Saturday, April 19, 2014

The racist, homophobe and anti semite Democrats

Can You Spot The Racist, Homophobic Anti-Semites In This Special 10 Item Quiz?

John Hawkins

As we all know, racism, homophobia and anti-Semitism are very bad and should be condemned. Not only do I condemn all of those things, I'd encourage you to share this quiz to all of your liberal friends so they can wag their fingers right in the faces of the awful people who said all of these terrible things.
1) Who said, "We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and themGreek homos ever got around to it."
A) Rush Limbaugh
B) Mark Levin
C) Laura Ingraham
D) Al Sharpton
2) Who said, "That’s just how white folks will do you. It wasn’t merely the cruelty involved; I was learning that black people could be mean and then some. It was a particular brand of arrogance, an obtuseness in otherwise sane people that brought forth our bitter laughter. It was as if whites didn’t know that they were being cruel in the first place. Or at least thought you deserving of their scorn."
A) Thomas Sowell
B) Herman Cain
C) Ben Carson
D) Barack Obama
3) Who made these conspiratorial, anti-Semitic comments? "The Israeli puppeteer travels to Washington and meets with the puppet in the White House. He then goes down Pennsylvania Avenue and meets with the puppets in Congress. The Israeli leader then ‘brings back millions of dollars’ in aid to Israel."
A) Rick Warren
B) Glenn Beck
C) Antonin Scalia
D) Ralph Nader
4) Who said this about a prominent black political figure? He's "a nice person, very articulate this is what’s been used against him, but he couldn’t sell watermelons if you gave him the state troopers to flag down the traffic.”
A) Brit Hume
B) Megyn Kelly
C) Michelle Malkin
D) Dan Rather
5) Which member of Congress tried to compliment a black politician by saying he had "no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one?"
A) John Boehner
B) Mitch McConnell
C) Eric Cantor
D) Harry Reid
6) Who referred to New York as "hymietown?"
A) Mike Lee
B) Franklin Graham
C) Rand Paul
D) Jesse Jackson
7) Who said this about a black man running for President? "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”
A) Newt Gingrich
B) Mitt Romney
C) Rick Santorum
D) Joe Biden
8) Who tweeted this to gay reporter George Stark, "I'm gonna find you George Stark, you toxic little queen, and I'm gonna f*** you... up. If put my foot up your f*****g a**, George Stark, but I'm sure you'd dig it too much."
A) Bill O'Reilly
B) Greg Gutfeld
C) Kevin Sorbo
D) Alec Baldwin
A) Scott Walker
B) Rick Perry
C) Ted Cruz
D) Marion Barry
10) Who had this to say about Jews? "Hitler is an easy scapegoat throughout history and it’s been used cheaply. He’s the product of a series of actions. It’s cause and effect. Hitler did far more damage to the Russians than the Jewish people, [there is a greater focus on the Holocaust than on Russian suffering because of] the Jewish domination of the media. There’s a major lobby in the United States. They are hard workers. They stay on top of every comment, the most powerful lobby in Washington. Israel has f***** up U.S. foreign policy for years."
A) Michele Bachmann
B) Trey Gowdy
C) Sarah Palin
D) Oliver Stone
* The answer to all questions is "D."

Too much land in Federal hands

The government has no business owning (or administering) all of this land. I am willing to concede federal courthouses and even the national parks to the feds, (even though some of the parks were created as a result of brutal land grabs. Shenandoah National Park which I look out at as I write this is an example.) but why is practically all of the far West run by the Federal Government?
Here’s another thing I’ll concede. The feds get a few hundred God forsaken square miles in the northern Nevada desert to do nuclear testing and to dump nuclear fuel. Beyond that? People should own this land.
I can remember as a kid driving into the navy base with my mother to get groceries at the commissary and thinking to myself how weird it was that the government OWNED all the property around the base. It’s probably pretty necessary in the event an F-18 decided to drop out of the sky after takeoff – and that does happen – but all that acreage was just the government’s? I guess I was just born skeptical on this point.
Regardless, there is no reason why all the land represented in the above map should be administered by the government. In a free country this seems to me a bit odd. Mineral rights leasing is a great source of revenue for the BLM, federal government at large, and state governments though. So we can feel good about that though.
And by the way, one of the arguments for the government continuing to administer this land is that private owners would come in and rape it. That only the big shots would get the good stuff. Well, the big shots get all the good stuff already working through the BLM.
Again, I say give the land back to the people who first owned it, before the federal government declared that it was theirs. In some cases this would be homesteaders of European stock. In other cases it would be people of Native American lineage. The Black Hills of South Dakota for instance are still claimed as the homeland of the Sioux Indians.
Some arrangement following this spirit seems the only fair solution to me. It’s certainly more fair than the government having a near monopoly over mineral rights in all of the Rocky Mountains.

