Victims, generosity, and gratitutde (or the lack thereof)

Victimhood seems to be the word for the day. Illegal aliens are victims, blacks are victims, Muslims are victims, ... you get the idea. Americans try to help everybody they can here and around the world. To whom much is given, much is expected, ... so we are glad to lend a had to those in need. But need and greed are two different things. Being a victim and wanting special treatment are not the same. And is it too much to expect a little gratitude for what we do?

One example is the new immigration bill, which in my opinion is a complete sham. Listening to the illegal aliens being interviewed on television was a real eye-opener. They don't like the bill, they don't want anything required of them. Illegals don't want to pay $5,000. Aliens don't want to go home, or touch back, in order to get their Z-visas. (a/k/a E-Z-visas) They want citizenship and they want it now. Not grateful for what is being offered, they want more.

How about a little appreciation and gratitude, in the form of assimilation? Go see the images and article at Ironic Surrealism

The Conservative Constitutionalist points out that it may be legal American citizens and illegal aliens who are the real victims of the new immigration bill, -- when we get hit with another terrorist attack by someone who slipped across the border.

Legal Americans feel "that NONE OF US will have a say in the final solution" to illegal aliens, according to The Bill-T Blog. We call, fax, email, snail-mail .. is anybody really listening? Rastaman thinks it's "because corporations are now running America and the corporations have decided that they want a lot of cheap labor from Mexico."

Hillbilly has a link to the full immigration bill if you want to go read it (pdf alert).

Red Satellites says "Welcome to the Hood -- Victimhood"

If you happen to have lived in or around New Orleans when Katrina hit- you've hit the lottery.

After a massive deadline filing rush recently that is still being sorted through, the United States is facing legal claims from more than 250,000 people here demanding compensation because, they allege, the Corps negligently designed the waterworks that permeate the city.

Every person within a 200 mile radius has lined up for this massive handout. Oh by the way, anyone done the math lately?Hmmm....$278 billion divided by ~250,000 = 1.11 MILLION per 'victim'. Yep.

If the government pays out all claims, each and every plaintiff, on average, will score more than a million dollars...

I'm wondering what the total amount of donations to Katrina victims has been? Like the September 11 widows, it never seems to be enough. A little personal responsibility would have saved many of these people in New Orleans from the tragedy they experienced. Hillbilly sums it up:

I may live in the city, enjoy a lot of creature comforts, technological advances, higher education, and many more things, but my roots are strong. If all these things disappeared tomorrow, I’d still survive because my family taught me how to think and do for myself. It’s the saddest thing in the world to me to read about people who can’t. If you want to cure the world’s ills teach them how to think and do and learn for themselves, not just give it and expect them to be grateful. Gratitude is a capricious creature. Just when you expect it to come in a flood you get complaints that what was given wasn’t enough. (Hillbilly Politics)

Muslims are not victims either, as Islamanazi so clearly points out:

It’s time our media stopped portraying the tribal peoples of other nations as being “undeveloped” because they still adhere to ancient and horrible practices. [snip]

No, the people who persist in abusing their women and mutilating and torturing each other aren’t undeveloped. They have full access to modern technology. Yet they constantly fight each other for domination. They fight over differences in belief, over slights and imagined slights, over territory, wealth, greed, jealousy, virtually any possible excuse or no excuse at all. They engage in complex and compulsory rituals that consume much of each working day and reduce their ability to provide for themselves. With knives they gouge off the hands and feet of each other as punishments for crimes and imagined crimes.

They do this while using the Internet, driving cars, and attending colleges.

They aren’t “undeveloped”.

They’re just muslims. (more)

If you are black you can be a victim, but if you are white you probably deserved to be carjacked, tortured, raped, and eventually killed. Hot Air has video. Christopher Newsom (23) and Channon Christian (21), real victims, get little MSM reporting. La Shawn Barber has more. Where's Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson?

_____________________________________________________________________
See:

Gold Diggers and the Government A-Go-Go, at Blue Collar Muse. You won't be sorry!

Sultan Knish has an original video, a MUST see:

Do you feel angry all the time? Do toy pigs, patterns in ice cream, women and anyone who believes differently than you fill you with uncontrollable rage? In this uniquely produced video from SultanKnish.blogspot.com, the solution is clear. Extra strength Prozac for Muslims.

