Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Tyrants and dictators, shady international arms dealers, brutal leaders of broken, basket case nations like President for Life Robert Mugabe, will be celebrating today; President Obama just transferred $500 million of US Taxpayer’s money into the new UN Climate Fund.
According to The Guardian;
Obama administration pays out $500m to climate change project
The first chunk of a $3bn commitment made at the Paris climate talks ‘shows the US stands squarely behind climate commitments’, the State Department said
The Obama administration has made a first installment on its $3bn pledge to help poor countries fight climate change – defying Republican opposition to the president’s environmental plan.
The $500m payment to the Green Climate Fund was seen as critical to shoring up international confidence in Barack Obama’s ability to deliver on the pledges made at the United Nations’ climate change conference in Paris in late 2015.
…
Administration officials said the initial $500m payment to the Green Climate Fund demonstrated that Obama would follow through on the promises of last December’s Paris climate agreement – despite February’s setback at the supreme court and threats by Republican presidential candidates to dismantle Obama’s agenda.
“Today, the United States provided a $500m grant to the Green Climate Fund,” a state department official said. “This grant is the first step toward meeting the president’s commitment of $3bn to the GCF, and shows that the United States stands squarely behind our international climate commitments.”
$500 million is only a drop in the ocean, compared to the FY 2016 $22 trillion total US public debt. However, given the severe and rapidly worsening state of US government finances, a more productive use of the President’s remaining time in office, might be to find ways to cut expenditure, instead of thinking up new ways to give federal money away to people who hate America.
UPDATE by Anthony: Uh, oh.
State Dept defiant on $500M to UN climate fund: ‘Did Congress authorize the Green Climate Fund? No.’
Asked by Senator Cory Gardner if Congress approved the US State Department to divert $500 million to the United Nation’s Green Climate Fund, Deputy Secretary Heather Higgenbottom says: “Did Congress authorize the Green Climate Fund? No. […] We’ve reviewed the authority and the process under which we can do it, and our lawyers and we have determined that we have the ability to do it, and I pledge to you and to other members we’d be happy to provide that legal analysis and the additional details.”
Senate Foreign Relations Committee March 8, 2016
Write Your Congressman. I have a very hard time understanding how Congress gave up their control over the budget process and allow this waste of taxpayers money to occur.
Americans have the government they want. It just isn’t the government the country’s founders wanted for us.
And judging by what is going on in lieu of the usual four year Presidential election process; it’s a cross between the WWF and Saturday night Live; well maybe SNL is too high class; perhaps The Gong Show. And that is World Wrestling Federation; not Wildlife fraud.
All you thoughtful citizens who wanted to be a part of history, and help elect the Nation’s first Black President (not counting Bill Clinton) and even did it twice, why don’t you complete the process, and give us the Nation’s first Woman President; and likely the first jail bird President.
In this era of Too Big to Fail, even the USA is not too big to fail.
G
Well, from what I’ve gotten from actual people who are supporting Trump, this is exactly the nonsense they want to stop, arbitrary power-grabs without oversight or authorization to comply with a treaty in all but name explicitly for the purpose of sidestepping Congressional approval
If the man wasn’t so vile, I’d support it completely.
Could this become an election campaign issue? I doubt it .. the GOP is too narrowly focused.
“If the man wasn’t so vile”
Vile is relative. If it comes to maintaining American culture I’m all for it (past culture, not Mexican gangs/siestas and Islamics taking over the streets to pray 5x a day as in Europe) . Ok so he’s sometimes crude (which identifies with the “unprotected”, see Noonan article) but at least he’s not (so far) one of the mealy mouthed politicians presently residing in congress or the White House.
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/139119223061/why-does-trump-terrify-people
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/07/5-reasons-why-trump-would-be-a-better-president-than-you-thought/
Trump and the Rise of the Unprotected (Peggy Noonan):
http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/227774/
http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/migrants-committed-more-than-200000-crimes-in-germany-in-just-two-years
https://youtu.be/gGEx0gRI3AY
BFL, I understand, and I agree with your points (though I don’t see what’s wrong with the Muslim prayer habits. It’s in many ways less intrusive than the Blue Laws that we are still throwing off).
The problems I have with Trump are his
1: Disrespect for any semblance of decorum.
2: Willful ignorance or willingness to provide a boldface lie in the matter of citizenship through his challenges to Cruz’s eligibility to run.
3: Deliberate spreading of fear to trump up support.
4: His history of multiple financial bankruptcies on his businesses.
I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt until #2. However, any person entering politics who doesn’t know the birthright citizenship requirements after the mess 8 years ago is just ignorant or deliberately lying, and neither of these are acceptable.
If you don’t think #1 is important, think of Trump attempting his standard approach with Czar Putin. We would probably leave that meeting in a world war.
The problem with Trump is that no matter what he is saying now, he was saying something different just a few years ago.
So if we elect Trump, which one will we get, the culture warrior who made is miraculous appearance in the months prior to the primary season, or will we get the Trump that existed prior to that “reformation”?
But if we elect anyone else, we get gov’t insiders who put us in the current predicament.