The Democrat Party's war on women and diversity of thought.


Two Democratic Party candidates in the primary race for California's 33rd congressional district in West Los Angeles have accused local party officials of using an arbitrary fundraising minimum to favor established insiders--then raising that minimum at the last moment to exclude them from a recent candidates' forum.

Democrats Kristie Holmes and Barbara Mulvaney issued a joint press release earlier this week, accusing the Pacific Palisades Democratic Club (PPDC) of "uninviting" them from a forum on Sunday, April 13 "after first zealously pursuing them." Only candidates who participated were eligible for the club's endorsement.
As Breitbart News reported, the club--based in the wealthy Pacific Palisades neighborhood, home to Hollywood A-list celebrities--declared that all participants in the candidate forum had to have raised at least $200,000 in contributions prior to April 8. Only four candidates qualified, and incumbent State Sen. Ted Lieu was endorsed.
However, Holmes and Mulvaney say that the minimum contribution rule was introduced at the last moment to keep them out. "At the last minute, the PPDC, claimed to have a fund-raising requirement which has ranged from $100,000-$200,000, depending on which candidate you ask," they said in their joint statement.
Holmes, who holds a doctorate in social work and teaches at the University of Southern California, told Breitbart News that club official Janet Turner "pursued me" and was eager to have her participate. Later, however, Turner told her that she had to raise $100,000 to qualify, and that the invitation was revoked.
On the day of the forum, Holmes posted at her blog
"I was enthusiastically invited by the organizers after my first time speaking publically as a candidate, and was then contacted for photos for a flyer to be mailed out....There were a few phone conversations and follow up involved where my attendance was confirmed.
"Later, I received an email followed up by a phone call stating that they were very sorry, but that the only candidates who could speak at the candidate forum/ debate would have need to have raised at least 100K by that time." 
Holmes had not raised the requisite $100,000, and had not yet received an FEC ID number.
Human rights lawyer Mulvaney, who had raised over $100,000, was told by the club that the threshold was in fact $200,000. Abigail Anderson, her campaign manager, told Breitbart News that she suspects the number would have remained at $100,000 had she not told the club that Mulvaney had raised $100,000.
"All of this was done orally. We had no written criteria," Anderson said. 
Holmes charged that the Pacific Palisades Democratic Club had protected "establishment" candidates--unlike a forum by the Santa Monica club, which had been open to all. 
Anderson agreed: "I don't see how you can come to any other conclusion." she said.
Turner, reached by Breitbart News on Friday afternoon, confirmed that Holmes was "uninvited," but disputed her an Mulvaney's version of events: "No one was ever told there was one number and then another number." 
"This is what happened," Turner said. "We like to invite all candidates to our forum. For a while, it looked like maybe there was four or five. So we reached out to other [Democrats]. Suddenly, we were deluged by all of the other candidates who were coming. 
"To be fair to our members who were coming to hear the leading candidates, we looked for a rule that had been in place--similar to a rule at the West L.A. Democratic Club--to pick the most viable candidates. West L.A. had chosen $200,000 for this particular race, and we agreed that was reasonable."
She said that the club relied on candidates' public statements and their word as to how much they had raised.
"As a club, we support clean money, and campaign finance reform," she told Breitbart News. "But until that happens, we need to find a way to be fair to our members, who want to be able to hear the leading candidates."
Ten Democrats, and eighteen candidates overall, are vying to replace retiring Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA).

Another corrupt Democrat politician...will Holder curtail the investigation?

FBI probe of NTTA includes Wendy Davis file, Travis DA’s office says

A spotlight on Obama's demagoguery

You lie! Reporters accuse Obama of deception, demagoguery just to get attention

Prominent Washington correspondents are accusing President Obamaand his aides of knowingly stretching the truth on issues like the so-called women's pay gap just to create controversy and keep issues -- and the president -- relevant.
Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus kicked off the attack last week when she blasted as “demagoguery” the administration's tactics during the pay gap debate. “The level of hyperbole -- actually, of demagoguery -- that Democrats have engaged in here is revolting,” she wrote.
CBS White House Correspondent Major Garrett then weighed in this week in his National Journal column. He revealed that the White House has a name for it's deceptive tactics: “Stray voltage.”

