[mccookgazette.com] Fair ~ 68°F  
High: 85°F ~ Low: 53°F
Saturday, Sep. 20, 2014

A Matter of Tea

Posted Thursday, August 26, 2010, at 6:25 PM

(Photo)
Scouting the pundits on the right side of the political spectrum, I still find many conservatives at a loss to explain the sudden and enthusiastic liberal support for Islam since 9/11.

The Muslim cheerleaders in the press brings state run media 'credibility' in to question, because under sharia law, these leftists would be the first to be eliminated.

The leftist zeal for anything that will harm America is not hard to explain at all. It is very easy to understand...it's just a matter of tea.

Water is able to accomplish many different outcomes. You mix tea with water, and a transformation takes place. The water takes the tea, and being water, it highlights and brings forth the quality of the tea. So much in fact; that we no longer call the drink "water" or even "tea water", we call it tea.

That same water can take arsenic, and promote its agenda, and if you drink it, you die.

I have long maintained that there is no such thing as an atheist. I believe the Bible when it proclaims that every man has been given "the measure of faith."

There are only those in rebellion, and those that are not. No need for long and expenses studies in which the over-educated try and lie to each other. The Truth is the Truth.

The Constitution of the United States was inspired by God. Dr. Martin Luther King praised this country, even in the midst of his battle.

Let me quote Dr. King from his address to the 1st Montgomery Improvement Association at the Holt Street Baptist Church. "I want it known throughout Montgomery and throughout this nation that we are Christian people. We follow the Christian religion. We believe in the teachings of Jesus."

Also, "And certainly, certainly, this is the glory of America, with all of its faults."

Since the Constitution was inspired written and put into practice by men of faith, black and white, naturally, those in rebellion, must oppose it.

I have also heard over the years from the left when attacking what they know inside to be true, "How can a loving God send people to hell?"

The truth is that many choose to be separated from God in their rebellion, and choose hell and arrogance over truth and forgiveness.

That is why those on the left, under the control of the arsenic of liberalism, will oppose anything that glorifies God Almighty.

Why be surprised at libs schools in New York, who preach to our kids in public schools with perverted history trying to glorify Islam? And by being the rebels against God that they are, by nature, by nature of the liberal poison, they slam Christianity.

Let me point to the Apostle Paul once again.

Under control of the poison, Paul (then Saul), went throughout the countryside persecuting Christians. Saul worked hard, night and day, traveling all over, and making personal sacrifices, to hunt followers of Christ.

Then, Saul saw the Light, he was no longer under control of the poison, he was now Paul, he was now Tea.

Same guy, different heart.

Paul worked just as hard, and he traveled and sacrificed for the Faith.

Same guy, different heart.

A matter of tea.

And let us not get to puffed up here. We were all in rebellion against God at one time or another.

At least you know the "why" of it.


Comments
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

@Sam that's why I thank god that Glenn Beck is having that amazing rally on the anniversary of MLK's famous speech. I've already read the guide, so I know how to avoid the "blacks" in DC. I'm prepared!

Although the constitution wasn't inspired by god. In fact although many of the founders had faith, they specifically sought to keep god out of government. Rightly so I would say. You can't have freedom of religion with government and religion intertwined.

-- Posted by Damu on Thu, Aug 26, 2010, at 7:37 PM

Interesting about the separation of Church and State, as most seem to want to view it, today. One of the very first things done by Congress, and the President, once the Congressional building was completed was make it a Church Building, for Services, every Sunday, as well as the Treasury Building.

Sam, I believe you err on one thing. Liberals do not want to be Muslim, they simply feel that subjugation of the Conservative masses is a must, to have the Primo-World they envision. Liberals desire Freedom, but without the primary, conservative, income producing Americans. That is how I see it.

-- Posted by Navyblue on Thu, Aug 26, 2010, at 9:11 PM

Jay-z's Empire State of mind inspired Katy Perry's California Gurls, yet the two are nothing alike.

God inspired the Constitution no doubt about it in my book. However, the Constitution much like God, also grants us free will to choose and follow any religion or no religion at all. Liberals are not glorifying Islam.

They understand we are not at war with Islam but at war with the Taliban and Al Quada. And that's the reason for the support of Islam since 9/11.