“though I don’t see what’s wrong with the Muslim prayer habits”
Here’s a clue (common in parts of Europe):
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Observer/Pix/pictures/2015/1/10/1420893125894/Muslims-praying-Elise-Vin-012.jpg
Now if this was done by the normal population, they would be arrested. Islam is not “just” a religion, it is also a political force and a thoroughly unchangeable repressive ideology that requires termination for those wanting to leave it. “Normal” religions can be assimilated, not so this one. However, it may appear safe enough for present cultures with low population levels, but that won’t be so when their percentages increase to a “tipping point” and there are easy examples of that to find on the European continent. Police in London and parts of France, already refer to heavily Muslim portions as “no go” zones.
I’ll go with Steyn on this one:
http://www.amazon.com/America-Alone-The-World-Know/dp/1596985275
“who doesn’t know the birthright citizenship requirements”
Since this has never been specifically settled by the Supreme Court there is still some question depending on what lawyer is asked.
http://www.salon.com/2016/01/22/ted_cruz_has_a_very_real_birther_problem_the_law_is_not_settled_but_the_history_is/
“bankruptcies”
As compared to maybe the uncountable gross mistakes in D.C. At least he appears to be able to learn from his mistakes.
Trump has given every indication that he is more comfortable working with these insiders than he is with outsiders.
He’s been friends with these insiders for years. He’s contributed heavily to the campaigns of these insiders.
He’s bragged about his ability to call up these insiders and request favors.
About a month ago these insiders declared that Trump was someone they could “make deals” with.
Once again. Do we go with Trump is saying now, while he wants the votes of the discontented? Or do we go with what he’s said for years?
“He’s bragged about his ability to call up these insiders and request favors.”
As a business man/lobbyist he made deals with congressional insiders, as is routinely done at present. So as prez he would owe nothing to the outside lobbyists but could still receive favors and a working relationship from congress. Isn’t making deals with the president with minimal lobbyist/corporate input exactly what is needed?
I’d thank you not to generalize. A lot of Americans do not “have the government they want.”
Write to your Congressman…………
Thank God we elected Cory Gardner to the Senate from Colorado. That State Dept woman Higgenbottom should be marched out of the hearing in handcuffs
Ted Cruz is the best man to restore the Constitution as the prevailing authority in our government, especially the 10th amendment.
The 45th Presidency of the Republic needs to start with the greatest firing of Federal bureaucrats in the history of Washington DC. Flush the rats from the sewer, kill Federal program funding, and return power to the States where it rightfully belongs
Unfortunately we would first have to get Congress to repeal/replace the Civil Service Act. Even if you find a civil servant with their hands in the cookie jar, have pictures and seven witnesses that they murdered a homeless man on the grate outside the office, and video of them throwing a regulated citizen out the fifth story office window, it still takes 6 months to a year to fire a federal employee. For mere incompetence it takes them reaching retirement age!
“Write Your Congressman”
I’ve just written “Your Congressman” and it doesn’t seem to have worked. There are such things a prepositions. Try writing to your congressman. That may help
“That may help”
Help what? You didn’t finish your sentence?
Congress did not give up the power as indicated in the video at the end. The tyrant illegally took power and the system via the courts is so slow it is impossible to correct the issue in a timely manner. Of course packing the courts with progressives will assure the President unlimited power if they are of the same mind. Remember Roosevelt tried to pack the Supreme Court to accomplish his goals over Congress.
The President has lost numerous court cases some won by Cruz before the supreme court, but by the time the case is settled it is often too late since the damage is done (coal mines are bankrupt or coal plants shutdown). Also upon loosing, the Administration pursues a a slightly alternative course to accomplish the same objective and the battle starts from the beginning.
The founding fathers did not foresee a “dictator” getting elected that could bypass the system.
Your answers as to what and when may be found at this link:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2017/assets/fact_sheets/Advancing%20Clean%20Energy%20Domestically%20and%20Abroad%20and%20Taking%20Action%20on%20Climate%20Change.pdf
As to why and where the authority comes from – well I guess when you control the government, you can say where ‘your’ money goes….kind of like the cookie jar in the kitchen with that hard-earned rainy day money…except that money has (or will) come out of American taxpayer pockets.
Wish I could just conjure up a pet project budget, grab your money, and fling it around wherever I, as King of the Country see fit.
Sorry, just going through a dream-like fantasy here..
Regards,
MCR
MCR
I’m not sure what your point is but Congress has never passed 1 of Obama’s budget proposals and not 1 democrat has voted for his proposals when they are is put up for vote. Congress has the final responsibility to pass a budget proposal which the President can pass or veto.
His most recent budget proposal was not passed by Congress, the final one was negotiated with Congress.
The President has the responsibility to spend according to the final passed budget, and moving money around has limits as the Congressman said in the video. The problem is that Congress seems to have limited power to enforce their agreements except through the courts. President Nixon decided not to spend some money on a particular budgeted item, but lost in court.
Michael Roberts.
“The problem is that Congress seems to have limited power to enforce their agreements except through the courts.”
Well, the problem is that Congress refuses to hold people accountable. In theory, the secretary of state serves at both the discretion of the president AND the congress. Congress has the ability to impeach cabinet members, it just happens even less frequently than presidents.
And why? You need 2/3 quorum to even hold a hearing. In our political state as it is, nearly 1/2 of members would never show, let alone agree to impeach for defying the will of congress. And that’s why congress is pointless.
