Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Back in December of last year I put up a post which said in its entirety:
Very short post. I read today that Palestine has been granted full member status in the UNFCCC, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
I also recall from a few years ago that when Palestine was admitted to UNESCO, the US had to cut off funds to UNESCO because of US law. As an article at the time said, this was the result of “US laws that force an automatic funding cutoff for any UN agency with Palestine as a member” …
Do I see an opportunity for our lawmakers here? Yep. Will they act on it? Possibly not, but if it is indeed the law, seems like they could be forced to act …
Best to all, and I do hope some organization with money and legal resources takes up this question. At least the US could stop pouring money down a rathole, even if the rest of the world continued the lunacy.
w.
So as you might imagine, I was overjoyed today to read the following media release regarding a formal letter from a group of Senators to US Secretary of State John Kerry:
Senators to Sec. Kerry: U.S. Law Prohibits Sending
U.S. Funds to U.N. Climate Convention
UNFCCC granted full membership to the “State of Palestine”; current U.S. law prohibits taxpayer dollars from going to any such U.N. organization
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) led a group of 28 senators in sending a letter to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry demanding that the administration follow the law and prohibit funding for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its related entities.
On March 17, 2016, the “State of Palestine” was allowed to become a full member of the UNFCCC.
That action triggered a statutory restriction under the 1994 Foreign Relations Authorization Act that prohibits the U.S. government from providing taxpayer funds to affiliated organizations of the United Nations that grant full membership as a state to certain groups, like the Palestinians.
As an affiliated organization to the United Nations, the UNFCCC and its related entities – including the Secretariat, the Conference of Parties, and the Green Climate Fund – are prohibited from receiving U.S. taxpayer funds.
In their letter, the senators demand that no U.S. funds be given to the UNFCCC and its related entities after March 17, 2016.
The senators also raise concerns about the inability of the United States to prevent the Palestinians from attempting to circumvent the peace process.
“We request that you ensure that no disbursements of U.S. funds are made to the UNFCCC and its related entities after March 17, 2016. We believe that your failure to do so will constitute a violation of current law… We implore the administration to hold the Palestinians accountable for their actions in circumventing the peace process, and to abide by current law prohibiting U.S. taxpayer funds for the UNFCCC and its related entities and other UN affiliated organizations that recognize the ‘State of Palestine,’” the senators wrote.
In addition to Senator Barrasso, the letter was signed by Senators Roy Blunt (R-MO), John Boozman (R-AR), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Bill Cassidy (R-LA), Dan Coats (R-IN), John Cornyn (R-TX), Tom Cotton (R-AR), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Steve Daines (R-MT), Mike Enzi (R-WY), Deb Fischer (R-NE), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Jim Inhofe (R-OK), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), James Lankford (R-OK), Mike Lee (R-UT), Jerry Moran (R-KS), Pat Roberts (R-KS), Mike Rounds (R-SD), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Dan Sullivan (R-AK), John Thune (R-SD), Thom Tillis (R-NC), Pat Toomey (R-PA), David Vitter (R-LA) and Roger Wicker (R-MS).
The full letter is here, it’s worth a read. My profound thanks to the Senators involved.
A final plea. Do not allow the dreaded thread drift to convert this into a referendum on the Israel-Palestine perennial dispute—it won’t be solved here, and this thread is about climate funds. Let’s just be happy that we have a chance to waste less taxpayer money on the hydra-headed UN climate boondoggle …
Regards to all,
w.
My Usual Request: Confusion is a huge stumbling block, so if you disagree with me or anyone, please quote the exact words you disagree with so we can all understand your objections. I can defend my own words. I cannot defend someone else’s interpretation of some unidentified words of mine.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Silly senators, laws are for the little people.
Laws are passe, the New Normal is Chicago Rules.
I thought that should have been in bold so I’m repeating it.
Less taxpayer “green” going to the the UN-Green is indeed a good thing.
Less taxpayer green going to the UN in general is indeed a good thing. This failed noble experiment is well past its best-before-date. The only thing that is “unprecedented” about its constant blathering is the sense of entitlement of its bureaucrats.
Could get interesting.
