Conservative media link bin Laden's remarks about climate change to progressives, Democrats
Numerous conservative media figures responded to Osama bin Laden's reported comments blaming the United States and other industrialized nations for global warming by linking bin Laden with progressives and Democrats. Fox example, Rush Limbaugh likened bin Laden's remarks to "those of the average, run-of-the-mill leftist, like Obama or Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi or the entire Democrat Party," and Glenn Beck stated that bin Laden was "running to [progressives'] defense."
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Right-wing media connect bin Laden to progressives and Dems
AP reports that bin Laden "blamed the United States and other industrialized nations for climate change." A January 29 Associated Press article reported that "Osama bin Laden sought to draw a wider public into his fight against the United States in a new message Friday, dropping his usual talk of religion and holy war and focusing instead on an unexpected topic: global warming. The al-Qaida leader blamed the United States and other industrialized nations for climate change and said the only way to prevent disaster was to break the American economy, calling on the world to boycott U.S. goods and stop using the dollar."
Limbaugh compares bin Laden to Obama, Reid, Pelosi, "or the entire Democrat Party." On his radio show, Limbaugh -- who has repeatedly smeared progressives and the media by linking them to terrorists -- responded to bin Laden's reported comments by stating, "We have got to sign this guy for a Nobel Peace Prize. He should be a joint recipient. I mean, he's got the same view on this that Al Gore has and the United Nations IPCC, whatever the hell that group is." Limbaugh also said, "It gets harder and harder to tell bin Laden's complaints from those of the average, run-of-the-mill leftist, like Obama or Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi or the entire Democrat Party. I mean, every time Obama releases -- Osama releases a tape, it's just Democrat talking points. Or maybe they're getting their talking points from him." [Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show, 1/29/10]
Beck says that bin Laden is "running to [progressives'] defense." On his radio show, Glenn Beck stated, "One last thought. Bin Laden says the way to stop global warming -- I didn't know he cared about global warming, but he's come out with a new tape now on the dangers and hazards of global warming. Bin Laden in his cave cares about global warming. He says the way to stop global warming is, quote, 'Bring the wheels of the American economy to a halt.' Isn't it interesting the progressive movement has been trying to fundamentally transform us into a workers utopia, stop the wealth in this country? And they've done it by changing history and stopping the use of any of our natural resources. And they're also the leaders in the global warming hoax, the biggest swindle in the history of mankind. And who's running to their defense now that it is weak? Bin Laden. His solution? Stop the American economy, and save the planet." [Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program, 1/29/10]
RedState: "Kinder, Gentler Osama" "expresses views that are nearly indistinguishable from those of ... many Congressional Democrats." A January 29 post at RedState.com titled "The Kinder, Gentler Osama bin Laden" stated that in his comments about global warming, "bin Laden expresses views that are nearly indistinguishable from those of radical environmentalists, European anarchists, or many Congressional Democrats."
Allahpundit: bin Laden "pander[ing] to the left." In separate January 29 Twitter posts, conservative blogger Allahpundit quoted from an article on bin Laden's comments and suggested that in his remarks, bin Laden "tried to clumsily pander to the left."
NewsBusters says bin Laden's comments "sound like an endorsement of Cap and Trade." In a January 29 post, NewsBusters quoted the AP article reporting that "bin Laden warned of the dangers of climate change and says that the way to stop it is to bring 'the wheels of the American economy' to a halt." The NewsBusters post then stated: "Sounds like an endorsement of Cap and Trade."
Limbaugh has repeatedly smeared progressives, media by linking them to terrorists
In recent years, Limbaugh has made numerous attacks on Democrats, progressives, and the media by linking them to terrorists. Examples include:
- June 24, 2008: Limbaugh stated: "I will guaran-damn-tee you there will not be a terrorist attack before the election. And you know why there won't be one? Because they want Obama elected." He later falsely claimed, "Hamas has endorsed Obama. Hamas has endorsed Obama." Limbaugh also asserted that "every time I hear [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad speak, every time I hear a tape from [Al Qaeda leader] Ayman al-Zawahiri or a so-called dispatch from bin Laden, whenever I hear from any of these Middle East Al Qaeda terrorists, I think I'm hearing Democrat [sic] Party talking points."