Basically, it’s an effort of creating a controversy for the sake of having a controversy to put an issue before the public and make the president’s position prominent. He wrote that the administration’s made-up claim that women earn 77-cents for every man was “stray voltage in action” because it created a food fight over the 77-cent figure, allowing the White House to strike at GOP foes.
Garrett has written about the tactic before, crediting Obama senior advisor David Plouffe with coining it. “The theory goes like this: Controversy sparks attention, attention provokes conversation, and conversation embeds previously unknown or marginalized ideas in the public consciousness. This happens, Plouffe theorizes, even when—and sometimes especially when—the White House appears defensive, besieged, or off-guard,” he wrote.
His column was followed by Slate's John Dickerson who called the process trolling. He wrote:
“Under this approach, a president wants the fact-checkers to call him out (again and again) because that hubbub keeps the issue in the news, which is good for promoting the issue to the public. It is the political equivalent of ‘there is no such thing as bad publicity’ or the quote attributed to Mae West (and others): ‘I don't care what the newspapers say about me as long as they spell my name right.’ The tactic represents one more step in the embrace of cynicism that has characterized President Obama's journey in office.”
Once Dickerson’s column came out, the National Republican Senatorial Committee pushed out a release Thursday also noting the criticism. “How desperate is the White House to maintain control of the Senate? Desperate enough to reduce the president to trolling,” they said.
The public must be seeing what the reporters are too. Our Charles Hoskinson posted a story Thursday about a Fox News poll finding that 61 percent believe Obama lies at least some of the time on important issues.

Do you remember the ballyhooed Lilly Leadbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009? So it wasn't what they really wanted. What the left wants is salaries determined by the government implemented by the industry so like with Obamacare the politicians get to blame private business for it's enforcement.
The Democrat leftists are stuck in a time warp when it comes to pay. These equal pay arguments are only cogent if you are dealing with jobs that are easily interchangeable such as assembly line work. How  can you have equal pay debates when nothing about the people or job requirements are equal. It's the cubicle mentality. Make everybody a G - rated drone and the world will collectivist and anti individual.

For the left all ideas opposing their rule are conspiratorial and illegitimate. It's an integral part of the Alinsky rules for tyranny


Learn what Hillary meant by ‘vast right-wing conspiracy’