Nah, it’s an election year. It’s gon’na get swept under the rug. The Democratic and Media Establishment will spin it as the Republicans practicing partisan politics and attempt to use it in the presidential campaign (probably successfully). It won’t matter that the law was passed in 1994 (I believe we had a Democratic majority in the House and Senate at that time, not sure though (and not really interested enough to look it up)) and signed into law by a Democratic President (Bill Clinton).
Yes, D-controlled. Both Houses.
I wonder which of this site’s usual CAGW trolls, uh, commenters, are also leftist orthodox on Palestine. The green blob does tend leftist in the US (everywhere?).
Tom Halla on April 20, 2016 at 1:49 pm
I wonder which of this site’s usual CAGW trolls, uh, commenters, are also leftist orthodox on Palestine. The green blob does tend leftist in the US (everywhere?).
________________
In europe left fractions are distinct from greens; and all greens are CONSERVATIVE:
After all they want to conserve / rebuild a Green Acardian Nature that never existed in History:
typically
– medivial windmill romancing – when medivial windmills where indeed hard business, money machines for the local goverments.
– living solely on SunLight should get solved by PV.
_________________
nontheless most parties in europe are pro palestinean.
Johann, I guess it depends on how one classifies a reactionary fantasist. One can make a coherent argument that Marx was a reactionary in his criticism of capitalism, and a fantasist in envisioning a future that could never exist given that real people would be involved.
The greens I am familiar with are certainly reactionary, and want to create a society that never was (and cannot be). Mostly, the problem is that classifying politics in only one dimension puts royalists and fascists in the same place, which is mainfestly silly.
I notice that the people who have violated the author’s plea not to turn this into a discussion about Palestine take the Israeli side. Global warming and Palestine are completely separate issues. One could argue that Zionism and the global warming industry are both parasitical on the US.
Why are there no Senate Democrat signatories? Don’t Dems also want the Barack Hussein Obama administration to follow the law?
They haven’t on any issue in 7+ years. Why start now?
Right, why ruin a perfect record.
No, most of the Democrat Senators don’t care as long as their political agenda is moved forward. Laws are for Republicans and Conservatives, and insufficently submissive Independents.
I knew the two cowards representing Virginia would not be on that list. Like most of the current D. Senators they’re unable to have bowel movements without POTUS permission.
TA nailed their perspective of legal repercussions; especially since the dimmest senator light bulbs are busy colluding with special interest groups to harass citizens with contrary opinions.
If the legislature can’t compel the executive to follow the law, especially when they make the laws and have the power of the purse, then we no longer have a democracy or republic. The fact that the letter makes a ‘request’ and ‘implores’ the executive branch to follow the law seems to imply the legislature has conceded it’s constitutional powers and prerogatives to the executive. I wonder how long it will be before Congress admits it’s nothing more than a rubber stamp legislature. I wonder how long it will be before we have a president for life.
Not to mention that it is considered a serious question of law whether a majority of States have standing to bring a lawsuit against the Executive. If they do not have standing, who does?
It would probably take a constitutional convention, Article V, for the States to have standing. Good luck on getting 3/4 of them to agree.
The problem with calling a Constitutional Convention is that then everything is up for grabs.
It’s a call for a new form of Government, a new “Constitution”, not just calling for and forcing the present to adhere to the old.
Bye, bye Bill of Rights.
(We could really end up with a King with no Magna Carta. What would the MSM push for?)
Contrary to Gunga Din, an Article Five Convention would not mean that “everything is up grabs.” Such a Convention may be called for the specific purpose of amending the Constitution, not abrogating or replacing it. And the Amendments approved would still have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states.
/Mr Lynn
The same politicians who have caused the current problems, will be the ones running any Article V convention.
No good can come of that.
This is more of a question than an argument, but if a convention is called, that is a meeting of a bunch of people, to discuss a change for a specific purpose, what is to prevent other changes being put forward?
(A convention is called to consider, say, a balanced budget amendment. A motion from the floor wants to also consider abolishing, say, the 2nd amendment. It is seconded. What in Article Five would prevent that scenario?)
The legislature can impeach the president for cause. That’s about it.
This year’s budget is already in force. So, Congress can only ask the State Department to freeze funds it already has. It can’t stop the State Department from breaking the law. Next budget year, Congress can zero out the UNFCCC line item.
