Friday not so funny – 'off with their heads' !

Fascinating.
And you moderati put people on “Permanent Double Secret Probation” for not playing nice with these sanamabeeches?

Islamic militants and environmentalist whackos. They have a solution to all of the world’s problems.

If it was mad hatters tea party “off with their heads” it would be funny, but in the current world terror climate (no pun intended) this is just sick.

..and calling for someone’s head *isn’t* “touchy”? My irony meter broke; again.

This is standard operating procedure for the left. I can recall being threatened by a classmate in graduate school because I mentioned I had watch[ed] Rush Limbaugh’s TV show. LOL.

Gary Evans? He’s just trying to live up to the name.

I advocate some cooler heads here. It does not help anyone to express frustrations in this way. Greenpeace is an organization that became rich by appealing to human empathy (and their emotional projections) with wild animals. The fact that the French scuttled their Rainbow Warrior was the best thing that ever happened to their coffers. Greenpeace will not change – their trade is way too lucrative. Simply ignore them – don’t call them names.

This just shows the facts and truth is winning and it scares them so much they are on a panic mode now.

Many of the original red guards have 40 or more years invested in “the cause” together with these new hatchlings.
The new ones are core of hate not about climate but revolution and anarchy . They have over run reason and now tilt at life itself.
The new ones are even more out of bounds from reality than the first ones to fake tree ring data.

“Hasmi?”
That name sounds sort of ….. .Islamic. !

When he says Mere calls for a beheading evolve such a strong response in you people. I think he means “induce.” Hateful and illiterate.

Are there any books or other publications dissecting Greenpeace financially and politically?
I could Google it , but I am busy taking advantage of this glorious global warming (and long may it continue- if it does exist) to prepare my early sowings of vegetables.
This? It is coffee time.

2003
GREENPEACE’S SILENT “CHARITY” TAX SCANDAL
A scandal involving a major international organization, millions of dollars, and alleged tax evasion would receive similar treatment. But if that major international organization is Greenpeace, the media goes mute.
Nonprofit watchdog Public Interest Watch (PIW) filed a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service alleging that Greenpeace has engaged in massive transfers of money between its many subgroups in order to skirt US tax laws. PIW simultaneously issued a companion report, called Green Peace, Dirty Money: Tax Violations in the World of Non-Profits which details how the environmental group transferred $24 million in tax-exempt contributions over a three-year period to fund its non-tax-exempt activities.
Much like Enron’s dizzying array of shell organizations and dummy corporations, Greenpeace has a multitude of entities established throughout the world—all unified by Greenpeace International, which in 2000 had an operating budget of $134 million.
In the US, there are two primary groups: Greenpeace Inc. and Greenpeace Fund Inc. Neither has to pay US taxes, but there is one key difference between them: donations to the latter entity are tax-deductible, whereas contributions to the former are not. In IRS-speak, it means that money given to Greenpeace Fund Inc., known as a 501(c)(3) organization (named for the corresponding provision in tax law), can reduce the amount one pays in taxes, whereas funds given to Greenpeace Inc, known as a 501(c)(4) entity, cannot.
Just as common sense would dictate, it is much harder to raise money for a 501(c)(4) group, because donors cannot deduct the contributions from their taxable income. Which is why the IRS has very strict rules about how tax-exempt donations to a 501(c)(3) entity can be used. 501(c)(3) groups are essentially limited to religious, charitable, or educational activities. Such groups can transfer funds to 501(c)(4) entities, but money from those grants are bound by the same restrictions 501(c)(3) organizations face on all their activities.
This is where things get sticky with Greenpeace’s green: almost all the tax-exempt money the environmental group raises is transferred to its sister organization, a 501(c)(4) group that cannot itself solicit tax-exempt contributions. It is the sister organization that does all those splashy—and typically illegal—media-driven stunts such as trespassing and destruction of property, activities which would seem to be neither charitable nor educational.
According to the 1999 tax returns for both Greenpeace Inc. and Greenpeace Fund Inc., over $4 million changed hands between the groups. The 501(c)(3) Greenpeace Fund Inc. — which obviously had an easier time raising funds because its donors get tax write-offs — gave its 501(c)(4) Greenpeace Inc. sister organization $4.25 million, which constituted roughly 30% of the latter group’s 1999 budget.
Based on the data Public Interest Watch collected from various Greenpeace tax and disclosure forms from 1998-2000, the 501(c)(3) arm, Greenpeace Fund Inc., transferred a total of $24 million to other Greenpeace subgroups that cannot solicit tax-exempt contributions. PIW’s Chairman Mike Hardiman has a simple description of Greenpeace’s accounting gimmicks: “It’s a form of money laundering, plain and simple.”
That $24 million diverted to non-tax-exempt purposes is of little interest to the media should be surprising. More surprising still, though, is that the media’s interest did not perk up given the list of big-name Greenpeace donors. Foundations established by such high-brow last names as Rockefeller, Merck, Mott, MacArthur, Packard, and Turner have all given large sums — tax-exempt — enabling Greenpeace to move its funds around more easily. Because those groups have a legal duty to make sure that tax-exempt funds are used appropriately, the amount of salivating copy this mess could generate is substantial, yet the media collectively yawns.
A quick search of news archive Nexis revealed that only a dozen stories — in both print and television — covered PIW’s Greenpeace complaint. And the only thorough rendering was written by tireless columnist Deroy Murdock at National Review Online.
It is possible, of course, that Greenpeace will be cleared of malfeasance. But maybe it will not. Old-fashioned investigative journalism would seem to dictate some digging take place. Too bad the media’s evident bias makes clear that will not happen.
GREENPEACE IS NOT A CHARITY
Why Donating to a Real Charity Makes More Sense than Donating to Greenpeace
Charities help people. For this they get tax breaks from the government. People who donate to charities also get tax breaks. You cannot just sign up to be a charity, you have to meet certain criteria set out by the government designed to evaluate how much you really are helping its citizens.
As a citizen, if you donate to a charity you get a tax break and know that the charity has met certain government controls. You can be fairly sure your money will be used for the cause they promote. If you donate to a company you have no idea what the money is being used for. You don’t get a tax break. They don’t have to answer to the government oversight, but they do have to pay tax on profits. This is like donating money to an Oil Company and saying “put this toward environmental cleanup.”
Greenpeace in Canada: Not A charity
Greenpeace lost it’s charity status in Canada in 1989. Greenpeace then found a tax loop hole which was closed in 1995. The hilarious statement on the Greenpeace website says: “In order to remain independent from governments and industry, Greenpeace cannot issue tax receipts.” Their statement used to be found here: http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/Donate/Monthly-giving/ but has been replaced with: “Support our work today! Greenpeace is an independent organization that does not take money from corporations or government. We rely on individual donations from people just like you to do the work we do.”
Greenpeace New Zealand: Not A charity
The NZ court ruled: Greenpeace too political to register as charity in 2010.
Greenpeace in Germany: “Looks set to loose its Charity Status”
A German Study in 2006 said lax Charity Rules “…had allowed special interest groups to avoid paying certain taxes and to win excessive public influence as a result. The advisory committee said there is an urgent need for a ‘clear restriction of the tax privileges presently associated with charitable status… [and] should not be aimed ‘primarily at political influence on public opinion’; instead the specific results of environmental activities should be closely evaluated and proven.”
It was proposed by the German government to remove Greenpeace’s tax breaks. Greenpeace protested this study, protests which have to be funded by donations to Greenpeace. You can understand that the German government does not want to give tax breaks to a company that spends that money protesting against the political workings of that same government.
Greenpeace in the USA: Yes (for now)
Greenpeace has toned down protests directed at US Coal in favor of the less environmentally harmful Canadian oil sands. The question is, how long can they keep quiet from speaking out against American Industry? In the meantime, Greenpeace gets a free ride while American teachers are being laid off and public services are being cut.
Greenpeace in different countries has to obey different tax laws. Greenpeace is one entity with the same operating practices and procedures everywhere. This is of significant interest because (a) Greenpeace makes profits (Not all money goes to environmental causes) and (b) Greenpeace does not actually evaluate environmental effects and consequences, it just exerts pressure based on opinion.
Why not donate to a real charity so you know your money will be put to good use, plus you get a tax break?