Of Bullets and Bibles has a wonderful Rudyard Kipling poem I suggest you go read. A nice change for the weekend.
Badger 6 Going For William Arkin’s Job, at Pursuing Holiness
The Road to Surrender Commerative Plate Series, The Amboy Times
Check out Blog Talk Radio by Political Pistachio, featuring a soldier, Paul Couturier

Immigration:
Mexicans fear U.S. immigration plan, The Uncooperative Blogger
Runaway Congress, Help Stop Amnesty, Common Sense America
An Overview of Amnesty, Part II, Common Sense America
S-1348 - details of z-visa, Bear Creek Ledger
Ted Kennedy Wrong About Immigration, satire, John W. Lillpop at Illegals Must Go

This was a production of The Coalition Against Illegal Immigration (CAII). If you would like to participate, please go to the above link to learn more. Afterwards, email the coalition and let us know at what level you would like to participate.

Comments

[the banner]

I was disappointed to see yet another liberal-biased "The Banner" mailed to me with my quota dollars. Please discontinue the practice of taking our church's quota dollars and using it to foist liberal clap-trap on us and our children.

I am referring to the article "Climate Care" and the incorrect information foisted upon our children in the associated article for kids.

It is fine for "The Banner" to address current topics in the news, and try to provide information on how that relates to us as Christians. But, I found the lack of balance in the articles to be appalling.

For example, there was no mention of the many eminent scientist, both Christian and non-Christian, who disagree with the ecological gloom and doom theories spewed forth in "The Banner". Why not explain their side of the argument fully? Are they afraid of printing the other side of the controvery, for fear the CRC readers might see that it makes logical sense? What are they afraid of?

Specifically, Calvin Dewitt cites Naomi Oreskes' "research" as "proof" that there is a "consensus" in the "scientific community" that "the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling".

First of all, scientific "consensus" is what you are left with when you do not have scientific fact.

Second, Mr. Dewitt's and "The Banner" failed at balance once again by failing to reveal the huge controversy around Naomi Oreskes' "research". Mr. Dewitt didn't even get the latest new into his article that Naomi Oreskes searched for "global climate change", not "climate change", and that "she ignored a few abstracts that explicitly reject what she calls the consensus view."

This is what Mr. Dewitt and "The Banner" chose to leave out of their biased coverage:

"A flaw in the essay was, as Oreskes later conceded, that the keywords she searched weren't limate change? but Global climate change?
Her conclusions have been challenged by Benny Peiser who initially enumerated the figure at closer to 30% [2]. Peiser letters to Science[5] were rejected by the editors. Peiser was skeptical about the consensus on the scientific opinion on climate change, thus the essay has become part of the global warming controversy. Oreskes has responded to criticisms with an editorial in The Washington Post[3]. Peiser claimed that he had repeated Oreskes' search, and found a different number of articles, 35 of which he claimed supported the position that global warming was not caused by human action." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Oreskes

Mr. Peiser goes on to state: "Please note that the whole ISI data set includes just 13 abstracts (less than 2%) that *explicitly* endorse what she has called the 'consensus view.' The vast majority of abstracts do not deal with or mention anthropogenic global warming whatsoever. I also maintain that she ignored a few abstracts that explicitly reject what she calls the consensus view. You can check for yourself at http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Oreskes-abstracts.htm

I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous.

Despite all claims to the contrary, there is a small community of skeptical researchers that remains extremely active. Hardly a week goes by without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory. (For the latest developments, see http://greenspin.blogspot.com/2006/10/do-i-detect-first-tiny-rumblings-of.html)

Undoubtedly, skeptical scientists are a small minority. But as long as the possible impacts of global warming remain uncertain, the public is justified to keep an open mind. How decision-makers deal with these scientific uncertainties is another matter. But it is vital for the health and integrity of science that critical evaluation and skepticism are not scorned or curbed for political reasons."

6) Global warming alarmists will tell you that there is "scientific consensus" that mankind is causing global warming and that only a few scientists disagree. But, there are more than 17,200 scientists who say that, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." Since that's the case, how can anyone credibly claim that there is "scientific consensus" on the issue? http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JohnHawkins/2007/03/30/10_questions_for_al_gore_and_the_global_warming_crowd

The 17,200 scientists who were not mentioned in "The Banner":
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

For example see the following:

Why wasn't E. Calvin Beisner, professor of social ethics at Knox Theological Seminary, given a chance to publish an opposing viewpoint to Calvin DeWitt? Why only show one side and hide the other side of the argument? See

Evangelicals Will Not Take Stand on Global Warming

article below or see:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/01/AR2006020102132.html

Also, why wasn't the scientific and Christian thinking from the articles listed below represented in "The Banner"?