“The legislature can impeach the president for cause.”
They could but, they won’t.
What happens with the next budget year is going to depend a great deal on who wins the election… Maybe.
Even if Congress zeros out the UNFCCC line item, it’s a trivial matter for the president to transfer money from some other line item to fund it.
Illegal as all get out, but that hasn’t mattered in years.
They could impeach John Kerry.
Hi Willis,
Based on Mr Obama’s past record, I will be very surprised if he withdraws UN climate funding based on existing law, no matter what that law says. More likely he will just refuse until directed to do so by the Supreme Court. That is less than a 100% certain outcome from the Court, and in any case is very unlikely to happen before Mr Obama’s term ends, if ever.
What we read and hear in the mostly left-leaning western media is far different from how Israelis themselves view the “Palestinian” question. Worth your time if you haven’t seen these:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAuBc_cbXo0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIRJO9TaaOI
Here’s a fun fact. These Arabs don’t have the letter “p” in their alphabet. So they cannot even spell the ethnic group they appropriated for themselves.
But they certainly fit right in with the Climate Change movement.
To put some historical accuracy into that, see –
Their facts are correct, whereas Danny Ayalon is doing a warmist by manipulating data.
To quote Willis
“A final plea. Do not allow the dreaded thread drift to convert this into a referendum on the Israel-Palestine perennial dispute—it won’t be solved here, and this thread is about climate funds.”
So lets keep on topic.
..OMG, that was a pathetic video..You should have stayed on topic !
The problem is that if Palestine is a state, it is a terrorist state. That’s the main problem with Palestine.
Danny Avalon posted another video to refute the above “actual truth” video:
BernardP,
Beautiful.
Got to laugh. In America where Jews are not persecuted they are disappearing into the melting pot. I wrote an unpublished novel wherein a Jewish child is presented with a large Goyim doll and he grabs a club and begins beating on it shouting “I hate you! I hate you!” He is admonished by a pro-Israel rabbi and told to think about what he has been taught. After a moment the child again attacks the Goyim doll but this time he is shouting “You hate me! You hate me!”
When I was about 15 I was with my mother when she stopped in at a chicken farm to buy eggs. My mother inquired about the women’s family and was told that the women’s eldest daughter was dead. This greatly distressed my mother and she tried to say nice things about the woman’s daughter who had often sold her eggs. The women turned her back on my mother and went inside her house. The woman was Jewish and, as my mother found out days later, her daughter had married a “gentile”. Of course that was fifty years ago.
Israel is basically the same — it is an attempt to isolate Jews from other cultures. If Israel had not been surrounded by “hate” could it have become a nation? Part of the history of the area that people don’t know is that many Arab villages signed peace treaties with neighboring Jewish villages. Those Arab villages that wanted to live in peace with their neighbors were the ones attacked by Jewish terrorists (and terrorists is what they were). So now Israel exists surrounded by hate — the Jews, by their behavior, seem to have eliminated all the groups that wanted peace.
But now, I will talk about something that you will find crazy. About ten years ago I took up biblical Hebrew translation. (Do not ask me why since, as an atheist, I had zero interest in its contents.) After many struggles I recognized that the texts were wrongly dated because they had been written by Hebrew Christians. All the Books I looked at were Christians stories. The Romans did wipe the Hebrews off the face of the earth and modern Jews are using texts written by Christian Hebrews as their Holy Book. CRAZY!!!! But true.
Anyway, i have not been doing much translation for the last few years since the work is incredibly boring (I would rather play WOW.) and for other reasons — but a few days ago I decided to translate all the sections where God supposedly promised land to the Hebrews and see what they exactly say. I just need to stop playing WOW so much and get on with it. But bad habits are hard to break.
Eugene WR Gallun
PS — Just because the Israeli lobby pushed through a law that does not mean it is a just law. Your premise seems to be — What’s good for Israel is good for climate skeptics. If something were bad for Israel but good for climate skeptics would support it? Now my opinion of the UN is that I would like to see the US quit it and through eminent domain take back the UN building and maybe let Trump turn it into a hotel. Maybe call it “The Trump International”.
Eugene WR Gallun
“Just because the Israeli lobby pushed through a law that does not mean it is a just law.”