Just have to wonder about the laws in the UK right now – isn’t wanting someone beheaded due to their views
actually “hate speech” and should be prosecuted as such?
In times such as now, such comments are extremely disrespectful of those actually victims of such violence, and an insult to the rest of us…
Having said that, I’m not surprised that the CAGW “team” has stooped so low. With “deniers” and
“death trains” they’ve shown they have neither respect nor interest for people and history.

These creeps are just the tip of the iceberg. We should be thankful they slipped up as the beheading talk wakes up many. Further, industrialized nations are at zero population growth. The countries still exponentially increasing are the poorest. Modernization is the answer not beheading. The rss uah has wrecked their plans. Anyone with half a brain knows the alarmism is bs (bad science). It’s a political movement run it’s course. Talk about poor losers!

parody on/
{apologies to the creators of the movie ‘The Matrix’}
The Guardian environmental head of staff has a meeting with its authors Dana Nuccitelli and Gary (Bluecloud) Evans as a result of Dana’s Guardian post ‘Matt Ridley wants to gamble the Earth’s future because he won’t learn from the past’ and Gary’s (Bluecloud’s) violence inciting comments on that Dana post which advocate beheading people who he disagrees with (like suggesting beheading Matt Ridley).
At the meeting the Guardian environmental head of staff offers each of them two pills; a red pill and a blue pill. He says to them, “This is your last chance Dana and Gary (Bluecloud). After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill – your silliness in front of skeptics ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill – you must participate in a real debate on climate with the skeptics and they will show you how deep the alarmist climate change rabbit-hole goes.”
Dana responds, “I’ll take the blue pill. Everyone at Cook’s blog will want one too.”
Gary (Bluecloud) responds, “I’ll swallow both pills at the same time so I can be even crazier than before in blog comments advocating violence against skeptics.”
/parody off
John

The Guardian is not solvent financially but kept afloat by government subsidy. UKgov clearly feel the country needs a state funded mouthpiece of liberofascism.

>>BCBill
January 23, 2015 at 5:26 pm
ATHeoK has it. Brilliant. Their rallying cry is “off with their heads”, ours is “on with their heads” (or brains at least.
ladylifegrows
January 23, 2015 at 6:43 pm
On with their heads. I like that. That slogan might actually get somewhere by showing us as more rational and safer to have around..<<
If you want to get ahead, get a head.