Beck bears false witness to boost conspiracy that progressives want to "poison" churches
Purporting to provide evidence that progressives are trying to "poison" churches with a "radical perversion of the gospel," Glenn Beck recycled distortions of remarks made by Rev. Jim Wallis and Al Gore in order to paint them as Marxists.
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.
Beck falsely suggested Gore admitted the "basis of his entire argument for global warming" was false
Beck cropped Gore's testimony to claim statement on CO2 undermines "his entire argument for global warming." From the May 18 edition of his Fox News show:
BECK: Al Gore has admitted that CO2 doesn't even necessarily drive temperature up. Wait a minute -- wasn't that the basis of his entire argument for global warming? Watch this:
[begin video clip]
REP. JOE BARTON (R-TX): The temperature goes up before the CO2 goes up.
GORE: Sometimes that -- sometimes that has been true in the past. The opposite has also been true in the past.
[end video clip]
BECK: That's kind of an inconvenient truth that you should have put in your movie The Inconvenient Truth [sic]. Yeesh. What we have to remember now: This is not about the truth. It's not about the truth at all. It's not about saving the planet. It is about redistribution of wealth. Please understand this: In the progressive movement, they knew we were a God-centered people, that we had morals, we used to solve problems through charity. Got it? Well, that's not good if you're a Marxist.
In fact, Gore said "what's happening now is that we, because of human action, are overwhelming all of those cycles." On March 21, 2007, during a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing, Barton stated, "I have an article from the Science magazine ... that explains historically a rise in CO2 concentrations did not precede a rise in temperatures but actually lagged temperature by 200 to 1,000 years -- yes, lagged. CO2 levels went up after the temperature rose. It appears that temperature appears to drive CO2, not vice versa." During his response, Gore stated, "[T]he fact that more CO2 traps more heat in the lower part of the Earth's atmosphere is really beyond dispute. I mean, it's not -- that's not me saying that; that's what the scientists have known for 180 years. And for 100 years they've done the calculations on pretty much exactly what the magnitude of the heating effect is." After Barton then claimed that "the temperature goes up before the CO2 goes up," Gore responded:
GORE: Sometimes that has been true in the past. The opposite has also been true in the past. But what's happening now is that we because of human action are overwhelming all of those cycles. [Joint House committee hearing, 3/21/07 (from the Nexis database)]
Breitbart, Beck guest host previously pushed same distortion. A December 9, 2009, headline at Andrew Breitbart's website Breitbart.tv falsely claimed that Al Gore admitted that "temperatures cause CO2 to increase not other way around," and provided video of the exchange between Gore and Barton. The next day on Beck's radio show, guest host Pat Gray aired the same exchange between Gore and Barton that Beck played on May 18 and commented that Gore had "just admitted the entire premise for An Inconvenient Truth wasn't really true."
Beck distorted Wallis' remarks to smear him as a Marxist
Beck again smears Wallis as a "Marxist" by selectively cropping his comments. From the May 18 edition of Beck's Fox News show:
BECK: In the beginning, I explained that social justice is presented by many of these people on the left as code for Marxism. Who was it that attacked me from the beginning on this, the moment I said this? Jim Wallis. Here he is, an adviser to the president, adviser on politics and faith, in his own words:
[begin audio clip]
MAUREEN FIELDER (host): Are you then calling for the redistribution of wealth in society?
WALLIS: Absolutely. Without any hesitation. That's what the gospel is about.
[end audio clip]
[begin audio clip]
WALLIS: I get a call one day from the priest and Dorothy Day's in town, opening a Catholic border house on Kenmore up on the north side. "She wants to meet you; do you have time?" Do I have time? We had one community car; it was always broken, and so I ran, you know, 20 blocks. And I'm in the parlor of the Catholic Worker and in walks the great lady. Dorothy wrote a book about her life called Love Is the Measure, but she wasn't ever soft. Very tough. "So, you're a radical student like me, right? You were a Marxist like me, right?" "Yeah."