- April 15, 2008: Limbaugh asserted: "[T]he Islamofascists are actually campaigning for the election of Democrats. Islamofascists from Ahmadinejad to al-Zawahiri ... Osama bin Laden, whoever, are constantly issuing Democrat talking points."
- October 19, 2006: Limbaugh declared that the surge in insurgent violence in Iraq at the time indicated that "terrorists around the world, particularly those in Iraq, are voting Democrat today." Limbaugh maintained that "the terrorists, the Islamofascists, the jihadists" are the "key voters in this year's election," and that "[t]hey are trying to create as much havoc as possible; raise the level of violence in order to affect the midterm elections." He added: "What could be the best outcome for [the terrorists]? Cut and run, right? Whose strategy -- whose policy amounts to cut and run? Democrats."
- April 26, 2006: Limbaugh remarked that a new videotape released by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi "is an excellent opportunity to remind all of you that it sounds just like the DNC [Democratic National Committee] is writing his scripts now." Limbaugh also claimed that Zarqawi "sounds like Democrats," including "Howard Dean, Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry ... Carl Levin, Nancy Pelosi."
Personally, I want someone to show me proof that bin Laden is still among the living.
I'd be interested to know who really made this tape. Sure is stirring up the phony conservatives on Fox/hate talk radio and making them spew the talking points you posted above.
Funny how that works, isn't it?
Bintx gets the Critical Thinking Award for this month. I've been saying this for a while also. OBL's MO was video tape. We haven't seen a credible video of him in over eight years.
Just think about this. When these tapes would initially come out, the CIA, FBI, and Intel branches of our military would takes a week or more to evaluate. Then it was down to a couple of days, then the next day. Now there is no talk of it.
OBL has been "got". By design or by accident. He roams no more.
Mr. News
Easy explanation of climate change: We've burned 200 million years of carbon in just 200 years. It's gotta have an effect.
OBL wants goverments to rule according to strict adherence to religious (Islam) dogma...Conservatives want government to rule according to strict adherence to religious (Christianity) dogma...therefore OBL is in lockstep with conservative talking points.
Gee, here's another one:
OBL wants women to adhere to and obey the dictates of religious law (Islam) as he intreprets it...conservatives want women to adhere to and follow the dictates of relgious (Christianity) law as they intrepret it...therefore conservatives agree with OBL.
Oh, look, another one:
OBL thinks that the separation of church (Islam) and state are responsible for most the worlds problems...conservatives think that the separation of church (Christianity) and state is responsible for the ills of this country...therefore conservatives agree with OBL.
I can do this all freaking day.
Who are these people who don't want to work? I don't personally know of any.
What I want to know, Colonel, is how they propose to take care of themselves while refusing to use anything paid for by taxes they disbelieve in? They want to not pay taxes but still drive to work on public roads my taxes pay for, and call for a fire department paid for by taxes they disbelieve in when their house catches fire. Far as I'm concerned, these wads who disbelieve in taxes can pay for their own private firemen, security officers, EMTs--and stay off roads and bridges my taxes pay for. Let's see how well they take care of themselves then...
I was noting the wingnuts tendency to point out to people that they "take care of themselves", as if they're very proud of that. It's like that old Chris Rock bit in response to " I take care of my kids!", or "I ain't ever been in jail.".
You're supposed to, do you want a cookie ?. It never occurs to me to try to impress other adults by bragging that I take care of myself, it's just something that's a given.
When somebody feels the need to post on a website that they have a job and take care of themselves, I figure it's either something very new to them, or they're just barely pulling it off.
Or they're lying their azzes off while typing in their mama's basement...
So, in other words "I got mine so screw you!!!
"I believe the money I earn is mine, not the government's to take and give to others"
Go live in another country then. Article I, section 8 in the US Constitution, plus court precedent begs to differ with you on that point.
"narrow-minded a-hole" - Sure. Go look in a mirror.
Based on your "input", it appears you are the typical social Darwinist that the Republican party tends to attract.
Interesting how conservatards on one hand accuse the Dems of cutting Medicare, but on the other hand, seem to argue against ALL forms of entitlement programs.