Environmentalism Religion Rather Than Science, Says Czech Leader
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200703/CUL20070312b.html

Forecaster Blasts Gore on Global Warming
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070407/D8OBK1DG0.html

The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World
http://www.amazon.com/Skeptical-Environmentalist-Measuring-State-World/dp/0521010683/ref=pd_sim_b_2/104-3487716-3281511

Environmentialism articles:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/guideDesc.asp?catid=99&type=issue

Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1930865597/ref=pd_luc_10210215955506741930865597/102-4162826-2123312

Global Warming and Other Eco Myths: How the Environmental Movement Uses False Science to Scare Us to Death
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0761536604/ref=pd_bxgy_text_1/104-7725818-2252714?v=glance&s=books&st=*

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF ENVIRONMENTALISM
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=155

Does the fact that much of the Northeast was under a glacier ice sheet only about 20,000 years ago ?a mere blip in earth time ?enter into the global warming theorists?calculations of cause and effect? What explains the receding of the glaciers 10,000 years ago in what must have been part of a long-term warming trend?
From: Global Warming Hearings Cancelled by Cold Snap
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=27014

Was were the liberal authors of the articles in "The Banner" afraid to bring up these points and address them? Why are they only printing the information provided from like-minded liberal scientists? Why can't they have more intellectual honesty?

I expect more from "The Banner" and if this liberal bias keeps up, I will cancel my "free" subscription. We all can save the CRC a lot of money by avoiding the cost of printing and distributing this magazine. Let them sink or swim based on the journalistic quality and integrity of their magazine, not a force confiscation and then printing whatever they feel like.

I am not paying large quotas to the CRC only to have them spew half-baked liberal theories out via the official magazine of my denomination, until "The Banner" prints a new article addressing these questions:

10 Questions For Al Gore And The Global Warming Crowd
By John Hawkins
Friday, March 30, 2007
I'll be the first to admit that like most conservatives, I'm deeply skeptical of the idea that mankind is causing global warming. Is that because I take payoffs from the energy industry, don't like Al Gore, don't like science, or any of the other silly excuses global warming alarmists come up with to explain why people don't buy their theory?
No.

It's because "the Earth-is-going-to-burn-us-alive" crowd cannot answer the most basic questions about the theory that they haughtily insist is so beyond reproach that there should be no more need for debate. In fact, the most ironic thing about the global warming argument is that Al Gore and Company have declared that it's settled, but they have to use scary stories about cities being flooded a hundred years from now and fake tales about polar bears drowning to sell it. If they're on such rock solid scientific ground, why doesn't the science speak for itself? Does anyone remember Sir Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein trying to get people to buy into their scientific theories by coming up with doomsday scenarios? No, of course not.
Despite that, like most conservatives, I'm open minded and could be convinced that mankind is responsible for causing global warming -- but with science, not scaremongering. If the proponents of the manmade global warming theory can come up with good answers to questions like these, you can expect everyone, including me, to accept their theory:
1) The earth has warmed and cooled numerous times in the past and many of those temperature swings have been much greater than anything we've experienced so far. So, since we human beings don't really understand why those temperature swings occurred, how can we be sure that the very mild warming we've seen so far hasn't been caused by normal changes in our climate?
2) If greenhouse gasses produced by mankind are behind the roughly one degree increase in temperature over the last century, then why did the global temperature go down from roughly 1940 to 1975 even though mankind's production of greenhouse gasses was skyrocketing during that same time period?
3) We can't accurately predict whether it's going to rain or not a week from now. We can't accurately predict what the weather will look like next year (Remember that in 2005, they were predicting we'd be hammered with non-stop hurricanes in 2006 because of global warming. It didn't happen). Since that's the case, how can we possibly have any confidence in predictions of what the weather will be like in 50-100 years?
4) Mars has also been experiencing global warming. Since man can't be a factor on that planet, doesn't it suggest that perhaps a factor other than man, i.e. the sun, is responsible for the warming on both planets?
5) Back in the early seventies, the in-vogue scientific theory was that we were in the midst of global cooling that was caused by man. Now, it turns out that there was nothing much behind that except that the global temperature was getting cooler. So, where did they go wrong back in the early seventies and how do we know that we're not making the same type of mistake today in forecasting global warming?
6) Global warming alarmists will tell you that there is "scientific consensus" that mankind is causing global warming and that only a few scientists disagree. But, there are more than 17,200 scientists who say that, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." Since that's the case, how can anyone credibly claim that there is "scientific consensus" on the issue?
7) Even if mankind was responsible for global warming, how would the solutions that are being offered, like Kyoto or carbon credit trading schemes, fix the problem? Big developing countries like India and China are exempt from Kyoto and unlikely to sign on to any deal that hurts their economy, Europe isn't meeting its Kyoto goals, and environmentalists say Kyoto wouldn't fix the problem even if all of its targets are met.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JohnHawkins/2007/03/30/10_questions_for_al_gore_and_the_global_warming_crowd