[end audio clip]
BECK: Got it? That's who these people are. They can hide behind the cloth all they want, but they don't know the difference -- actually he does, he just denies it -- he doesn't know the difference between individual salvation, he doesn't know the difference between individual redemption, individual justice, and collective. They need it to be collective; Marxists always do. That's why they've been so vicious and relentless in trying to discredit and destroy me or anybody who says these things. Well, you get a piece of paper and pencil, because they can't have the American people understand what they're doing with this social justice and EPA faith office. It is a radical perversion of the gospel, and you will see why this hour.
Wallis actually discussed how individuals have "transformed" their lives to focus on charity. In the portion of Wallis' January 13, 2006, radio show Interfaith Voices interview selectively edited by Beck for the first clip, Wallis did not discuss the forced redistribution of wealth. Responding to Maureen Fielder's question, "Are you then calling for the redistribution of wealth in society?" Wallis stated, "Absolutely. Without any hesitation. That's what the Gospel is all about." He then went on to explain, "It's about the rich moving into solidarity and a relationship with people who have been left out and left behind." Wallis added, "I see it all the time where people from middle-class backgrounds are having their lives transformed by their encounter with the poor in their neighborhoods or across the world and changing their lifestyle and their priorities because of that." Wallis went on to highlight Bill and Melinda Gates's philanthropy as an example of "a redistribution of wealth."
Wallis and Day were actually discussing their "conversion" from "secular radicalism and Marxism to Jesus Christ." In a March 24 blog post discussing a previous Beck distortion, Wallis discussed retelling the story of his first meeting with Day, which is discussed in Beck's second deceptive clip. Wallis included an extended portion of his WBEZ interview and wrote of Beck:
Beck recounted a conversation I had with Dorothy as a new young convert to Christianity. She was in her eighties and asked me if I had been a radical student in my early years as she had been. "Yeah," Beck recorded me saying. And if I had been attracted to Marxism, as she had. "Yeah" I said again. Gotcha! Beck said. They're both Marxists! What he left out was the next lines of our conversation that I still remember and, of course, were on the same tape he abruptly cut off. "And now, you're a Catholic?" Dorothy Day asked me. "Well, now I'm a Christian," I said. "You're not a Catholic?" she chided. I lamely responded that "some of my best friends" were Catholic, and Dorothy smiled. We were sharing our conversion stories from secular radicalism and Marxism to Jesus Christ and his gospel of love and justice. Glenn Beck just left that part out, as he often leaves stuff out or just makes up stuff and puts it in.
Beck has previously cropped both comments. Media Matters has documented that Beck has previously distorted both comments by Wallis in order to falsely depict him as a Marxist.
Is there anything we can do on Earth that Beck won't attribute to socialism? Save the planet? Nope, you're a socialist. Affordable health care? Get out of here socialist! I know, let's just buy some gold. Wait, that means I'd have to give my money to another party in order to buy something. I'm redistributing my own wealth! Socialist again!
Beck (and Carlin--see below) said it's not about saving the planet and added, "It is about redistribution of wealth." He is 100% correct on that note. Or haven't you heard the term "historical climate debt" or "adaptation debt" or "uniform global levy?"
It goes beyond redistribution though. Actually a better description of it would be redistributing and controlling wealth and growth on a global scale (the wealthy will be punished and the poor will be "helped" to develop at a sustainable rate with the carrot being--only some of--the redistributed wealth).
I have pointed people here to this before, but give this CRU email a read. Read the IPCC draft. You'll familiarize yourself with the term "global governance" as well. Here's the final IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios they were talking about in the email, with my favorite line:
Massive income redistribution and presumably high taxation levels may adversely affect the economic efficiency and functioning of world markets.
I've been through all of this before but you guys seemed to have forgotten, so here are a few more about Sustainable "Development":
This is a world with high levels of economic activity (a global GDP of around US$350 trillion by 2100) and significant and deliberate progress toward international and national income equality. Global income per capita in 2050 averages US$13,000, one-third lower than in A1. A higher proportion of this income is spent on services rather than on material goods, and on quality rather than quantity, because the emphasis on material goods is less and also resource prices are increased by environmental taxation.
Cities are compact and designed for public and non-motorized transport, with suburban developments tightly controlled. Strong incentives for low-input, low-impact agriculture, along with maintenance of large areas of wilderness, contribute to high food prices with much lower levels of meat consumption than those in A1.