WASHINGTON – If you want to learn what Hillary Clinton meant by “the vast right-wing conspiracy,” part of the extensive collection of dossiers the Clinton White House kept on its media enemies was released Friday by the Clinton Library.
The most important of the documents, “The Communication Stream of Conspiracy Commerce,” originally some 331 pages, was reduced to only 28 pages in the sanitized and heavily redacted version posted by the presidential library.
“The Communication Stream of Conspiracy Commerce refers to the mode of communication employed by the right wing to convey their fringe stories into legitimate subjects of coverage by the mainstream media,” explains the report. “This is how the stream works: Well-funded right wing think tanks and individuals underwrite conservative newsletters and newspapers such as the Western Journalism Center, the American Spectator and the Pittsburgh Tribune Review. Next, the stories are reprinted on the Internet where they are bounced into the mainstream media through one of two ways: 1) the story will be picked up by the British tabloids and covered as a major story, from which the American right-of-center mainstream media, (i.e. the Wall Street Journal, Washington Times and New York Post) will then pick the story up; or 2) The story will be bounced directly from the Internet to the right-of-center mainstream American media. After the mainstream right-of-center media covers the story, congressional committees will look into the story. After Congress looks into the story, the story now has the legitimacy to be covered by the remainder of the American mainstream press as a ‘real’ story.”
The operation launched by the Clinton administration in response to this conspiracy theory was designed to prevent so-called “mainstream media” from picking up such stories. That effort came in several parts:
  • The original 331-page report was distributed by the White House and the Democratic National Committee to select reporters in an effort to discredit those behind the critical reports on the Clinton White House – namely billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, journalist Joseph Farah, political activist Floyd Brown and the American Spectator.
  • Hillary Clinton’s public relations effort to vilify what she called “the cast right-wing conspiracy.”
  • A pattern of politically motivated audits of individuals and organizations by the Internal Revenue Service.
“It’s quite an amazing story,” said Farah, founder and editor of WND whose Western Journalism Center was audited after the White House sent a letter from a constituent calling for an investigation to the IRS. “It may all have a familiar ring to the tea party groups of the 21st century. Clinton got away with it, so it was bound to happen again – and it most assuredly has.”
The document dump Friday included some 7,500 pages in all, but the focus of attention has been the mysterious Communication Stream of Conspiracy Commerce, as it was dubbed by the Clinton White House.
Most notable in the sections of the report released publicly is the concern the White House had for the impact of the new media, hearkening back to Hillary Clinton’s concern about the Internet that there were “no gatekeepers.”
“The Internet has become one of the major and most dynamic modes of communication,” the report warns. “The Internet can link people, groups and organizations together instantly. Moreover, it allows an extraordinary amount of unregulated data and information to be located in one area and available to all. The right wing has seized upon the Internet as a means of communicating its ideas to people. Moreover, evidence exists that Republican staffers surf the Internet, interacting with extremists in order to exchange ideas and information.”
Four of the 28 pages in the redacted report released Friday focus on Farah – his history running daily newspapers, his religious views and his investigations into official corruption.
“Some time back in 1994 or 1995, Bill and Hillary Clinton had what I would now describe as ‘a prophetic nightmare.’” explains Farah. “Everyone who was conscious back then will remember Hillary talking about this bad dream in a television interview in which she explained that her husband’s problems were all manufactured by ‘a vast right-wing conspiracy.’ This nightmare is chronicled the complete version of the Communication Stream of Conspiracy Commerce, which I intend to publish later this year in its entirety. This was a report distributed to select U.S. reporters in an effort to discredit a new breed of investigative journalism into what was, until now, already emerging as the most scandal-plagued administration in the history of the United States.”
Farah points out that this concern by the White House was very early in the history of the Internet.
“No one had yet heard of Matt Drudge,” Farah says. “No one knew about the ‘blue dress.’ This was before WND, or WorldNetDaily as it was originally known 17 years ago. To keep things in perspective, I think Monica Lewinsky was a teenage undergraduate student at the time.”
Farah notes the concern expressed in the report about “unregulated data.”
“That’s Hillary, right there,” he said. “I wouldn’t be surprised if she wrote that section herself. A few years later she deplored the fact that the Internet lacks ‘any kind of editing function or gatekeeping function.’”
To put things in perspective, when this report was distributed to a few dozen key reporters by the White House, there were approximately 1 million computers connected to the Internet.
“I think the Clintons saw what was coming and feared it,” said Farah. “The free market, working through the Internet was addressing longstanding institutional problems in the media, as well as exposing fraud, waste, corruption and abuse at the highest levels of government. This was a crisis for them.”

This is what good enough for government work looks like.

Health care site flagged in Heartbleed review

WASHINGTON (AP) - People who have accounts on the enrollment website for President Barack Obama's signature health care law are being told to change their passwords following an administration-wide review of the government's vulnerability to the confounding Heartbleed Internet security flaw.
Senior administration officials said there is no indication that the site has been compromised and the action is being taken out of an abundance of caution. The government's Heartbleed review is ongoing, the officials said, and users of other websites may also be told to change their passwords in the coming days, including those with accounts on the popular petitions page.
The Heartbleed programming flaw has caused major security concerns across the Internet and affected a widely used encryption technology that was designed to protect online accounts. Major Internet services have been working to insulate themselves against the problem and are also recommending that users change their website passwords.
Officials said the administration was prioritizing its analysis of websites with heavy traffic and the most sensitive user information. A message that will be posted on the health care website starting Saturday reads: "While there's no indication that any personal information has ever been at risk, we have taken steps to address Heartbleed issues and reset consumers' passwords out of an abundance of caution."
The health care website became a prime target for critics of the Obamacare law last fall when the opening of the insurance enrollment period revealed widespread flaws in the online system. Critics have also raised concerns about potential security vulnerabilities on a site where users input large amounts of personal data.
The website troubles were largely fixed during the second month of enrollment and sign-ups ultimately surpassed initial expectations. Obama announced this week that about 8 million people had enrolled in the insurance plans.
The full extent of the damage caused by the Heartbleed is unknown. The security hole exists on a vast number of the Internet's Web servers and went undetected for more than two years. Although it's conceivable that the flaw was never discovered by hackers, it's difficult to tell.
The White House has said the federal government was not aware of the Heartbleed vulnerability until it was made public in a private sector cybersecurity report earlier this month. The federal government relies on the encryption technology that is impacted - OpenSSL - to protect the privacy of users of government websites and other online services.
The Homeland Security Department has been leading the review of the government's potential vulnerabilities. The Internal Revenue Service, a widely used website with massive amounts of personal data on Americans, has already said it was not impacted by Heartbleed.
"We will continue to focus on this issue until government agencies have mitigated the vulnerability in their systems," Phyllis Schneck, DHS deputy undersecretary for cybersecurity and communications, wrote in a blog post on the agenda website. "And we will continue to adapt our response if we learn about additional issues created by the vulnerability."
Officials wouldn't say how government websites they expect to flag as part of the Heartbleed security review, but said it's likely to be a limited number. The officials insisted on anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the security review by name.