It doesn’t have to be a just law, it just has to be a law. If it’s an unjust law then people can rail against it to get the law changed. Until that time, it needs to be enforced.
As for using it as a lever against the UN climate change/NWO machine, it is currently available and could be useful.
“the mostly left-leaning western media”
Except on the Israel/Palestine question.
The US tax payer is sinking 3bn a year into Israel, and some of that comes back to AIPAC who lobby to keep the 3bn flowing.
What Palestine got is pittance compared to the US tax payer actually funding the occupation.
This “rat hole” has 10s of thousands of traumatised children, several thousand maimed and none of them can get in or out without a word from the warden.
Drivel.
Yeah great rebuttal 😀
I agree, great rebuttal and completely appropriate. As noted above, this is not the place for that discussion.
Nonsense propaganda.
Why would you compare foreign aid to the state of Israel with foreign aid to the Arabs tribes living in Gaza and the West Bank areas?
Come on, Larry, this is not the forum for that discussion. Let him stew in his own juices.
What does your comment have to do with climate funds?
Is it not precisely the kind of comment on the unrelated Israeli/Palestinian dispute the author so politely requested you refrain from?
Actually Palestine is just that piece of land west of Saudi Arabia, and north of the Sinai Desert. I think that encompasses modern Israel and Jordan, but maybe not Lebanon.
I have no idea what Palestinians are; there seems to be no history of such a people. In fact I never much heard the word, until the grandfather of the present King of Jordan drove a bunch of rabble rousing Arabs out of his part of Palestine, and no other Arab State would take them in.
Don’t quite understand why just a piece of land would get UN membership status of any kind.
Is Antarctica a UN member ?? It certainly has plenty of climate issues
As to the letter to Kerry; that seems an odd approach. I thought the Senate could just subpoena him to come before them, and ask him to his face why he hasn’t already pulled the plug on the funds.
Maybe they could just sent him a tweetle to let him know they are serious.
When the House and the Senate both write such a law as to prohibit any such spending; then we might believe they are serious. Put it on the President’s desk, and tell him to implement it immediately.
What they did is like writing a check for a trillion dollars, and then using that check to light up an illegal Cuban cigar.
G
george,
“I have no idea what Palestinians are; there seems to be no history of such a people”
Well you need to study some history,…. you could start with the bible …
“The people shall hear, and be afraid; sorrow shall take hold of the inhabitants of Palestina.”
(Exod 15:14) [now aint that the truth]
followed by –
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_history_of_the_region_of_Palestine
to start you off.
My grandfather was there in the 1920s & was horrified by the way we Brits treated the local population Arabs & Jews were seen as 3rd class. A lot of the problems started then & escalated.
1948 was diabolical, ashamed to be British.
George and 1saveenergy, please respect my wishes and keep your ancestral feuds out of this post. I’ve asked nicely. I ask again.
w.
George, while my better mind says to stay out of this, I feel compelled to jump in.
I’m not going to go into why or why not here, but your reasoning is too faulty to go unchallenged. Why does a group need a reason to want independence? Is there some definition of a historical precedent necessary before independence from one’s government is necessary? There was no such thing as an American before the 1770s, so by your logic, they should not have been granted independence from Britain.
It is the people who make the country and the people who are granted independence. The wisdom of such an action is debatable, but the definition is not.
Well, Israel was created by fiat in the UN and at the same time Palestine was created – you know – the two-state ‘solution’ was the initial conditions for Israel and the Israeli terrorists have worked steadfastly to deny the completion of that solution. I have no time for Israel and their oppressive occupation of Palestine and their stealing of Syrian lands. Israel is a religious state and implements violent apartheid policies. Go watch ‘5 Broken Cameras’.
As for Willis, well, we should not celebrate this at all. We might agree the money could be spent better elsewhere but to have this political bigotted reason is bordering on inhumane.
PLEASE STOP THIS NONSENSE! THIS IS NOT THE TIME FOR YOUR INFERNAL ETERNAL ANCIENT FEUDS!! TAKE IT ELSEWHERE!!
Is that clear?
w.