Nah, this isn't about control at all. Compare that to the "Golden Economic Age" A1 scenario from the final report:
The global economy expands at an average annual rate of about 3% to 2100, reaching around US$550 trillion (all dollar amounts herein are expressed in 1990 dollars, unless stated otherwise). This is approximately the same as average global growth since 1850, although the conditions that lead to this global growth in productivity and per capita incomes in the scenario are unparalleled in history. Global average income per capita reaches about US$21,000 by 2050. While the high average level of income per capita contributes to a great improvement in the overall health and social conditions of the majority of people, this world is not necessarily devoid of problems. In particular, many communities could face some of the problems of social exclusion encountered in the wealthiest countries during the 20th century, and in many places income growth could produce increased pressure on the global commons.
So let's compare scenarios and do the math for the year 2100 again:
A1 Golden Economic Age
Annex 1 countries make up approximately 20% of the world's population ($100,000), Annex 2 about 80% ($70,000). Thus average global income is approximately $76,000 per capita.
B1 Sustainable Development
Annex 1 countries make up approximately 20% of the world's population ($60,000), Annex 2 about 80% ($35,000). Thus average global income is approximately $40,000 per capita.
You would think that with the boon of having all of the "historical climate debt" and "high taxation levels" and "environmental taxation" to compensate for "lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity" and for "environmental justice" that the poor would fare better on the B1 path, but there it is, in their own numbers. The poor will be half as wealthy by 2100 as they would have been on the A1 path.
I wonder where all the money goes. Hmm. Anyway, do it for the children though. So charitable. BTW, millions of them die due to poverty each and every year. That's no exaggeration. B1 will absolutely prolong that suffering by prolonging their poverty. By supporting the B1 philosophy with AGW mitigation as its guise, you are complicit in condemning millions more children to die needlessly. There is no debate about that so, really, thanks. Swell. The road to hell...not on my watch.
Well, see, Nostradumbass... the truth is that we used to try to solve problems through charity, but it was, and always will be, inefficient and inadequate.
Government working in conjunction with private charities can do so much more than charities alone. Poverty will never go away... but we, as a civilized people, can at least attempt to ease it somewhat. What's wrong with that?
And, please, spare me the "redistribution of wealth" crap. Troglodytes have no problem redistributing wealth to blow up brown people on the other side of the world, but feeding brown people in our own country sends them into fits, for some weird reason.
We can't build a decent car anymore. Can't make a TV set, a cell phone, or a VCR worth a f---. Got no steel industry left. No textiles. Can't educate our young people. Can't get health care to our old people...
But we can bomb the sh-- outta your country, all right! We can bomb the sh-- outta your country!
Especially if your country is full of brown people. Oh, we like that, don't we? That's our hobby now. But it's also our new job in the world: bombing brown people. Iraq, Panama, Grenada, Libya. You got some brown people in your country? Tell 'em to watch the f--- out, or we'll g-dd-mn bomb them!
Well, who were the last white people you can remember that we bombed? In fact, can you remember any white people we've ever bombed? The Germans! That's it! Those are the only ones. And that was only because they were tryin' to cut in on our action. They wanted to dominate the world.
Bulls---! That's our f---in' job! That's our f---in' job! That's our f---in' job!
-----------------------------------------------------
God, I miss him.
The Academics may turn their noses at that assessement, but if Philosophy was half as entertaining as Carlin made it, more people might actually TAKE it. LOL
-----------------------------------------------------
IMHO
But first, what's happened to this joint? What, was the upkeep too steep? I guess there was more to the whole Climategate story/AGW fraud (before and after said gate) than you guys expected, eh? And it still got plenty legs to finish the marathon ahead of the "lagging" warmists.
We're going on a year or so now that I've been warning you guys about the fact that the AGW house of cards was coming tumbling down. Within weeks of the UEA implosion last November I had said "it won't be long before MMfA drops GW as a Featured Topic." Well it's still featured but this MMfA AGW realm is "unequivocally" a shadow of its former self. It would almost be sad were it not so wonderful. Keep up the good fight though and, as always, Cheers!
May be a while before I can come around again (contract turned into contracts). For the time being, enjoy some Carlin wisdom. Since you transcribed some Carlin, I followed suit and "cherry-picked" my favorite passage from it for your enjoyment:
"I'm tired of [expletive deleted] Earth Day, I'm tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is there aren't enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world save for their Volvos."