All of these conservative Christians are blaming the entire religion for something that they have NO control over or an prior knowledge of. But yet, all of these people are acting like it was whispered in every Mosque in the world that there was going to be an attack on 9/11.

Bin Laden is to blame for the attacks, NOT Islam.

-- Posted by npwinder on Fri, Aug 27, 2010, at 12:34 AM

The point can also be made that we are to blame with our meddling and mishandling in there countries affairs before 9/11 to present.

-- Posted by Damu on Fri, Aug 27, 2010, at 12:51 AM

There are two ways, -- the natural and the supernatural.

One way is to live for the world we are in, to develop the brain by study and investigation, to take, by invention, advantage of the forces of nature, to the end that we may have good houses, raiment and food, to the end that the hunger of the mind may be fed through art and science.

The other way is to live for another world that we expect, to sacrifice this life that we have for another that we know not of. The other way is by prayer and ceremony to obtain the assistance, the protection of some phantom above the clouds.

One way is to think -- to investigate, to observe, and follow, the light, of reason. The other way is to believe, to accept, to follow, to deny the authority of your own senses, your own reason, and bow down to those who are impudent enough to declare that they know.

One way is to live for the benefit of your fellowmen -- for your wife and children -- to make those you love happy and to shield them from the sorrows of life.

The other way is to live for ghosts, goblins, phantoms and gods with the hope that they will reward you in another world.

One way is to enthrone reason and rely on facts, the other to crown credulity and live on faith.

One way is to walk by the light within -- by the flame that illumines the brain, verifying all by the senses -- by touch and sight and sound.

The other way is to extinguish the sacred light and follow blindly the steps of another.

One way is to be an honest man, giving to others your thought, standing erect, intrepid, careless of phantoms and hells.

The other way is to cringe and crawl, to betray your nobler self and to deprive others of the liberty that you have not the courage to enjoy.

- Robert G. Ingersoll

1884

-- Posted by Damu on Fri, Aug 27, 2010, at 1:18 AM

Damu and Carl,

"The point can also be made that we are to blame with our meddling and mishandling in there countries affairs before 9/11 to present."

Wow, I can't believe you guys went there. So is a woman who is killed by her live in boyfriend after years of domestic violence also to blame for her death? You guys are just as extreme as Sam is.

Sam,

What the heck is the point of this post? It makes no sense. What are you talking about with the perverted history glorifying Islam stuff? Can you give an example?

As great as MLK was, I don't think he qualifies as an authority on the foundation of the United States, you see I think he was expressing an OPINION there not Fact. Nothing wrong with opinions but they can't be used as citable truths.

You already question the credibility of the media, so this new line has no weight. What Muslim Cheerleading are you talking about anyway?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Fri, Aug 27, 2010, at 9:12 AM

I'm still pretty upset with Damu and Carl here, does anyone else think that's out of line? I'd especially like to hear from some other left leaning thinkers.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Fri, Aug 27, 2010, at 9:16 AM

@SWNEBR I'm curious if you really believe that for no discernible reason these Muslim people decided they hated our freedom? Giving them a spur of the moment reason to perpetrate 9/11?

Actually, in several videotaped messages since 9/11 bin Laden gave very different, specific reasons for the attack, to wit: the U.S.-led embargo of humanitarian aid to Iraq in the 1990s following Gulf War I (in hopes that starving, illness-crazed Iraqis would arise to overthrow Saddam Hussein), later replaced with a corrupt and equally ineffective U.N. food-and-medicine-for-oil program, which together were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children; America's unwavering Israel-first Middle-East foreign policy which has so often ignored the rights of Palestinians and which contributes to so much instability in the region, and the continued, growing presence of U.S. military bases in the Middle East, specifically in Saudi Arabia, the holiest lands in Islam.

-- Posted by Damu on Fri, Aug 27, 2010, at 9:33 AM

Damu,

Did I say anything remotely like what you tried to put in my mouth? I just said you were over the line, btw you never answered my question.

To answer your question: No I don't really believe that for no discernible reason these Muslim people decided they hated our freedom, thus giving them a spur of the moment reason to perpetrate 9/11. As I said, I don't recall ever making that argument.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Fri, Aug 27, 2010, at 9:44 AM

@SWN You didn't. I'm sorry for attempting to put words in your mouth. Although if you don't subscribe to that argument I'm curious what your thoughts are on what caused it?