“PLEASE STOP THIS NONSENSE! THIS IS NOT THE TIME FOR YOUR INFERNAL ETERNAL ANCIENT FEUDS!! TAKE IT ELSEWHERE!! Is that clear? w.”
How offensive.
I’m sorry Willis.
I (perhaps irrationally) presumed that the ” Palestine Redux ” heading to this thread was of your doing.
And it was that “Palestine” to which I was referring. Oddly enough actually mentioned in that “Bible” referred to by 1saveenergy, as “The Land of Palestine”.
I think I said it was a piece of land.
Now why is there a USA law prohibiting funds going to a piece of land ?
I haven’t fathomed your concern that I mentioned the very same piece of land that you have.
Have no idea what 1saveenergy is babbling about, since he goes on and refers to the exact same piece of land; evidently in Italian or latin, rather than English.
But if it was not you who introduced the subject, then my apologies.
G
It never ceases to amaze me how some people will always sympathize with the criminal.
You mean there’s a $3bn annual US taxpayer stipend earmarked for Israel? They just get a great wad of cash to do with as they please?
Actually, not. Every year, Israel (like every other country in the world) goes shopping. And each year (like every other country in the world), they have to take out a loan so that they can go shopping. When Israel goes for a loan, the banks reply “Well, since you’re a tiny country surrounded by violent savages that have sworn to commit a second holocaust, we’ll lend you the money. But the interest rate we charge will have to reflect the risk we’re taking.” So Israel says to the US “We would have spent $3bn shopping in the US, but our interest rate is so high it will only be $1bn.”
So, what does the US do? They put $3bn into an escrow fund to pay off the Israeli loan should anything untoward happen to them. With a secured loan, Israel gets a much lower interest rate and goes shopping with the whole $3bn – in the US, on US made goods and services. As Israel pays off its loan (as it has done – in full and on time since the founding of the country), the principal in escrow reverts back to the treasury.
Not a bad non-expenditure of tax payer funds in my book. Quite unlike breaking the law to continue funding the un-American UNFCCC that accepts terrorists as full members.
I encountered this illuminating story (link below) only yesterday. I hope that it is not too off-topic.
“A three-judge federal appeals court panel held a hearing March 1 on whether the U.N. should be held accountable for Haiti’s devastating (cholera) epidemic.
A federal district judge last year dismissed the class-action suit, ruling that international treaties immunize the U.N. from lawsuits. The plaintiffs appealed the lower court’s dismissal, resulting in this month’s hearing. The United States is defending the U.N., since the agency is headquartered in New York.
The plaintiffs contend the U.N. forfeited its legal immunity when it failed to launch an internal process to adjudicate the plaintiffs’ claims, as they say its own commitments require.
“The U.N.’s conditional immunity does not authorize impunity,” plaintiffs’ attorney Beatrice Lindstrom told the three-judge appeals panel.
The judges seemed to be struggling to find a way to provide some compensation to Haitian cholera victims.
Blain said the U.S. government “certainly recognizes that this is an unfortunate and tragic humanitarian catastrophe,” but asserted that the U.N. has “absolutely immunity … for a very important reason.””
So, anyway, there you have it. I think that we can safely conclude that the expressions “a law unto themselves” and “making it up as they go along” can be applied.
I agree that the U.N. has absolutely immunity for a very important reason.
This is correct – and the very important reason is, “so that it can do whatever the crap it likes and get away with it all of the time, without facing any consequences”.
Anyway, I just thought that I would share this very interesting story on a vaguely related topic:
http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2016/03/21/471256913/why-the-u-n-is-being-sued-over-haitis-cholera-epidemic
I think we need a new acronym.
How about CUNI, Catastrophic United Nations Involvement?
(Let them talk but they wouldn’t be able to do much damage without the funds to do so.)
I bet that B.P. would have liked to have had immunity from prosecution.
It’s pretty handy, when your organization screws up and causes environmental contamination or loss of life. Both in the case of the U.N.
And if people don’t think that they are in it for the money – then they should take a look at the top tier salaries and perks.
Trump and particularly Cruz ought to jump onto this. There is already a perception that Democrats abuse power (IRS hounding of political opponents) and have disdain for the law (Clinton email scandal). If Kerry fails to act, here’s another rolled gold example.
Cruz signed the letter. So did Rubio.