Actually, before I go I must first publicly ponder this Gore thing. Figuring out why MMfA continues to defend Gore is beyond my pay grade. This story's example is a joke considering how Gore tried to present the CO2 lag in his piece of um work AIT. "The most ridiculous thing I've ever seen" indeed. Give it up. The dude's a laughingstock. Speaking of jokes, I guess it would be a good time to break this one out again:
I'll address the "resdistribution of wealth crap" in my response to Tuna above if you care to follow. Wait a minute. Of course you care to follow. That's what the sheepy AGW movement (in the stinkiest definition of the word) is all about. Cheers!
What exactly is your evidence that AGW has "fallen like a house cards?" Because the biggest reason I see that it's no longer the top story is that the industry that is most engaged in climate change denial just cause a disaster so unbelievably huge and catastrophic that the accute, short term disaster is now large enought to overshadow, for the moment, the long term, pending disaster. Congratulations. If that's what you call "progress" I liked it better when you lot were just trying to return us to the dark ages, you actually did LESS damage then.
AGW is doing just fine. It is the scientific consensus after all, at least as far as what that tern actually means. Reality is kind of a hard thing to dispell. If it was mistaken, it really WOULD Have fallne by now. The fact that you still need to propagandize against it is by itself almost reason to accept the hypothesis. It's not going away becuase IT'S RIGHT. (Moran) The fact the YOU can't tell science from propaganda is nobady problems but yours. "Sheep" don't do science. "Sheep" don't look for EVIDENCE and PROOF. "Sheep" believe what the industry whores and the ignoramouses on the radio tell them. LIBERALS are the ones listening to Scientists.
And you are misinterpreting Carlin BIG TIME. He's not questioning the SCIENCE, but rather the MOTIVATION behind it. And fromt hat POV he's right: It IS a selfish motivation: WE WANT TO KEEP LIVING, AND DO SO IN A CLEAN ENVIRONMENT. Wow. Sue me, I guess. One has to wonder why you lot DON'T want these things. (Oh yeah: You're superstitious, gullible fools who don't accept science!)
What's more... Al Gore is only a "joke" to those stupid enough to find Rush Limabugh amusing, and who think that stacking the Supreme Court so far to the right that they can usurp State Law and the will of democracy whenever it suits them is somehow a good idea. You people are lousy at winning, lousy at losing and lousy at governing. Eight years of unabashed, abject failure you STILL won't STFU. Simply amazing.
You know what's a JOKE? George Bush, Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, John McCain, Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck. And they're JOKES becuase of their own stupiudty, their own incompetence, the fact that they're WRONG about almost everthything they open their mouths about (so they're either stupid or lying, tkae your pick) and mainly because of the gullability of the fools (like you) who listen to them.
And you're a joke too. And I've wasted enough of my time on you.
------------------------------------------------
I'd say "welcome back," but this kind of ignorance is about as welcome as smallpox. And, no I'm not going to bother with your post above (or below or where you stuck it.) I've dealt with more than enough ignorance for one day already.
No we didn't. All of those problems still exists
We make a big mistake to even think that idiots like Beck are just so many clowns and silly entertainers. There are millions of followers who are going to dump any liberal or progressive office holders on the grounds that they want to "distribute the wealth" (his) or introduce more socially responsible programs. Pay close attention to Beck and the rest when they scream, "We are gonna take our country back!!!!".
At the same time, Beck fears that progressive liberal marxist are going to purify the nation of his political ideas: That evil people are going to do away with conservative views and movements in the United States and the world.
The adult idea that we can accept and exchange views with people who think differently than we do is beyond Beck. The adult idea of not treating others as you would not like to be treated also escapes Beck.
Beck sounds like a child throwing sand in his little sandbox. His make believe in depth analysis of the politics of our time is based on a dishonest fear of working hard to understand how others actually think and operate. Such intellectual masterbations remind one of the instant gratification of drugs and alchohol.
Beck is intellectually lazy and dishonest but he gives his followers a sugar coated view of good guys bad guys that I am sure some find intoxicating.
A-holes all. They truly suck at life.