-- Posted by Damu on Fri, Aug 27, 2010, at 9:50 AM

@SW I think you can use that analogy. If say the women had been paying someone to abuse the man on a daily basis for a number of years.

-- Posted by Damu on Fri, Aug 27, 2010, at 10:26 AM

The point I was trying to make is about blaming the victim, which apparently you all feel is fine.

Molly, I'm sorry you were offended but I think the analogy is apt. The abuser can justify why he acts because that is the way he is, does that make it right? I was indeed being sensational, trying to make a sensational point. Would you prefer I used the WWII Jew example that they deserved what happened to them? How about the OKC bombing, did they deserve it? It is the same thing. Victims do not ever deserve what happens to them. I'm dissappointed that so many of you on the left apparently feel that in this case they did.

I didn't complain about them discussing foreign policy, I complained that they blamed the victim. If the attacks had only targeted government installations, I could see they had a valid point, but when innocent people are killed, I can't defend it.

Using a terrorists stated reason for acting can hardly be justified as "factual history".

Damu,

I appreciate your asking. I haven't given it a great deal of thought but I suppose I believe they acted for the same reason I believe every other terrorist acts. They percieved some slight, real or imagined, and then used that slight as a justification for commiting terrible acts they wished to do anyway. Although US foreign policy has been at times abyssmal, that does not in my mind justify people from killing thousands of innocents. If one has a complaint, I think there are right and wrong ways of handling that complaint and killing people is pretty much always the wrong way. I never defended the foreign policy, but I also never defended terrorists as Damu and Carl did and Guillermo and Molly seem to be doing.

I guess I am a believer in personal responsibility.

Guillermo,

I will not retract my statement. Just because I don't believe that there is no reason for terrorism doesn't necessarily mean I think the United States is to blame for it. I don't that is a conclusion that most rational people would jump to.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Fri, Aug 27, 2010, at 10:37 AM

Damu,

I see from you last post that we will never be able to get through to each other on this one. I feel Al Qaeda was unjustified in it's actions, while you feel they were justified. I see no middle ground here.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Fri, Aug 27, 2010, at 10:39 AM

@SWN Honestly, in my opinion it's not blaming the victim. I'm not justifying there actions. I don't think its ever right to kill anyone honestly. It's more trying to get to the heart of the matter to prevent such atrocities from happening. If we deny what caused it how can we hope to prevent something like this again? Personally, I think that our actions in the middle east have caused a lot of resentment within the middle eastern world. Against not just Muslims but all citizens over there. The kick is though, since the majority of the population over there is Muslim that is what the terrorists used to exercise the "mind wipe" as I like to call it.

You'll get no argument out of me that 9/11 was terrible. Although, I'm curious if you use that same rationality that you applied to the terrorists with what we have done in Iraq? I mean so far there have been between 97,461 -- 106,348 civilian deaths over there. In a country that had nothing to do with the actual implementation of 9/11. We went over there under false pretenses. With the flair of religion, (Not to the extreme the terrorists are taking, but it didn't need to be.) remember all the references GW loved to make in regard to God when we were gearing up for this? Is what were doing over there ok since were bringing "democracy"?

-- Posted by Damu on Fri, Aug 27, 2010, at 10:54 AM

Damu,

As I said we will just disagree and it is not worth discussing, your original post places the blame for 9/11 squarely on us, which I refuse to accept. The 9/11 terrorists are to blame for their actions.

As for your question about Iraq. I honestly don't remember the president's refering to this war are being God's will or even indicating we need to do this for religion, I'm sure he invoked God several times, he is a religious person and they have a tendency to do that in life. I don't think what we've done there is ok, I also think it is impossible to "bring" democracy to anyone.

Democracy needs to be earned by a people when they decide to take power for themselves. I also feel the tribal cultures of the middle east are not equiped for democracy as we practice it so to try to force a new form of government on them will do no good. Time will tell if our involvement in Iraq is a good or bad thing, I feel it will end up being fairly neutral.