Except of course that they did foresee a dictator possibly getting elected. It was the major preoccupation of their deliberations, and the rationale for the doctrine of ‘separation of powers’.
Might I ask, if it is not too rude of me; but just WHY is it that mrs/ms/whatever Heather Higginbottom (HH) is actually a HHH ??
What the hey did she do to get appended with a hon.
And I can guess from the look of that battle axe in the picture with her, that ‘hon’ does NOT stand for ‘honey’.
But I though that titles of nobility were prohibited in the USA.
All of us are just ordinary ‘hey you’ individuals, even Sen. Mrs, check bouncer Barbara Boxer Ma’am .
So howcum, the US State Department (was that Mrs. Hillary (named after Sir Edmund) Clinton, who behoneyed Mrs/ Higginbottom ; is handing out titles willy nilly ??
Misogyny much, George?
..I can’t wait to find out which dept. he stole the money from ! It was not approved by congress …
Looks just like the academy awards. Did you ever see such a culturally diverse coffee Klatch in your life ??
G
Not to mention the Lenny DiCrappy-o facial expression on his diety-deluded visage above….
I just read an article that Canada is getting ready to pass a law that will require half of all movies made in that country to have female directors.
Expect the nascent film industry up there to come to a screeching halt.
Either that or expect the creation of shadow director positions, so that a female can take the titled position, while someone else does the actual work.
Much the same way companies create shell corporations run by minorities in order to get around the minority set-aside provisions.
I do not understand why congress does not stop this.
JBP
Exactly. And that is a huge reason Trump is so popular. He actually says the childish, obscene, disgusting stuff that lots of voters would love to say to so-called “elites”.
Problem is, I think Trump would govern more-or-less like Obama: thin-skinned, petty, inexperienced, uncooperative with ANYBODY, lots of executive actions, facts-don’t matter, blah, blah, blah.
Chip,
I agree completely! That is my main concern is that he will do the same things for the same self-serving reasons–and what have we gained? Besides–if he is the candidate then Hilary will win anyway.
If State has US$500 million to give away for something unauthorized by Congress, then the budget of the State Department should be slashed by at least that much.
Because they are spineless and not doing what they promised and not what they are supposed to do.
Hence the Republican rebellion.
They do not stop this because we have one political party that agrees with it and doesn’t care about how it trashes the US Constitution, and another party that is too worried about “the optics of impeaching the first black president” to press the issue as it should be.
Part of why I don’t worry about Trump trying the pen and phone technique is that both parties in Congress would impeach him so fast his head would spin. With him I worry about nepotism and crony capitalism since those are his bread and butter. Now with Hillary, I worry because the same party would be all in for her abuses of the constitution and the other party would be wetting their pants about impeaching the “first woman president”.
Congress cannot stop the President as long as there is a complicit media supporting anything the President does. Also the court system is slow, and the Attorney General promises to investigate wrongdoing but does nothing.
OWEN,
You see the potential for either future very clearly. The damage that Hillary could do is much greater than that of Trump (or anyone else) for the reasons you stated.
OwenM, when your car is heading for the cliff at 100mph, promising to slow it down to 90mph is nothing to cheer about.
MarkM,
True, but that is why I am more of a Cruz supporter. Trump would cut deals with the devil himself if it gets him public attention and money.
Unfortunately the politicians are not the real problem, but the public that elects the same dirty dealing dogs back to Washington every two or six years. Many who know better feel overwhelmed and drop out, leaving the gimme types in corporate America, the unions, the farms, and the inner cities to select the candidates that will keep the gravy coming.
All a conservative president can do is use the bully pulpit to try to cajole the people into doing the right thing for freedom and independence, and place a big stop sign out for legislation that makes things worse. They can’t even promise to slow us down to 90, just keep us from going over at 110. The people are the only ones who can change this and it may mean tarring and feathering, and running folks out of town on a rail may have to come back into vogue for corrupt local election officials.
meant MarkW
And Robert, that is a citizen rebellion; not a Republican rebellion. It is republican ineptness that is the prime cause of the rebellion. And yes we have more than enough thoughtful citizens, who will sit around and watch Empress ( not impress) Hillary ascend the throne; just to be a part of history.
To be written up in a best seller; “The Rise and Fall of The United States of America.”
Published by Hunan Press.
G
Really….you actually think that congress reads much of anything that they approve anymore, and most of what they do read doesn’t include the last minute deals that most of them don’t see and also the lawyerly writing style that can be interpreted 10 different ways (which is no doubt done on purpose). So most probably it is allowed in the budget…somewhere… especially after the not so ethical lawyers finish with their interpretation for the benefit of the not so ethical prez.
Seriously. Isn’t there ANY way this can be blocked, vetoed, filibustered, or something? Jeezaz H. fracking CRIPES!!!~
The money was apparently transferred from the Economic Support Funds, so it’s just money that was already destined for off-shore.
“Economic Support Funds (ESF) is economic aid designated to promote economic or political stability in areas where the United States has special strategic interests.”
“The executive branch is responsible for policy decisions and justifications for ESF use, including country eligibility and funding levels.”