This seems like a good opportunity to kill the whole Paris scam at birth/
I’d don’t know if you have seen this. It seems like some underhand,
back-room trickery went on in the final text of the Paris agreement.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/18/us-and-china-lead-push-to-bring-paris-climate-deal-into-force-early
” Governments at the Paris climate meeting had initially set the start
date of the agreement in 2020 – with intense discussion over whether
that start date should be at the start or end of the year, according to
diplomats.
The 2020 date remained in the negotiating drafts almost until the very
end, the diplomats said. But unaccountably the final draft prepared by
France left out the entire clause. By that point, after a few late-night
negotiating sessions, a number of countries did not notice the omission. ”
Someone has pulled a fast one on the Paris treaty.
If that’s the kind of bad faith that is going on, time to Pull Out NOW.
If that was not the text that was negotiated why the heck are 135
rushing to sign it this week. Has no one noticed yet?
This isn’t a detail, it could have huge impact.
I would have thought that was good reason pull out of the signing process. Maybe the said senators would like to to get on the case. …
This seems like a good opportunity to kill the whole Paris s-c-a-m at birth
I’d don’t know if you have seen this. It seems like some underhand,
back-room trickery went on in the final text of the Paris agreement.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/18/us-and-china-lead-push-to-bring-paris-climate-deal-into-force-early
” Governments at the Paris climate meeting had initially set the start
date of the agreement in 2020 – with intense discussion over whether
that start date should be at the start or end of the year, according to
diplomats.
The 2020 date remained in the negotiating drafts almost until the very
end, the diplomats said. But unaccountably the final draft prepared by
France left out the entire clause. By that point, after a few late-night
negotiating sessions, a number of countries did not notice the omission. ”
Someone has pulled a fast one on the Paris treaty.
If that’s the kind of bad faith that is going on, time to Pull Out NOW.
If that was not the text that was negotiated why the heck are 135
rushing to sign it this week. Has no one noticed yet?
This isn’t a detail, it could have huge impact.
I would have thought that was good reason pull out of the signing process. Maybe the said senators would like to to get on the case. …
going to forward this letter to Patty Pork Murray and Maria Cantspell – being stuck with these two here in WA, and demand an answer. Thanks W !
For years, the Republican controlled House has had the power to defund a myriad of illegal actions taken by this administration — and they promised they would in order to their gain power — but they never have.
Therefore, I predict the illegal funds will flow, and Republicans will do nothing, apart from maybe adding this issue to some mailing in which they beg for donations and votes.
I recommend all readers of this post and discussion email your US Senators to defund the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and all connected entities, if your Senator was not a signer of the letter to Kerry., contact them and ask your friends to do likewise. The more emails they get on this issues, the more they will be empowered to act (Squeaky wheel syndrome).
George Devries Klein, PhD,PG, FGSA
Go whole hog, defund the UN in total.
More amateur ”signts” hour posturing. Don’t tell people what or how they’re supposed to say something. You’re nobody – you don’t possess some special right to dictate the terms of other peoples’ conversations.
If you want to speak, ignore this scientifically illiterate clod’s constant message shaping and say it.
[Reply: Please make clear who you are replying/referring to. -mod]
Erica April 20, 2016 at 4:19 pm
Erica, I’m not “telling” anyone how to say something. I’m not “dictating” what people can’t do. I’m not defining what they are “supposed to say”. That’s your paranoid fantasy. REREAD WHAT YOU QUOTED OF MY WORDS UNTIL YOU UNDERSTAND THEM!!
What I made was a polite REQUEST, one designed to avoid misunderstandings and confusion. And because it was a REQUEST, and not an order as you misunderstood it, you or anyone is certainly free to ignore my polite request.
And if you do so, I’m also free to ignore the comment in question, or to point out that you are increasing confusion and misunderstanding.
Now, I prefer to assume the best about people until I’m shown otherwise, so I assume that on some level you want to reduce confusion and misunderstanding, not increase it … I hope you won’t prove me wrong in future.
Regards,
w.
PS—As to whether I’m “nobody”, I was born yesterday, so how would I know?
@Erica.
Is that the best you can do watermelon? You really need to practice your trolling if you’re gon’na make here.