BTW - As an "athiest" (I really doubt that), you should be pretty incensed about how the "moral values" idiots are trying to take over the Republican party. I'm sure you really don't think too much time should be devoted to school prayer or pushing intelligent design. And starting all those meetings with a prayer should really make your blood boil.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/26.html
http://www.allaboutscience.org/what-is-social-darwinism-faq.htm
Even better--he should go buy an island and setup his own d@mned country, where he can pay for eveything he apparently takes for granted here...
It brings to mind the movie, "Mosquito Coast."
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091557/
You're still a social darwinist.
"I've had jobs since I was 13, payed for my own college education"
Same here. But with a twist....
At an early age, I was the recipient of those entitlements you rage against.
And because of that, I paid it all back several times over due to the increased income I made & the taxes I gladly paid.
That's what usually happens. But, social darwinists like you claim everyone's out to scam the system, with absolutely no evidence to back your claims.
But social darwinists never pay attention to the corporate welfare scams that continue to play out in this country. That all seems ok. Where's the ROI on that? Ooooo.... The corporate tax rates are 35%!!!! But the real tax rate (what they REALLY pay) is about 20% to 25% - completely in line with the rest of the world (perhaps a bit lower).
You just assume everyone's out to get your hard-earned $$. As I said, if you don't like the Hamiltonian definition of "general welfare" in the US Consititution, and the precedent that supports that definition (US v. Butler - look it up), then move to the Grand Camans. They accept corporate tax cheats.
So, you may DISAGREE with how things are done here, but that's the way it is. Deal with it, or leave.
America, love it or leave it.
"With respect to the meaning of 'the general welfare' the pages of The Federalist itself disclose a sharp divergence of views between its two principal authors. Hamilton adopted the literal, broad meaning of the clause"
"Finally, in United States v. Butler, the Court gave its unqualified endorsement to Hamilton's views on the taxing power."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/26.html
So, we've heard your rants before. Nothing new, and nothing correct - as usual.
Which ones don't you agree with? Social Security that keeps Grandma from moving in with her kids? Food stamps that keep people from starving to death? Medicare which keeps Grandma alive?
Tell us, which ones don't you agree with?
You do understand that you belong to a SOCIETY, one that succeeds based on how well the lower classes are getting along.
You probably don't even know what being a social darwinist means. I recommend looking it up.
Here are your words, in case you conveniently forgot them: "I also believe that you are a narrow-minded a-hole."
Now you try to sound so innocent. Sorry, but trying to back-peddle with your "no anger here" statement won't fly.
Calling people names sounds like you do have an anger problem with how things are done in this country.
Like I said, love it or leave it. PLEASE.
BTW - Your Social Darwinist attitude makes atheists look bad. Don't let your atheist buddies know how you roll. They may not want to hang with you. Who wants to be buddies with an egotistical miser? Not all atheists are as cold-hearted as Social Darwinists.
Enjoy your life. But remember, it's only hanging by a thread.
http://givingaid.richarddawkins.net/
http://www.atheistvolunteers.org/Austin
http://www.squidoo.com/Atheist-Charities
btw, I am not against charity, I give willingly($$ and time) all year round to various organizations and charities. I am against the government taking my money to give as they see fit. The government is just so efficient at things like that, aren't they?
(don't feel the need to answer, please.)
My last post to you. But in closing, I want to thank you for proving my point about trolls.
You insist I am angry about something. I hate to burst your ego, but I'm not angry at all. Actually, I think trolls are funny, twisted, sad individuals in need of serious help. (But not from MY tax $$.)
Your insistence in an angry response from me or anyone is only proof that trolls purposely throw out inflammatory rhetoric in an attempt to get the response that feeds their sick egos. Trolls are not interested in any type of normal, human discussion.
See, the fact is, this started because you called someone an a-hole, for merely expressing their opinion. Then you get all self-righteous when you are called on it.
Why? You're just trying to make someone angry. But when the response focuses on the facts, you avoid respond to those facts. Instead, you continue to insist that I am somehow angry. Quite the contrary. I'm actually laughing at how this played out. Right into my hands.