As a Canadian, I have not contributed directly, although we have been shipping discounted oil for some time to the US.
mebbe commented: “…The money was apparently transferred from the Economic Support Funds…”
Conjecture or fact? Is there even $.5B in this fund to begin with and none of it used so far?
markl,
I’m writing from rural British Columbia, so you can imagine that I am not intimate with US foreign aid allocations.
However, Eric posted the video of the Foreign Relations Committee hearings and Heather Higgenbottom identified the source of funds.
The quotes I gave are from the Security Assistance Monitor site, where I learn that the ESF has funds of 6.25 billion.
The 500 million is just the first instalment but it’s a standard maneuver, for political reasons, to rename and re-target money that’s already been allocated. It’s having your cake and eating it.
And going farther than mebbe, the Obama administration has identified (wrongly but the law is silent on this) climate change as a major factor affecting political stability of the developing world, thus allocating this half a billion dollars is proper within the poorly defined framework of the congressional authorization.
So while I greatly disagree with this use of taxpayer money, my elected representatives by not passing a real budget in 8 years (thanks Senator Reid), have enabled this abuse of the taxpayer.
(note: for each of the last 6 years, the House of Representatives has passed all the budget bills – the relevant Senate committees have passed all but three of the required bills to the floor for the last 6 years, for the first 4 years Senator Reid simply refused to schedule the bills for a floor vote, and for the last two years has threatened to prevent cloture votes and Senator McConnell simply folded rather than force Senator Reid to vote the bills down. Thus the omnibus spending bills that simply grow last years expenditures at 5% [I might be off on the growth number] without ever looking at how the money was actually being spent. Reid did this to prevent Senators from having to face constituents with their actual positions on spending programs)
Reblogged this on flogage and commented:
I thought congress had to appropriate funds. I wonder what slush fund these came from.
You beat me by one minute !!! LOL
Ha, it changed ?
They relinquished that obligation just as soon as they got into office.
G
Page 2,315 (and 1/2) of the most recent “comprehensive” authorization bill. The one NO ONE in congress read before they passed it and took the ‘leader’s’ word for it – “trust us”.
This is NOT sarcasm! (but the page number is probably wrong)
Was that when Hillary bought all that crystal?
http://nypost.com/2010/03/15/hills-nub-of-u-s-companies-in-purchase-of-crystal-stemware-is-clear/
This story is incomplete. This transfer is covered by which congressional budget authorization? What does the term ‘grant’ mean? Who authorized the President to issue ‘grants’? Earth to Paul Ryan, what is going on here?
How soon you forget. The house gave Obama a blank check as soon as they got in control of the purse strings. He’s doing what they authorized him to do.
G
If you watch the video one would concluded that Congress does not agree that the 1/2 Billion $ transfer of funds was withing the Congressional authorized funding. Obama want to blame congress and many are falling into that trap. Is he legally bypassing congress? After watching the video do you agree with the Congressman who questions the legality or the Administration that the transfer was authorized? I thought the Administration official was fudging or lying. Am I wrong? I see the problem as one where the Congress has little recourse to correct inappropriate actions by the Administration on many fronts including IRS, EPA, lack of border security, etc. except impeachment which is difficult given complicity in the MSM. Go here for another example: http://www.azfamily.com/story/31416401/sheriff-babeu-obama-has-handcuffed-border-patrol
And some of the rest of the story:
UNEPFI/UNEP Finance Initiative
List of signatories: http://www.unepfi.org/signatories
Note the banks, insurance and investment companies around the world.
Putting over the climate change agenda requires huge sums of money from governments and financial institutions.
Obama made a direct grant and the use of carbon taxes and/or cap-and-trade are also sources of funding for the renewables industry and those engaged in the climate agenda.
Check the list for the U.K., U.S., Australia and Canada for participating parties.
Green bonds and pension funds are other sources of funding.
There isn’t enough private sector money to fund the climate agenda so government sources of money are required.
I wonder how many hungry American children that would have fed ?
Or infrastructure repaired.
Could have rebuilt the Northeast corridor railroads from the ties up.
New waterpipes for Flint?
So Obama honored an international commitment? Shame on him….
No it was not a commitment, Congress must ratify treaties and yes it is a treaty as well as appropriate funds. Presidents do not have that power. Should be an impeachable offense but not with the wimps in congress!
Here’s the problem from a legal standpoint. The Department of State Spending Authorization in the Omnibus Spending Bill has a provision for (I think the figure is) $6.9 Billion for Economic Stability Grants which are given as determined by the executive branch to enhance the economic and political stability of developing nations. The president has (wrongly) determined that Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change is a threat to stability of the developing world so has authorized the Department of State to grant this money to the fund as enhancement to global stability.
The fact that it is all based on a fraud is completely secondary. The primary concern is that congress thought it was a good idea to give almost 7 billion dollars to some bureaucrats to determine how to spend without congressional insight. I mean really, a billion dollars here and a billion dollars there and pretty soon you are talking real money.
He just added it to the tab our children and grandchildren, ad infinitum, will never be able to repay.
What a philanthropist we have ruining our country! You must be so proud.
Right? We’re even bribing the Iranians “to be our friends,” kind of like the kid who stole your lunch money. Or the way we paid off the Tripoli pirates back in 1813!
No it wasn’t. It takes the US Senate to make an “International” commitment.
G
George
Unfortunately, not so. Currently the USA has 3 types of international agreements: treaties, congressional-executive agreements, and sole-executive agreements. Only treaties require Senate approval.