You wanted free. Now, you've got what free means. Call Harry Reid.

ConsumerWatch: Some Covered California Patients Say They Can’t See A Doctor

MOUNTAIN VIEW (KPIX 5) – While open enrollment for coverage under the Affordable Care Act is closed, many of the newly insured are finding they can’t find doctors, landing them into a state described as “medical homelessness.”
Rotacare, a free clinic for the uninsured in Mountain View, is dealing with the problem firsthand.
Mirella Nguyen works at the clinic said staffers dutifully helped uninsured clients sign up for Obamacare so they would no longer need the free clinic.
But months later, the clinic’s former patients are coming back to the clinic begging for help. “They’re coming back to us now and saying I can’t find a doctor, “said Nguyen.
Thinn Ong was thrilled to qualify for a subsidy on the health care exchange.  She is paying $200 a month in premiums. But the single mother of two is asking, what for?
“Yeah, I sign it. I got it. But where’s my doctor? Who’s my doctor? I don’t know,” said a frustrated Ong.
Nguyen said the newly insured patients checked the physicians’ lists they were provided and were told they weren’t accepting new patients or they did not participate in the plan.
And Nguyen says – while the free clinic isn’t technically supposed to be treating former patents they signed up for insurance, they can’t in good faith turn them away.
Dr. Kevin Grumbach of UCSF called the phenomenon “medical homelessness,” where patients are caught adrift in a system woefully short of primary care doctors.
Insurance coverage is a necessary but not a sufficient condition to assure that people get access to care when they need it,” Grumbach said.
Those who can’t find a doctor are supposed to lodge a complaint with state regulators, who have been denying the existence of a doctor shortage for months.
Meanwhile, the sick and insured can’t get appointments.
“What good is coverage if you can’t use it?” Nguyen said.
Experts said the magnitude of the problem is growing, and will soon be felt by all Californians. But those on the front lines, like the free clinic, are feeling it first.
More than 3 million Californians are newly insured. At the same time, a third of our primary care doctors are set to retire.

Keystone pipeline and the hold the nutty environmentalist have on this administration