“you don’t possess some special right to dictate the terms of other peoples’ conversations.”
Ah yes, the common problem of politicians and others of their ilk; where they are elected based on so many promises and then do just the opposite in back room buy outs when in office. Nice to know that you approve of such behavior.
“You’re nobody – you don’t possess some special right to dictate the terms of other peoples’ conversations.”
What an ill-considered rant, ironic or what.
If you’re “somebody”, I am happy to be nobody.
Now go and take your nice BSE medicine dear, there’s a good girl!
I would be surprised if the U.S. Congress were able to cutoff funds for this.
Obama would certainly veto any bill he recieved, and the GOP is so afraid of being called a racist for opposing Obama, that they will let it slide, just like they have done, ever since Obama got into Office.
The Left has played the race card very well. It was especially easy for them because the Republicans surrendered before the fight even began. The Republicans want no part of being called a racist, and will sell the country down the river to avoid it.
“Victim Cards” won’t be a problem with a President Trump. Trump will have to stick to the letter of the law, and listen to Congress, or face crippling opposition, from both parties.
I’m not sure if Hillary could succesfully play the “female” card. Although I’m sure she would try it. I’m just not sure how much sympathy Hillary engenders in people anymore. The victimizer doesn’t play a victim very well.
I think her past is catching up with her. That’s why she is having such a hard time putting Bernie away.
When Trump gets to debate her, he will drive her negatives into the ground. I’m looking forward to this one.
I can hear the outraged Liberal News Media now, going ballistic over Trump’s attacks on “poor Hillary”. Most Republicans would be intimidated into submission and silence by such an attack. It won’t phase Trump.
Money does not flow automatically to the Administration’s programs. Disbursement of funds must be authorized by Congress, and in fact all spending bills must originate in the House. They just have to not fund such expenditures and then grow a pair and a spine and mean it.
“They just have to not fund such expenditures and then grow a pair and a spine and mean it.”
Good luck with that.
Sadly, the Republican leadership (and I choke when have to use that term) seems to be incapable of any actions which would be consistent with the separation of powers which the US Constitution sets forth.
A question: can the POTUS veto a “law”? Hasn’t it already passed a veto opportunity? This should be about enforcement of an existing law, right? Peanuts from Canada.
Thanks, TA. As I noted in my earlier post, the US indeed cut off funds for UNESCO for exactly this reason, because they accepted Palestine as a state. The US had to, it’s the law. Whether they will in this case is unknown, but there is precedent.
w.
We can hope they will follow the law and precedent and cut off funding. I wouldn’t be optimistic though… Then again, maybe I’m too pessimistic.
However the severance of funds had no effect on UNESCO’s programmes that I am aware of . Will the action requested by the senators have any effect on the UN climate policy ? that is one point not immediately obvious from the comments made above.
hopefully they can follow the law….but this administration and the bureaucracy seem intent on presenting both congress and citizens with end runs so far gone that the effort to contain them becomes meaningless. The courts can’t keep up with the nimble pace of developments. At least in this case there is precedent
“I’m just not sure how much sympathy Hillary engenders in people anymore.”
I surmise that because of the what she had to put up with in Bill, that she mostly hates men in general (and her treatment of her own SS would back this up). And since almost all that she has to work with are of that gender, it would probably cause congressional lockups like with Obummer and result in a lot more supportive laws/executive actions and lawsuits for her kind. If she could, she might even declare that the US culture rightfully belongs to Amazonians. I, for one, stand in fear…..
You *should* stand in fear. Hillary and Bill stole the White House furniture, the last time she was in there. 🙂 I think she had to repay something like $250,000 back to the federal government after she got caught.
“Do not allow the dreaded thread drift to convert this into a referendum on the Israel-Palestine perennial dispute…”
==========
I always took you for a realist, not an optimist.
Sheesh, I know better.
Here we go, mods get ready.
u.k(us) April 20, 2016 at 5:59 pm
Here’s the deal. It’s two-fold. First, some people will indeed honor my request and leave the ancient Middle East hatreds out of the thread.
Others will not honor the request … but because I have asked them already not to do it, they are already in breach of decorum. As a result, I can then remind them of the request and ask them to desist.