Unfortunately (bend over, here it comes) international law considers all 3 to be treaties.
Yea, I know – this is just like Animal Farm.
Doesn’t matter what international law says. What matters is what the US constitution says.
And only Senate approved Treaties are enforceable under the US Constitution.
Says nothing about any other ersatz informal arrangements.
G
Simon, regardless of whether you support the outcome, you should be concerned about the process.
If being President means you have arbitrary power to write gigantic cheques on the bank account of the American people, what do you plan to do, if a future president starts writing cheques for causes which you do not support?
Eric.
I guess it has to be said I do agree with him on this one, so it is much easier to stomach, but at some point you have to accept that he is the elected president, he was acting within his powers (otherwise he would have been stopped), and so like it or not, this is democracy in action. The other option is far worse.
I doubt this matter is over yet Simon. And if you are saying you support the new presidential power to arbitrarily write half billion dollar cheques, don’t be surprised if that democracy thing starts to look a little shaky in the next decade.
Eric,
He did not “arbitrarily” write anything. I believe your own article stated (I know they are not your words) he was delivering on a pledge made to the United Nations. That is far different thing to just randomly writing a cheque.
Simon commented: “…He did not “arbitrarily” write anything. …. he was delivering on a pledge made to the United Nations. …”
He made an arbitrary pledge therefore the “delivery” is arbitrary. His “pledge” as you call it was soundly defeated in Congress already.
It was Obama’s decision to make that pledge, and his decision to write the cheque.
So in my view this matter still qualifies as the president arbitrarily writing a cheque, on his authority alone.
Mmmm, then will Kruz or Trump or Rubio be being arbitrary (should they become president) when they ignore the opinion of the entire worldwide scientific community which states man is (to some degree) the cause of recent warming. I mean could that be more arbitrary/irresponsible?
At least Obama signalled loud and clear his position, it is backed by the science and the contributions were negotiated and agreed at a United Nations convention. I don’t believe there is anything arbitrary here at all. Certainly no surprises.
Simon commented: “…and the contributions were negotiated and agreed at a United Nations convention….”
You’re defending the indefensible. Obama has no authority to promise money to anyone/thing/entity without congressional approval. He did not get the approval so to put it bluntly he lied to the UN.
MarkL
“Obama has no authority to promise money to anyone/thing/entity without congressional approval.”
Well he seems to have done very well then because he just did it.
Simon commented: “….Well he seems to have done very well then because he just did it…..”
No, he just said it. I believe he knows very well it won’t happen and like I said before this is purely a grandstand bluff. It remains to be seen if he “did it”.
markl
Correct me if I am wrong but I think you will find the payment has been made…..
“At one point Republicans insisted that the Paris agreement be submitted to the Senate for approval before any funds were released – before quietly relenting during budget negotiations last December.”
Like most leftists, Simon apparently approves of dictatorships.
markl
“Like most leftists, Simon apparently approves of dictatorships.”
Surely you are kidding? You can’t be that blind? You want to see a dictator, vote for Trump. Trust me he is no leftist and nor am I. Voted for both sides I have.
You like having a president who can do whatever you want him to do without having to worry about those pesky people. Sounds like a dictator to me.
As to Trump being a leftist, communists routinely refer to socialists as conservatives.
I judge the Donald by the policies he supports, and until last year, they were solidly left wing.
Persons with NO principles “vote for both sides”
Hedging your bets is the same thing.
G
george.e.smith
“Persons with NO principles “vote for both sides””
What a load of bollocks. A thinking person does not accept that any party has the answers. I listen to to what they say before they vote. I don’t care what colour their tie is. Which is why I am here. Even though I disagree with some of the articles here (and certainly do this one) it challenges my thinking, and I think that is healthy. You want to try it some time rather than just blindly accepting a political position.
george.e.smith
“Persons with NO principles “vote for both sides””
What a load of bollocks. A thinking person does not accept that any party has the answers. I listen to what they say before I vote. I don’t care what colour their tie is. Which is why I am here. Even though I disagree with some of the articles here (and certainly do this one) it challenges my thinking, and I think that is healthy. You want to try it some time rather than just blindly accepting a political position.
How could he become the chairman of the green fund after he leaves White House if did not contribute into it?
That is the job he wants when is no longer president of the USA.
Maybe he will take our (Canadian) prime minister with him.
But this is just wishful thinking on my part.
Come on Simon, you know better than this–it was not a commitment! It was a “I want to do do it therefore I ‘ll agree even though I am not really authorized but since no one will stop me, who needs authorization?”
Another fool who has no idea how the govt works.
Obama has no authority to commit the US to anything all by himself.
It’s a lot like me agreeing that posters named Simon should buy everyone else lunch on Wednesdays, then contacting your bank to pay for this lunch.
Except I’m not the president of the United States.
So what, you approve of the way this president flouts the laws, so long as he is advancing an agenda that you agree with.
markl
“So what, you approve of the way this president flouts the laws, so long as he is advancing an agenda that you agree with.”
No law flouted. If there were he would not have been able to act as he did. And yes I approve of his actions. Eminently sensible fair to support those nations most up against it with CW. I think he will be remembered for his commitment to the planets future and I applaud it. Just saying.