‘Ridiculous’: Administration punts on Keystone, Obama faces Dem revolt

The Obama administration once again has punted on a final decision for the Keystone XL pipeline, announcing ahead of the holiday weekend it is extending a key review period indefinitely -- a move that could push off a determination until after the midterm elections. 
Republicans, as well as red-state Democrats who want the proposed Canada-to-Texas pipeline approved, slammed the administration for the delay. Democrats even threatened to find ways to go around the president to get the project approved. 
"It's absolutely ridiculous that this well over five year long process is continuing for an undetermined amount of time," Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D., said in a statement. 
Republican Nebraska Rep. Lee Terry called the decision "shameful," noting that another spring construction season will come and go without the project. 
The administration had been in the middle of a 90-day review period for federal agencies assessing an environmental study from the State Department. 
But the State Department said Friday it is giving agencies "additional time" to weigh in, in part because of ongoing litigation before the Nebraska Supreme Court which could affect the pipeline's route. If the route changes, officials made clear the State Department reserves the right to conduct another environmental impact study to include more public comments, which could delay the process more. 
Further, the department said officials need to go over the "unprecedented number" of new public comments -- roughly 2.5 million of them -- received during a separate comment period that ended in early March. 
"The Permit process will conclude once factors that have a significant impact on determining the national interest of the proposed project have been evaluated and appropriately reflected in the decision documents," the department said. 
Keystone supporters in Congress were furious with the decision. Just days earlier, 11 Democratic senators had written to President Obama urging him to make a final decision by the end of May, complaining that the process "has been exhaustive in its time, breadth and scope." 
With the extension, the administration effectively has turned down that request. One of the letter's signatories, Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., who is in a tough re-election fight this year, said the decision amounts to an "indefinite delay" of the project.    
"This decision is irresponsible, unnecessary and unacceptable," she said. "By making it clear that they will not move the process forward until there is a resolution in a lawsuit in Nebraska, the administration is sending a signal that the small minority who oppose the pipeline can tie up the process in court forever. There are 42,000 jobs, $20 billion in economic activity and North America's energy security at stake." 
Landrieu, as chairwoman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, also threatened to "take decisive action to get this pipeline permit approved." 
This could put pressure on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to allow a vote on legislation to either force the president to approve the project or make a decision by a certain date. 
There is a wide bipartisan support in the Senate. Last year, the chamber voted 62-37 on a nonbinding amendment that called for the pipeline's approval. 
A congressional source told Fox News that at this point, the administration is not giving a hard deadline, and the process appears to be open-ended. 
The administration has faced pressure from both sides of the debate on the pipeline. Republicans largely are united in support of the project, but Democrats are sharply divided. Moderate Democrats, as well as labor unions, are pressing the State Department to give the thumbs-up, calling the project a jobs engine and a way to boost energy security. But environmental interests, and lawmakers allied with them, are strongly opposed -- citing its alleged impact on climate change and possible health risks. 
One such environmentalist, California billionaire Tom Steyer, has been vowing to back vulnerable Democrats with big money if they oppose the pipeline. He called the latest announcement "good news on Good Friday for those who oppose Keystone as not being in our nation's best interest." 
The State Department has jurisdiction because the Canada-to-Texas pipeline crosses the U.S.-Canada border. The drawn-out process has frustrated America's allies in Canada. Canadian Ambassador to the U.S. Gary Doer told Fox News after the announcement Friday that every day the project is delayed is a lost opportunity to put people to work. 
He also said the oil is coming "whether it be by rail or truck."
In pointing to the Nebraska court case, the State Department was referring to a state judge recently overturning a law allowing the current path through the state. 
But Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., charged that the strategy here "is clearly defeat through delay." 

If you read the comment section you'll see how easy it is for the left to demonize their enemies (the Koch Bros.) and build an entire scenario around their meme. Scary to see how little real information these drones have beyond their easily roused hatreds. 

Friday, April 18, 2014

America's jack booted thug enforcers. Obama's fundamental change is to make the people fear the government

The United States of SWAT?
Military-style units from government agencies are wreaking havoc on non-violent citizens.
By John Fund

Global warming scam

Earth ‘Serially Doomed’: UN Issues New 15 Year Climate Tipping Point – But UN Issued Tipping Points in 1982 & Another 10-Year Tipping Point in 1989!