So you must be either a pimply-faced intern working for the conservatards, or you just have an ego that needs to be fed.
No need to respond to my posts. I'm ignoring rrrrigghhttt from now on. I will not feed the trolls.
Buh, bye. ;-)
Most people actually have a college education know that it's "paid", not "payed".
And for such an educated man, you sure are dumb about some things.
And disrespectful too - the US Supreme Court has ruled that all these things you find obnoxious are legal and constitutional. Why are you so disrespectful of the USSC by saying that your idea of what should be allowed is so vastly different from what those legal scholars have determined is constitutional?
Most people who actually have a college education know that it's "paid", not "payed".
And for such an educated man, you sure are dumb about some things.
And disrespectful too - the US Supreme Court has ruled that all these things you find obnoxious are legal and constitutional. Why are you so disrespectful of the USSC by saying that your idea of what should be allowed is so vastly different from what those legal scholars have determined is constitutional?
There are those, such as Sarah Palin, who believe the Earth, and apparently the entire universe, is only about 6000 years old. That's on a par with believing that the Earth is flat, or that the sun revolves around the Earth. And yet, many Republicans consider her credible. Must be another of them there scientific hoaxes.
So, it seems he does have a point.
Trying to use this common thread to make larger comparisons is idiotic.
Righton's implication that there wasn't a point is a classic. It inadvertently reinforces the point of this MMFA item.
Okay Right On.... Now what?
Though today's right-wing conservative may not believe the world to literally be flat... many of them do believe that the world is 6,000 years old and man had at one point, domesticated dinosaurs.
Heck, they even built a museum in Kentucky to prove it.
OBL uses a camera to make his videos. Libruls in the Librul media use cameras to record their programs.
Whether conservative media does or does not use cameras doesn't make the first comparison any more or less valid.
Grow up people...he is a terrorist who wants to kill YOU.
When will you ever understand?
Grow up people...he is a terrorist who wants to kill YOU, democrats and progressives ARE NOT.
When will YOU ever understand, that despite the many similarities between the rantings of bin Laden amd the rantings of conservatives (see my post above), most Democrats and progressives are not equating the conservatives to mass murders and terrorists on an almost daily basis (yeah, before you say it, I know there are some liberals that do that...the difference is that they are a minority in the progressive movement, whereas people who equate liberals with terrorists are the majority among conservatives...big difference)? Apparently you have no problem with conservatives comparing terrorists and liberals.
Your outrage and disgust would be a little more believable if it wasn't wrapped in so many layers of hypocrisy.
If you'd been paying attention, you'd know that is NOT Bin Laden's motivation.
Grow up people...he is a terrorist who wants to kill YOU." - HeeNow
Right, HeeNow. I am not sure who you think was speaking positively about bin Laden. But, I find it hilarious that you pretend to be outraged at that idea while having no problem with linking him to your political opponents. Nice faux outrage. Save it for hate radio.
More typical right-wing strawman garbage from HeeHaw; attack not what your opponent said, but what you put in his mouth. Fundamnetally dishonest, but isn't that a basic desription of most right-wingers in general anyhow?...
I know, what's 'true' one day isn't necessarily true the next, for Neocons.
And you sound like you're on Andy Breitbart's payroll. Now, when were you last in New Orleans, and do you own a fake phone-repairman's uniform?...
Fact is we ALL know climate change is happening HOWEVER thoses of us that do not fear science aren't afraid to look at ALL of the contributors. Those that understand science understand that mankind CANNOT cause global warming. PERHAPS contribute, but global warming and climate change were here LONG before humans... here, educate yourself;
http://climatedepot.com/
Another FACT: the so called deniers even consider humans MAY contribute and don't give any credence to this "decided science" claim of the warming monger moneygrubbers...
And we all know the science deniers are not in it for the money.[/sarcasm off]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8474611.stm
These two quotes sum it up perfectly:
1. "Just like you kill us, we will kill you. "
2. "These people fight small wars amongst themselves. It would seem a valid social service to keep them well-supplied with ammunition."
3. "We will continue to fight you as long as we have weapons in our hands."
4. "I'll give you my gun when you take it from my cold, dead hands!"
5. "Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush...Your security is in your own hands.."