All that said, I believe people are responsible for their own actions and the fact that Iraqi civilians are targeted by terrorists, is less our fault than a continuation of a culture that has had it's dominant control taken away. One could argue that it is our fault we took the power away but I don't think you can absolve the participants of their responsibility. We are directly responsible for any civilians we have killed through direct action and should seek to make reparations, although it can't replace a lost loved one.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Fri, Aug 27, 2010, at 11:27 AM

Molly,

I didn't try to stop any discussion. When asked my opinion on a subject I am willing to give it. I am not surprised that you call me out for being sensational but give Damu a pass, I assume because you agree with him. I dont' see how his one line statement to which I object can be seen as anything but sensational. He did not try to open a debate, he threw a zinger out there.

Also intersting is your desire for an "honest discussion" about jihadi theory which compares unfavorably with your dismissiveness when "conbots" are concerned. You haven't expressed a desire to get there side of where they are coming from, because, again I assume, you think you already know where they come from.

For all your talk about emotion, you seem to really be lead by yours'. I don't think I or anyone else here implied these discussions are treasonous, so who's sensationalizing now? At least I'm honest.

Here is his original post:

"The point can also be made that we are to blame with our meddling and mishandling in there countries affairs before 9/11 to present." There is no other mention of causation, he doesn't say we are also to blame, or partly, etc.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Fri, Aug 27, 2010, at 12:09 PM

Guillermo,

Correct we have foreign policy failures, I don't feel that absolves people of responsibility nor does it give reason to kill innocent people. I really don't see what is so hard for you to see here. I never defended our foreign policy nor do I find our failing uncomfortable to talk about. I don't see why you are trying to attribute thoughts to me I haven't expressed.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Fri, Aug 27, 2010, at 12:12 PM

@Sw Did we actually fly planes into the buildings on 9/11, no. Did our actions in the Middle East create an enemy with training, weapons and enough anger towards us to perpetrate such actions, yes.

If I trained someone to kill, then sent that person to kill someone close to you which they successfully did. Then you sent someone back to kill me am I the victim?

-- Posted by Damu on Fri, Aug 27, 2010, at 12:23 PM

Molly,

What part of my continuing discussion is disrupting debate? When asked I've shared my opinion. I didn't say Damu's zinger was not about relevant information I said it was sensational. Sometimes using a sensational point is relevant and valid. I don't know what you think I'm trying to pin on you about your so called "conbots." What label did I apply to you?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Fri, Aug 27, 2010, at 1:42 PM

Damu,

In your scenario, I would not be a victim. However, if your killer killed my wife and children they would be victims, do you disagree? Terrorists do not seek to change the government policies by dealing with government authorities therefore I do not excuse their actions as easily as you seem to.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Fri, Aug 27, 2010, at 1:50 PM

Molly,

I'm sorry I bore you, apparently you only respond to multiple exclamation points and name calling.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Fri, Aug 27, 2010, at 1:51 PM

Molly,

"Chunky already labeled me too"

You also said I labeled you, but I guess that was just another attempt to disrupt conversation perhaps.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Fri, Aug 27, 2010, at 1:53 PM

Molly,

You seem to dislike labels but in the same sentence you use the label "conbots". Why is that, Molly?

-- Posted by McCook1 on Fri, Aug 27, 2010, at 1:54 PM

Molly,

I'm not sure how a person pretends to be nice, am I trying to trick a child into my oven or something?

Conbot is a label the apparently deceased Dr. Loud started using to LABEL those who disagreed with him. Any term that is used to describe a group that is not of thier own devising is a label.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Fri, Aug 27, 2010, at 2:27 PM

@SW I don't disagree with that scenario. Based on previous activities by our government in the countries do you think that they would have any belief whatsoever that they could get our attention politically?

I don't excuse there actions. I understand what caused them to take such action though. They don't have the military strength to get the US's attention. Any kind of diplomacy is obviously useless with the US's 3 letter agencies in there. So, they did the next best thing in there minds.

-- Posted by Damu on Fri, Aug 27, 2010, at 2:45 PM

Damu,

So what do you think the appropriate action to take would be? If the victims of 9/11 suffered for our governments actions how is that different from your killer killing my wife and child? Do you say well that's in the past so we won't worry about it? Do you say too bad SW it's your fault because you allowed someone close to the killer to die and since you are unreachable the only action left is to kill your wife and children to get your attention? What do you say?