By:  - Climate DepotApril 16, 2014 1:28 PM with 230 comments
According to the Boston Globe, the United Nations has issued a new climate “tipping point” by which the world must act to avoid dangerous global warming.
The Boston Globe noted on April 16, 2014: “The world now has a rough deadline for action on climate change. Nations need to take aggressive action in the next 15 years to cut carbon emissions, in order to forestall the worst effects of global warming, says the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”
Once again, the world is being warned of an ecological or climate “tipping point” by the UN. 
In 1982, the UN issued a two decade tipping point. UN official Mostafa Tolba, executive director of the UN Environment Program (UNEP), warned on May 11, 1982, the “world faces an ecological disaster as final as nuclear war within a couple of decades unless governments act now.” According to Tolba in 1982, lack of action would bring “by the turn of the century, an environmental catastrophe which will witness devastation as complete, as irreversible as any nuclear holocaust.”
As early as 1989, the UN was already trying to sell their “tipping point” rhetoric to the public. See: U.N. Warning of 10-Year ‘Climate Tipping Point’ Began in 1989 – Excerpt: According to July 5, 1989, article in the Miami Herald, the then-director of the New York office of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), Noel Brown, warned of a “10-year window of opportunity to solve” global warming. According to the 1989 article, “A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos.” (LINK) & (LINK)
It’s all so confusing. In 2007, UN IPCC chief Pachauri declared 2012 as the climate deadline to act or it would be “too late.” See: Celebrate! UN IPCC Chairman Pachauri: It’s Too Late to Fight Climate Change! – Pachauri in 2007: ‘If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment’
Not to be outdone by the UN, Former Irish President Mary Robinson weighed in this week, issuing a more generous 20 year tipping point. “Former president says we have 20 years to save the world from climate change effects…Robinson calls for climate agreement by 2015.” Robinson noted that global leaders have “at most two decades to save the world”.
Former Vice President Al Gore also created a 10 year climate tipping point in 2006: See: Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer Mocks Gore for issuing 10-year tipping point in 2006: Al Gore’s 10-year climate warning – Only 2 years left & still no global warming - Spencer: ‘Gore told us in January 2006 that we had only 10 years left to solve the global warming problem’ – ‘In the grand tradition of prophets of doom, his prognostication is not shaping up too well…still no statistically significant warming’
Other global warming activists chose 2047 as the key date. See: Global warming activist scientists may not be the first to proclaim a doomsday year of 2047 as the end of time! — 2047 is the new 2012 — but global warming activists were beaten to Armageddon! – A Climate Depot analysis has uncovered that 2047 has long been seen as a successor to 2012 as an apocalyptic date.
Finding no date agreement, 20 governments chose 2030 as the scary deadline: See: Skeptics Repent! We are all doomed! Report: More than 100 million people will die by 2030 if world fails to act on climate — Reuters: ‘More than 100 million people will die and global economic growth will be cut by 3.2% of GDP by 2030 if the world fails to tackle climate change, a report commissioned by 20 governments said on Wednesday. As global avg. temps rise due to ghg emissions, the effects on planet, such as melting ice caps, extreme weather, drought and rising sea levels, will threaten populations and livelihoods, said the report conducted by humanitarian organisation DARA’
The tipping point rhetoric seems to have exploded after 2002. See: Tipping Points In Env. Rhetoric: An Unscientific Survey of Nexis: After June 2002, news media’s use of tipping point in the context of global warming and climate change exploded’ — ‘Between June 2002 and June 2005 – CC: 262; GW: 303. Between June 2005 and June 2008 – CC: more than 3,000; GW: more than 3,000* Between June 2008 and June 2011 – CC: more than 3,000; GW: 2903 Between June 2011 and June 2012 – CC: 1,348; GW; 637 Of course, the problem with tipping points is that they can never be proven wrong; only right in retrospect. And that, of course, makes citing them a wonderful rhetorical device for doomsayers’
Perhaps the best explanation of tipping points comes from UK scientist Philip Stott.
See: UK Scientist Philip Stott ridiculed “tipping point” claims in 2007. “In essence, the Earth has been given a 10-year survival warning regularly for the last fifty or so years. We have been serially doomed. [...] Our post-modern period of climate change angst can probably be traced back to the late-1960s, if not earlier. By 1973, and the ‘global cooling’ scare, it was in full swing, with predictions of the imminent collapse of the world within ten to twenty years, exacerbated by the impacts of a nuclear winter. Environmentalists were warning that, by the year 2000, the population of the US would have fallen to only 22 million [the 2007 population estimate is 302,824,000]. [...] In 1987, the scare abruptly changed to ‘global warming’, and the IPCC (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) was established (1988), issuing its first assessment report in 1990, which served as the basis of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC).”
Inconvenient History of Climate ‘Tipping Point’ Warnings
NASA scientist James Hansen has been warning of a “tipping point” for years now. See: Earth’s Climate Approaches Dangerous Tipping Point – June 1, 2007 – Excerpt: A stern warning that global warming is nearing an irreversible tipping point was issued today” by James Hansen.
Former Vice President Al Gore invented his own “tipping point” clock a few years ago. Excerpt: Former Vice-President Al Gore came to Washington on July 17, 2008, to deliver yet another speech warning of the “climate crisis.” “The leading experts predict that we have less than 10 years to make dramatic changes in our global warming pollution lest we lose our ability to ever recover from this environmental crisis,” Gore stated.