6. "This danger will not go away it will grow worse, much worse, if we fail to take action now."
7. "Free people do not relinquish their security. "
8. "The inability to deter a potential attacker, the immediacy of today’s threats, and the magnitude of potential harm that could be caused by our adversaries’ choice of weapons, do not permit that option.We cannot let our enemies strike first."
9. "We fought with you because we are free, and we don't put up with transgressions. We want to reclaim our nation. As you spoil our security, we will do so to you. "
10. "Thinking people, when disaster strikes, make it their priority to look for its causes, in order to prevent it happening again. "
11. "A great people has been moved to defend a great nation. "
12. "As for those who condemned these operations looked at the event in isolation and failed to connect them to past events and did not look at the causes that lead to this result. So their point of view is narrow."
13. " We face determined enemies who remain intent on killing the innocent, and defeating these enemies will require more sacrifice and the continued patience of our country."
1. Osama bin Laden
2. NRA Board of Directors
3. Osama bin Laden
4. NRA
5. Osama bin Laden
6. Reagan on Central America
7. Osama bin Laden
8. George W. Bush
9. Osama bin Laden
10. Osama bin Laden
11. George W Bush
12. Osama bin Laden
13. George W Bush
Do you really want keep playing false association game? I haven't even started on quoting Hannity, Beck, O'Reilly, Malkin, Breitbart, Limbaugh, et al.
But go ahead, keep the quotes coming.
How is that any different than a conservative?
Oh..one more thing..I thought there were some christian progressives on this site. Maybe they are at church or praying or something right now. I'm sure they will be here to defend their religion as soon as they are done doing whatever it is that christian progressives do...later
One can only prove God's existence by inner mystical proof: and since you can't transfer that to anyone else, it's pointless to argue God's existence.
Although I've always been fascinated by the fact that no one can logically point out why existence exists.
I will take some time to think about that question myself, because it was very good. I suggest you do the same...
But it's great that you're enamored with your own questions.
If you want to get into a useful discussion about the topic of the thread, you might have a purpose.
"You forgot a good one: Despite the Biblical fact that only Adam, Eve, Cain, and Able were the only people on Earth, after Cain murdered Able, he was exiled to go live with the other people."
Intelligent people of faith understand that the Bible is there as a guide, but that it can't be read literally in all cases.
That doesn't make fun of God.
Thinking that God and Jesus are simply magicians doesn't help anyone's path to glory.
There were some remarks about Islamic extremists as well as Christian ones here too. I'm guessing those didn't bother you.
I'd suggest a nice Christian Bible study site if you don't want any questioning of a book.
It's not nice to pick and choose...says me to a brick wall...
Of the 2,500 UN IPCC participants, 80% have nor formal climate education, and all are political appointees. In fact the chairman received his education for the India State Railroad Institute.
Recently the IPCC withdrew their assertion that the Himalayan glaciers will melt entirely by 2035, it was not based on even "one iota" of science but merely one persons assertion. The single source used for such a claim now says their intent was to put pressure on nations. Now even more information is coming out about their report.
The IPCC's remit is to provide an authoritative assessment of scientific evidence on climate change.
In its most recent report [published in 2007], it stated that observed reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and Africa was being caused by global warming, citing two papers as the source of the information.
However, it can be revealed that one of the sources quoted was a feature article published in a popular magazine for climbers which was based on anecdotal evidence from mountaineers about the changes they were witnessing on the mountainsides around them.
The other was a dissertation written by a geography student, studying for the equivalent of a master's degree, at the University of Berne in Switzerland that quoted interviews with mountain guides in the Alps.
That the global economies would have to be radically changed to reduce CO2 output based on these types of sources, criminal prosecution should be strongly considered.
CO2's ability to absorb heat is logarithmic, meaning the more there is the less heat it can absorb. Levels can double or triple and CO2 can not cause temperatures to change more than about 1 deg C. For temperatures to rise, CO2 must cause there to be more humidity or more cirrus clouds. Observation shows this does not happen.
Antarctica had the most Summer sea ice ever recorded in 2009.
Solar activity is changing. The Sun is the least active since the late 1700s. This is leading to cooling.