releases have been approved by Butler. It is known that they follow this splinter Hare Krishna group. I wonder if it was a copy of A.C.Bhaktivedanta's translation of the Bhagavad Gita!?
From the article:
No one questions Gabbard's right to believe as he chooses. Some may even applaud him for his religious beliefs. However, some voters may worry about his former ties to a Krishna sect. Especially when members and associates of that group have mounted repeated attempts at high public office.
So the next question is whether their true allegiances could be to this mad man over their own country? I'm not too worried about that because Butler enjoys his lifestyle too much to make any waves. He won't do anything to jeopardize his income by creating a scandal. It's not like he really has much control. His religion is virulently anti-homosexual (anti-heterosexual for that matter) and anti-abortion. Both Mike and Tulsi had to conform to the Democratic platform against their own beliefs to win elections.
That should beg the question, Do we really want leaders who whore out their convictions to get elected? Or is it that they are now becoming "moderate Butlerites" that reject the more radical aspects of their religion just as we have elected moderate Muslims into our government?
In my opinion, Butler is just a pathetic fraud, a small time narcissist/guru living off of his followers --- while his politician/followers are just opportunists living off of their guru and his voting block. Maybe less so with Tulsi since she was born into the craziness. This may be the best way she can strike out on her own within the cult.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/24/2014 07:30PM by Vera City.