Obviously, State didn’t need the money to fund our embassies and such, therefore the State Dept. has just identified a $500 million which they won’t need to run operations, next year.
Take it out of Obama’s vacation fund.
Cut his vacation fund in half? Think of all the golf courses that would have to close.
“At this point, what difference does it make?”. Orange is the new Black.
Any bets that the “legal analysis” will be heavy on precedent but stop short the the original “precedent”, the US Constitution?
This is the norm for a socialist. He will have his snout in the Global Warming trough when he leaves the White House I guarantee it. Our Julia Gillard set great examples of this type of rort.
Exactly.
Slightly off topic, but many governments waste money, the State Labour Government of Victoria Australia cancelled a contract (signed up by prior Liberal Govt) to build a much need freeway. It cost $1 billion to cancel the contract. We paid $1,000,000,000 to not build a road.
The shame of it is that virtually NONE of the 3 billoin will go to ‘green causes’ it wi line the pockets of the very corrupt UN bureaucracy officials who have zero accountability.
Just when you start to think “Obama could not be any more stupid”, he becomes more stupid.
“Obama could not be any more stupid”
Don’t fool yourself, he’s not stupid. That money will find it’s way back to Obama, follow the trail.
All citizens are guaranteed “a republican form of government” under Article IV section 4 of the Constitution. Republicanism refers in the first instance to the master-slave relationship between the people and their government: the people are master, the government is the slave, representing the will of the people and serving at the pleasure of the people.
This funding for green climate advocacy is an attempt to invert that master-slave relationship by using the taxpayers’ own money to indoctrinate the electorate into agreeing with instead of opposing the will of their representatives. Instead of representatives representing the will of the people the try to alter the will of the people to confirm with their own. It is akin to Obama’s attempt to import a new electorate, one more to his liking, by intentionally collapsing our southern border. Instead of us having the power to kick him out, he is in effect trying to kick us out.
If the guarantee clause were properly enforced these thoroughly I republican and anti-democratic gambits would be held to be illegal.
Please stop this ignorance. A Republic is a state that is not a monarchy. It can be democratic, despotic, theocratic or any other form.
Democracy is a form of government
Learn the difference.
…which is not practised anywhere in the world, not even in the US of A.
I guess that’s why the founders who wrote the Constitution spent so much time arguing about the pros and cons of republics vs democracies. /sarc
In the context of the US Constitution there was a very REAL difference.
Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.” Methinks we are losing it.
No they discussed the differences between a Republic and a Monarchy, as well as the form that the government should take.
Grey thinks that Article IV section 4 guarantees to the states that they can be subject to a despotic theocratic monarchy. Dude, you can’t just google “republic.” It has a specific meaning in American constitutional history, and no, it does not mean democracy. Democracy is one tool for achieving a republic, which in the American sense refers to the system of liberty under law.
Actually, there exists a legal distinction in this, as it was defined at the time of the constitution. A constitutional ‘republican’ form of government had the following principles underlaying it, (as per the arguments in the federalist, and antifederalist papers, letters between parties to the constitutional convention, and the congressional archive and supreme court cases surrounding it).
1: Power must be separated into three parts, the executive (enforcing the law) the judicial (judging what the law is) and the legislative (codifying the law within the limitations of the constituting authority of that body).
2: Law must be general in its applicability. It cannot pick and choose those upon whom it is to operate, and must operate without codicils, exceptions, or grants of privilege. (Federalist 57, article 1, sections 9 and 10 on attainder).
3: Law must not be ambiguous, or arbitrary.
4: Any legislation passed that is outside of that delegated authority is no law at all, and had no legal authority from the beginning, as it was place as a fraud without authority, and all acts, comissions, omissions, and offices created by such a law are void not merely from the time finding it, but from its inception. The finding is merely a recognition that the law never could have lawfully existed.
5: No law can be placed that would accomplish anything that the constituting authorities cannot lawfully do individually.
6: The delegated authorities cannot be redelegated to a third party by that office created by the original delegation.
7: Offices created by the delegation of authority are limited by the constituting principles as well. No officer of the state can do things the state is forbidden, including in the enforcement of contracts, unlawful acts being impossible as either forbearances or considerations in contract.
8: That there must be systems of recourse for violations of those forbearances created within that constitution, both in the legal and physical realm.
Sovereignty, as a subject, is sorely misunderstood. Unlimited sovereignty would be the power to do anything one wants, as they are the creators of law… but sovereignty comes at a price. One must respect the rights, and properties of other sovereigns, or one becomes something quite different, an aggressor and outlaw.
While sovereignty in the United States is delegated to the system of states and federal government, it is retained by those who created them, and by whom and for whom all power exists and acts, and engaged with the limits of that original sovereign power to not be able to diminish that of others. It is retained by the people, who created the states, and for whom the constitution was created, the state governments being unable to place in the hands of another that which was borrowed, in the same principle that no operator of a store may legally sell or destroy it, without the express, written permission of the title holder.
Note that this argument does not come from a vacuum.
Reid v. Covert, 354 US 1 (1957) discusses the limits of constitutional treaty power.
Yick Wo v. Hopkins(118 US 356, 1886) discusses sovereignty at pages 369-370. This is building on a large body of previous cases, in light of the 14th amendment, and arbitrary application of the law.