I understand that terrorists can justify their actions to themselves. I never denied American wrongs, I just don't accept that they give license to commit terrorist acts. When you shift blame from a party, you are excusing their actions.

I don't know if the would have been able to get the governments attention, I also don't know what redress they attempted to get from the goverment before engaging in terror, do you?

Do you understand where Timothy McVeigh was coming from? I don't, I also don't blame the government for his actions. I understand that his actions were justifiable to him.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Fri, Aug 27, 2010, at 3:41 PM

Terrorists certainly did get our attention but like the saying goes, "careful what you wish for".

-- Posted by McCook1 on Fri, Aug 27, 2010, at 4:06 PM

Guillermo,

I apologize I meant I didn's see why you couldn't see what I was saying, I didn't mean to imply that you felt it absolves responsibilities. But if I recall I said that in response to several posters saying I was unaware of the history. I do see where it could read as you interpreted it and I'm sorry for the confusion. Why is it when I misinterpret your posts, I'm wrong and when you misinterpret my posts I'm wrong? :)

"I really don't see what is so hard for you to see here. I never defended our foreign policy nor do I find our failing uncomfortable to talk about. I don't see why you are trying to attribute thoughts to me I haven't expressed."

That was meant to go together not:

"Correct we have foreign policy failures, I don't feel that absolves people of responsibility nor does it give reason to kill innocent people. I really don't see what is so hard for you to see here."

Since I assume you are asking a hypothetical question of me since I have never espoused those positions, I would argue it is not acceptable to blame the government for all things domestic. See this is where I argue personal responsibility.

The whole brouhaha, comes from Damu's original post which only indicated that the one could argue that the US was to blame, he didn't include any modifiers so I was left to assume that he meant solely. As in "our chicken's had come home to roost." Regardless of how terribly the goverment treats someone, I can't argue that the innocents deserve to suffer because someone had a good reason to be mad.

I will continue to disagree and be surprised that you seem to be arguing that it is understandable why anyone would want to kill innocent people.

Again if Al Qaeda kept its attacks to goverment entities I would be much more supportive of the it's our fault argument.

What do you propose be done to hold our leadership accountable? I don't think I need to point out that the foreign policy wrongs have not been partisan. Making statements that rational people understand doesn't accomplish that goal in my opinion.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Fri, Aug 27, 2010, at 4:54 PM

Guillermo,

I would also like you to mark this down in your little book of SW unfairness that in my original post I criticized both Sam as well as Damu and Carl. There just haven't been any Sam supporters to argue with. :)

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Fri, Aug 27, 2010, at 4:58 PM

@SW I don't think your getting the point here. The point is not to empathize or justify the terrorists actions. It is to clearly state the reasoning behind and history behind it to try and perhaps wake the people up to the actual reason we were attacked and continue to be hated.

It's a lot easier to swallow if they hate us because of our freedoms as many like to espouse. The problem is if you dig slightly below the surface you can see that the government brought 9/11 on us. With there policy and actions in the middle east.

-- Posted by Damu on Fri, Aug 27, 2010, at 6:44 PM

9/11 was a terrorist attack, pure and simple. Thousand died, and million of lives were changed forever. It happened, it is a part of history. Those towers should have been rebuilt, bigger and higher than before. Any God inspired religion should have never requested a church or mosque be built there, except to stir up controversy. This mosque is a point of division and the plans should be stricken. There are other places to build a place of worship, build it there. Let's move on and live out our lives.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sun, Aug 29, 2010, at 7:30 AM

Preferably, those who want to put it in, if they have any decency. If not, somebody should just outbid them, and build those new towers.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sun, Aug 29, 2010, at 9:45 PM

@CPB You think they should rebuild the two towers blocks away at the site of this Community Center?

-- Posted by Damu on Sun, Aug 29, 2010, at 10:02 PM


Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


Hot topics
Elizabeth Warren's Eleven Tenants of Moonbattery
(7 ~ 5:23 PM, Sep 1)

The Politics of Divsion
(4 ~ 6:40 PM, Aug 13)

They Are in it Together
(9 ~ 8:47 AM, Aug 6)

The Savage Truth
(3 ~ 10:08 PM, Aug 2)

Eric Holder Draws The Race Card, Again
(3 ~ 10:47 AM, Jul 22)