But if I hadn’t made the request, then neither one of those things would be true, and I’d be in a much worse position.
So yes, I know it won’t solve the problem, you were right, I am a realist … and as a result, I go for what I can realistically get—a reduction in initial occurrences, and a case to make and a place to stand regarding those who do offend.
I’ve remarked before that in general I play a deep and a long game … this is just another example.
Best regards,
w.
We’re on the same team, even if our methods differ.
Let’s not call it a “game” though, eh ?
u.k(us) April 20, 2016 at 6:58 pm
Ah, my friend, for me it is the Great Game, the game of life, and I want to play it as honorably and well and as long and deep and wisely as I can …
w.
george e. smith April 20, 2016 at 5:37 pm
George, the law is already written and passed and signed into law. Read the letter, it’s made clear there. They are simply notifying Kerry about the existing law, and that they want to see it enforced.
w.
“…and that they want to see it enforced.”
They need to add an “or else”. ie No more money approved to fund their voters. Period. (Including PBS and the … whatever they call the endowment for the arts.).
This is serious. Time to get serious.
Some reelections may become in jeopardy, but who voted for you so you just so you could be reelected?
To paraphrase something a genuine leader with his rep on the line said, “Damn the innuendos! Full speed ahead!”
Well yes Willis, I know as you said there already a law on the books prohibiting US funding of ANY UN agency that includes that unmentionable piece of land as a member.
I was simply suggesting that the Congress could emphasize that fact by passing a specific new law mentioning this particular climate funding, as being contrary to already existing law, and handing that to the President to sign or not.
That would at least make it plain that it is already illegal under existing law, which he should enforce.
In any case, can’t the house simply defund that particular item in the budget ??
G
Maybe Palestine’s membership of this august body charged with saving the planet from the detrimental effects of greenhouse gases result in less rockets being fired into their neighbor’s back yard.
Willis:
Thanks for the followup, and good call on the original post. I await developments with anticip-p-p-p-p-pation.
templedelamour April 20, 2016 at 6:36 pm
You want inhumane? Spending money on the UNFCCC to deprive the poor of inexpensive energy is currently causing sorrow, sickness, endless labor, and death around the planet. That is inhumane on a global scale affecting billions of people.
So I don’t care what excuse we can use to stop that shafting of the global poor, I’ll use it … and the fact that your feelings are all hurt by the flimsiness of the excuse?
Not my problem. If hurt feelings are the cost to stop that colossal inhumanity to the half of the world that lives on a few bucks a day, I’ll pay it any time, even if it’s my own feelings.
Regards,
w.
Thank you, Willis . . It seems real clear to me th at you hold the moral high-ground . .
Very well said, Willis!
If I recall correctly the partition of Palestine and Korean peninsula are right in there as the first efforts of the newly constituted UN at “peace keeping”. Those efforts have been such a resounding failure that the UN now wishes to control the economic and energy policies of the world to demonstrate for us all that the only form of economy MUST be malthusian.
I think it unlikely that the UNFCCC was unaware of this US law. Assuming that is true, I think it even more unlikely that they would have proceeded without some assurance that their funding would not be negatively impacted. The UNFCCC is first and foremost interested in their own well being, They seem to think there is a net benefit to themselves, so they are forging ahead while the world’s poorest of the poor suffer the most from their policies.
Thanks, David. Given that the US has already stopped funding UNESCO based on the very same law, I don’t see how they could have been given assurances, or why they would believe them … although those folks would likely say anything.
In any case, it’s the law, now it just has to be enforced.
w.
In any case, it’s the law, now it just has to be enforced
I fear the politics have changed since 2011. Obama has been running circles around both the law and congress (in my view) for his entire second term. Climate change is a centre piece of his “legacy” and poking the Israeli president in the eye at the same time is just an added bonus for him.
This is a case where I would be very glad to be completely wrong.
The UNESCO thing got a lot of attention in Israeli media. This, not a ripple (that I have seen). Something’s afoot.
And again… I hope I am completely wrong.
“Given that the US has already stopped funding UNESCO based on the very same law, I don’t see how they could have been given assurances, ”
Seriously? Mr. Kerry just tells them, “don’t worry about it. We control a slush fund and you’ll be covered one way or another.”