Cummings v. Missouri (71 US 277, 1867) discusses bills of attainder, and its sister case, Ex Parte Garland, discusses their application via a state constitution as being impossible under state authority.
The federalist papers (under federalist 44, and 57) discussed attainder, and made a federal guarantee that congress could pass no law that did not equally affect itself, its friends, and the whole of society, that being the most certain way to safeguard rights of individuals and groups from governmental interference. The only exemption was the regulation (or making regular) of the militia and army (as seen in the Militia act of 1792).
The privileges and immunites under article 4 were discussed under Dred Scott v. Sandford (60 US 393, 1857) at pages 416 and 417 and the much earlier Prudence Crandall cases, being established that they were nationwide, belonged to all citizens… and that those who owned slaves, and the states, wanted to deprive them to maintain their monopoly over slaves. They were well defined, and the language in this document defined the language of the 1866 civil rights act, and the 14th amendment. These privileges and immunities were the separation between being a slave and a free man in the US. They are the legal authority of sovereignty under the British system, as the crown was the only ‘person’ (as distinct under the human wearing it) who could own land, allow businesses, or be allowed to maintain the power to defend itself. The citizens of the United States were guaranteed this form of government to safeguard these rights, which would be meaningless under a pure democracy.
And the people could not delegate a power they did not possess. They cannot delegate the power to diminish the rights of others (though the states claim that power even today, so long after the 1871 civil rights act and the 14th amendment allowing punishment of those deprivations, currently under title 18, section 242 USC.
They cannot collectively vote away the property, liberty, or lives of any minority, no matter how small, nor establish any religion, nor mandate any religious observance. They cannot interfere with peaceable assembly, nor interfere with the public discourse, no matter how objectionable the state finds it.
That is the difference between a ‘republican’ form of government and a pure democracy. In the republican form of government, that constituting authority, the people, are equally bound against transgressing the rights of others. In a pure democracy, nothing prevents changing or altering any aspect of government, up to and including depriving others of a voice in government, depriving others of their voice in the public sphere, or depriving people of their right to defend themselves, their property, and their livelihoods.
And that’s why there is such a strong movement to move over to pure democracy, it fits the agenda of those who would like absolute power.
As was said in the federalist 10, by Madison himself:
“From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.”
And my apologies for the long post. It’s a complex subject.
Article IV, section 4 also states that the United States, “shall protect each of the States against INVASION.”
So when do we in California, get protected from the totally unrestricted invasion across our southern border, from which, the United States Administrative arm (Obama) is obliged to defend us.
That wording was put there to relieve all of the several Sovereign States from having to have their own military, which they are prohibited from having in peacetime.
Article IV section 4 is one of the few parts of the US Constitution that TELLS the US Government what they MUST DO.
Article I, section 8, only tells the US Congress, the 18 things they are authorized to do, but it doesn’t require them to do any or all of them.
And clause 18 only tells the Congress that they can make laws that are “necessary and appropriate” for carrying out the first 17 items.
Congress doesn’t understand what the word “necessary” means.
” A is necessary for B, if and only if, no matter what, B cannot be accomplished in the absence of A ”
So if California can rescue upside down starfish in a tide pool, by just tossing them out into deeper water, but Oregon can do it, by fishing the starfish out with a hand net, and putting it down right way up in a deeper pool, then each of those methods can solve the problem, so neither of those can be made into a Federal Law, because neither one is necessary to solve the problem since the other method is also a solution, and likely other States could have other solutions.
So clause 18 of Article I, Section 8 only authorizes the feds to make a law, only when there are no alternative ways for the States to deal with whatever problem.
Congress chooses to interpret clause 18 to mean they can pass any law they damn well please, whether it is necessary or not. And they don’t give a rip about whether it is appropriate.
G
NO ! Article IV, section 4, only guarantees to the 57 Sovereign States, “A Republican form of government.
US Constitution is a written contract among three parties or entities.
One is “We the People”
Two is the 57 Sovereign States (including the Obama appendix States)
And three is “The United States” AKA that boondoggle in Washington DC.
And incidently, it is that “United States” (WDC) that in Article I, Section 8, the Congress is authorized to tax, to pay for the common defense, and general welfare “OF THE UNITED STATES)”
Nowhere are they authorized to pay for the general Welfare of Tom, Dick, and Harry (Jane too).
NOTE: that in the “Preamble” it says ” ….. ‘promote’ …. the common defense and general welfare …. ”
It does NOT say “provide for”. The preamble says what the Constitution is about, like a library card description of content and purpose. “In order to form a more perfect Union.”
Find me a formal decision by the SCOTUS, wherein they ever cited the preamble as the legal basis for reaching their decision.
G
george:
And establishment Republicans wonder why their constituents are voting for Donald Trump in droves. Might this be a perfect example? Idiots!
Mind boggling legal igornace or worse. Criminal.
Welcome to America (I got my naturalization papers not long ago). Would you, as a Pakistani dissident, confide in a CIA operative? Substitute Somalia, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Turkey, Venezuela..
What did I just watch???? As she sat there, with bottled water at the ready. While 500 million goes into a slush fund which will, under no uncertain terms, enrich corrupt third world leaders like….Mugabe. Astounding. Not quite as astounding as Justin Trudeau’s first act of rote, 2.8 billion…into the same fund. But astounding nonetheless.