Prince Charles claimed a 96-month tipping point in July 2009. Excerpt: The heir to the throne told an audience of industrialists and environmentalists at St James’s Palace last night that he had calculated that we have just 96 months left to save the world. And in a searing indictment on capitalist society, Charles said we can no longer afford consumerism and that the “age of convenience” was over.
Get ready, we only have 190 years! Scientists ‘expect climate tipping point’ by 2200 – UK Independent – June 28, 2010 - Excerpt: “13 of the 14 experts said that the probability of reaching a tipping point (by 2200) was greater than 50 per cent, and 10 said that the chances were 75 per cent or more.”
‘World has only ten years to control global warming, warns Met Office – UK Telegraph – November 15, 2009 – Excerpt: Pollution needs to be brought under control within ten years to stop runaway climate change, according to the latest Met Office predictions. [...] “To limit global mean temperature [increases] to below 2C, implied emissions of CO2 to the atmosphere at the end of the century fall close to zero in most cases.”
In 2013, the UN extended the deadline again. See: Earth Gets 15 Year Reprieve From Climate Doom?!: UN in 1989: World has a ’10-year window of opportunity to solve’ global warming — Now in 2013: ‘UN needs global warming answer by 2015′ - New date is the latest in a long history of flexible global warming deadlines
The UN chief Ban Ki-moon further shortened the “tipping point” in August 2009, when he warned of ‘incalculable’ suffering without climate deal in December 2009!
Newsweek magazine waded into the tipping point claims as well. Newsweek wrote: “The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.” But, Newsweek’s “tipping point” quote appeared in a April 28, 1975 article about global cooling! Same rhetoric, different eco-scare.
More Related Links:
Warmists Prep for UN Summit: ‘World headed for irreversible climate change in five years, IEA warns’: ‘The world will ‘lose for ever’ the chance to avoid dangerous climate change’ — ‘The door is closing,” Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency…Every month now counts: if the world is to stay below 2C of warming’
UK greenie George Monbiot 2002 warned we only had 10 years! ‘Famine can only be avoided if the rich give up meat, fish and dairy’– Monbiot on December 24, 2002: ‘Within as little as 10 years, the world will be faced with a choice: arable farming either continues to feed the world’s animals or it continues to feed the world’s people. It cannot do both’
1924: Top Scientists Say That Earth Is Doomed (April 16, 1924) – ‘It is the firmest conviction of a group of serious scientists of established reputation, who have devoted their lives to a dispassionate and careful examination of geological and astronomical evidence. This group includes such investigators as Dr. Max Valier, of Munich. Engineer Hanne Hoerbiger, of Vienna, Dr. Voigt, of Berlin; and Professor F. Queisser. of Prague’
Gore Losing: No cause for alarm at 5-year mid-point of Armstrong-Gore climate ‘bet’ — ‘Gore should be pleased to find concerns about a ‘tipping point’ have turned out to be unfounded’ – ‘The latest global temperature is exactly where it was at the beginning of the ‘bet’ — ‘The IPCC’s forecasting procedures have been found to violate 72 of the 89 relevant principles’
Doomster Paul Ehrlich is back and just as wrong as ever! Remember when we all starved to death in the 1980s, just as I predicted? It might happen AGAIN! – Ehrlich: ‘We risk a global collapse of our civilization as we know it. Climate change is just one of our problems. We cannot avert calamity without tackling it and other pressing ecological concerns’
Forty Year Cycle Of Scientific Psychosis Discovered: ‘There appears to be a forty year cycle of mental illness in the scientific community’ — ‘This is what they were saying in 1970′: ‘Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind; — George Wald, Harvard Biologist — ‘We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.’ — Barry Commoner, Wash. U biologist’
MIT to Obama: Only 4 years left to stop global warming: ‘It is quite possible that if this is not done over the next four years, it will be too late’ — MIT to Obama: ‘We can no longer pretend that addressing climate change will be without real costs’ — ‘You have the power and the opportunity to lay the groundwork for a new clean-energy policy that will help us avoid the worst consequences of climate change,” said the letter, published in the MITTechnology Review’
Flashback 2007: Climatologist Dr. Michaels mocks ‘tipping points’: ’We have to do something in 10 years — they have been saying that for two years. Why don’t they at least subtract 2 and make it 8?’
Antarctic Tipping Point? ‘If we don’t act soon, the planet will become a barren ball of ice and snow’ – October 2, 2009 - ’5 of the 6 years with the greatest Southern Hemisphere sea ice extent have occurred in just the last decade’
Climate Depot’s Morano on new alarmist National Academy of Sciences’ climate ‘tipping point’ study: It ‘openly shills for more climate funding for its members’— Morano: ‘The organization [NAS] is virtually 100% dependent on government funding. So when they do a study like this – and they’ve done other studies in the past – you know the outcome of these studies before they do them. The actual funding quote from new study is: ‘The sudden changes in the climate is full of uncertainties. The world can prepare by better monitoring,’ Morano offers. ‘And it goes on [to say that] because of budget cuts and aging satellites, we have fewer measurements than we did a few years ago.’ – ‘When the NAS is advocating for a carbon tax, it’s not too surprising that all [their] reports are going to fall in line.’

The snake oil salesman is back at it. Funny how the left is never challenged on their hate speech. So, if you have a scientific disagreement with the self absorbed left you are despicable?