Evangelicals Will Not Take Stand on Global Warming
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/01/AR2006020102132.html

By Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 2, 2006; Page A08
The National Association of Evangelicals said yesterday that it has been unable to reach a consensus on global climate change and will not take a stand on the issue, disappointing environmentalists who had hoped that evangelical Christians would prod the Bush administration to soften its position on global warming.
Over the past four years a growing number of evangelical groups have embraced environmental causes, urging Christians to engage in "Creation care" and campaigning against gas-guzzling SUVs with advertisements asking, "What would Jesus drive?"

In October 2004 the leadership of the NAE, which says it has 30 million members and is the nation's largest evangelical organization, declared that mankind has "a sacred responsibility to steward the Earth and not a license to abuse the creation of which we are a part." At about the same time, the umbrella group's president, the Rev. Ted Haggard of Colorado Springs, called the environment "a values issue."
But this fledgling movement -- dubbed the "greening of evangelicals" in a front-page Washington Post article a year ago -- has also met internal resistance. In a letter to Haggard last month, more than 20 evangelical leaders urged the NAE not to adopt "any official position" on global climate change because "Bible-believing evangelicals . . . disagree about the cause, severity and solutions to the global warming issue."
The letter's signers amounted to a Who's Who of politically powerful evangelicals, including Charles W. Colson, founder of Prison Fellowship Ministries; James C. Dobson, chairman of Focus on the Family; the Rev. D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Ministries; the Rev. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention; Richard Roberts, president of Oral Roberts University; Donald E. Wildmon, chairman of the American Family Association; and the Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition.
In a written statement yesterday, Haggard denied reports that the NAE had circulated a draft paper calling for the Bush administration to support mandatory limits on carbon dioxide emissions.
"Allow me to confirm at the outset that the NAE is not circulating any official document on the environment. We are not considering a position on global warming. We are not advocating for specific legislation or government mandates," Haggard said. His statement added that the NAE's executive committee recently passed a motion "recognizing the ongoing debate" on global warming and "the lack of consensus among the evangelical community on this issue."
Calvin DeWitt, a professor of environmental studies at the University of Wisconsin who is a leading evangelical supporter of environmental causes, called the statement "a retreat and a defeat."
"A year ago, it looked as though evangelicals would become a strong, collective voice for what we call 'Creation care' and others may call environmentalism," he said. "This will have negative consequences for the ability of evangelicals to influence the White House, unfortunately and sadly."
But E. Calvin Beisner, professor of social ethics at Knox Theological Seminary, a conservative Presbyterian school in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., applauded the NAE's non-position.
Beisner, who helped draft the letter to Haggard from evangelical leaders, said they had feared that the NAE was going "to assume as true certain things that we think are still debatable, such as that global warming is not only real but also almost certainly going to be catastrophically harmful; second, that it is being driven to a significant extent by human activity; and third, that some regime, some international treaty for mandatory reductions in CO2emissions, could make a significant enough drop in global emissions to justify the costs to the human economy."

Why So Gloomy? (Newsweek article)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/

Recently many people have said that the earth is facing a crisis requiring urgent action. This statement has nothing to do with science. There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we've seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe. What most commentators and many scientists seem to miss is that the only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes. The earth is always warming or cooling by as much as a few tenths of a degree a year; periods of constant average temperatures are rare. Looking back on the earth's climate history, it's apparent that there's no such thing as an optimal temperature climate at which everything is just right. The current alarm rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperaturewise, but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman's forecast for next week

[Debbie]

You are welcome, you have a great post. Glad you liked the image I sent you. And I do agree with Islamanazi completely

[velvethammer]

Great post Debbie. Thanks for the linkage.

"They aren’t “undeveloped”.

They’re just muslims."

Islamanazi hit the nail on the head on that one.

And truer words have never been spoken...

"They engage in complex and compulsory rituals that consume much of each working day and reduce their ability to provide for themselves. "

Pretty much sums it up. Why then should such a fine country full of hardworking citizens as the US, bow down to their rituals in the workplace, I ask? How can they possibly be productive employees? Arrgh!