And what is Obama thinking in the picture at the top????? Captions abound.
He’s thinking ” That 500 million should be a good start at getting me the top job at the U.N. ! “
+1000
Where should I play golf this weekend?
He is really good at talking.
“Go ahead and laugh at my ears. I don’t care. I’ve got $500 million as a lovely parting gift when I leave office.”
He’s squinting to see how many south sea islands have disappeared under water in the UN logo.
“Do I look good in this pose?”
Who put the teleprompter on the ceiling?
Okay. we are operating under a congressional law called the Sequester. So if all the funds were ear marked, they have a problem. Embezzlement .
During the Nixon administration congress passed a law stating that monies appropriated had to be spent as appropriated.
Okay was the 500,000,000 discretionary, or ear marked? . Next hold all those in the state department responsible for the refund of the lose of funds.
michael
The Economic Stability Funds at the Department of State are used by the discretion of the Department of State to fund grants to developing countries to stabilize their economies. The president has determined Climate Change is a threat to developing countries, thus he directed the Department of State to grant this money to the fund as a way to enhance the economic stability of third world countries.
It is all based on a lie, but perfectly legal within the framework of the ill-conceived lawmaking of the congresses of the last 50 years.
It remains to be seen if this will actually hold true. There are even many Dems and people in his administration that are against Climate Reparations. I think it’s a grandstand attempt to shame people into supporting the “save the world for our children” meme. I’ve already written my Congressman asking for an explanation of this atrocity. I don’t believe the actual transfer of the money can happen without Congressional approval. His administration can make all the claims they want to the contrary but I don’t believe it can happen.
it is a criminal act to misuse public funds
Criminal acts are meaningless anymore for the elite. We were once a government of laws, where no one was above the law. It is a criminal act, a violation of the espionage act, to mishandle classified information, but just such a criminal is likely to be the next president. I am glad to be at the end of life, so I don’t have to watch my beloved country devolve into tyranny. Had I handled classified information in the manner of Hillary Clinton when I was in air force intelligence, I’d likely still be in Leavenworth.
Except for the fact that it is legal under the ill-conceived actions of the congresses of the last 50 years to continually pass bills with the phrase “the secretary shall determine…” in key places.
This unfortunately is covered by the economic development fund at the Department of State. Congress needs to repeal about 95% of the laws passed since 1960 and replace them with either nothing (leaving the questions to the states) or with more sensible laws that don’t lead to abuses (I can dream).
The more ambiguous the law, the more room there is for congressmen and senators to put pressure on the bureaucracy to benefit well healed constituents. In exchange for campaign “contributions” of course.
So Obama has begun to pay a world tax to a world government, and in the name of science and saving the environment, will destroy conventional agriculture, energy and transportation with international emissions reductions commitments.
Where have we seen this before.
“Human history can be viewed as a slowly dawning awareness that we are members of a larger group. Initially our loyalties were to ourselves and our immediate family, next, to bands of wandering hunter-gatherers, then to tribes, small settlements, city-states, nations. We have broadened the circle of those we love. We have now organized what are modestly described as super-powers, which include groups of people from divergent ethnic and cultural backgrounds working in some sense together — surely a humanizing and character building experience. If we are to survive, our loyalties must be broadened further, to include the whole human community, the entire planet Earth. Many of those who run the nations will find this idea unpleasant. They will fear the loss of power. We will hear much about treason and disloyalty. Rich nation-states will have to share their wealth with poor ones. But the choice, as H. G. Wells once said in a different context, is clearly the universe or nothing.” –Carl Sagan, Cosmos, 1980
Careful on the atheists part. Show me the atheists in the mess of this government?
I am an atheist
And I gree with everything you said, well almost everything…
And I was born in communistic country and lived there for the first half of my live.
For all the religious types: Not all atheists are evil!
EOM
Okay,, Watch the Vid. its always “we’ll show you where we got the authority. Hmm why not cite it then and there?
Look at the spokes women, she is uncomfortable,. She has been left out on a limb. If a Republican wins in November she is toast. The President did not come out and defend this transfer, ,, (the buck stops there)
He is using staffers as a shield, and will defer to them for the authority for this debacle.,leaving them to take the heat.
michael
They had to raise the sea level in the computer model so that it matched the sea level of medieval times, thus identifying the unknown island !…interesting !
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2016/03/08/archaeologists-discover-ancient-anglo-saxon-island-in-uk-countryside.html?intcmp=hpbt3
..Off Topic I know, but still interesting .. Is the land higher today or was the ocean higher then ?
Yes
Before the last budget was passed, the Democrats wanted a last minute change. No one noticed that the clause excluding payment to the UN GCF was gone. So yes, Obama can use money from other budgets to make payment. It’s OK though. Obama can use this good deed to run for head of the new One World Government.
I am not so sure, I am sure there is a lot of discretionary funding in running the FBI, CIA, Dept of Education, Dept of transportation, and so on.
Giving away money to other countries based on unauthorized commitments I believe is a whole other story. So will be interesting to see if the GOP runs with this or feels it’s not worth the fight.
Just saw the clip……wtf. and people wonder why the whole gw green bull pisses me off