No thanks.
Posted on 04/11/2017 6:10:02 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
China, Brazil, India and South Africa have urged industrialised countries to honour financial commitments made in Paris in 2015 to help developing countries fight against global climate change.
Following a meeting in Beijing, climate change ministers from the "BASIC" bloc of four major emerging economies called on rich countries "to honour their commitments and increase climate finance towards the US$100 billion goal", and said more clarity was needed to "track and account for" those pledges.
But the agreement has been plunged into uncertainty after U.S. President Donald Trump, who has questioned the scientific basis of global warming, last month proposed an end to payments to the GCF and signed an order to undo climate change regulations introduced by his predecessor.
At a media briefing after the Tuesday meeting, South Africa's deputy minister of environmental affairs, Barbara Thompson, said recent changes in U.S. policy were "of major concern".
(Excerpt) Read more at channelnewsasia.com ...
Sorry, I don’t carry cash.
Alternate headline: Welfare Recipients Urge Taxpayers to Keep on Paying.
None of the countries including the USA are obligated to pay into this fund.
How long are these countries going to be ‘emerging’?
Of course they do. There won’t be any corruption there.
Obama pledges a huge chunk of my income for the next half-century, and I’m supposed to go along with it, happily, for the Erf.
No thanks.
Too bad the leaders of these countries don’t build coal/gas/carbon plants to help their people, and instead want to take big bribes to keep their people without much energy.
Obama has a $60 MILLION dollar surplus from his yet to be written book/Toilet paper. Take it from HIM.
Right under our noses is the whole generation that has been indoctrinated to believe this from my PHD niece and newphew to the smart and young people at work they all buy it without question.
Choir: I tried to engage a discussion about this robbery with the youngins here to no avail.
Honestly, they look at me like we used to look at the kooky middle aged when I was young. But this is not the generation gap we knew. This is brainwashing.
Choir!
China is asking the “rich” countries to pay up??!! How does a lender accuse his borrowers of being richer than he is? If China has enough ready cash to be the loan shark to the world then they can put their money where their mouth is and pay into this fund.
They will get nothing, all the $$ came from the US.
“Developing countries...” China and India are a gazillion years older than we are, and they’re still not yet, “developed?”
LOL! As long as it takes!
Sure. The rest of you encumber yourselves with BS regulations while we cash in.
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
Patriots are reminded that, regardless if climate change had been proven with the consistent results of scientific method-based experiments, it remains that the states have never expressly constitutionally delegated to the corrupt feds the specific power to tax and spend in the name of politically correct climate change issues.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States."—Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
Regarding what amounts to foreign aid in the name of climate change issues imo, patriots should also note that Justice Joseph Story had noted that Congress cannot use the General Welfare Clause as an excuse to justify foreign aid.
”If the tax be not proposed for the common defence, or general welfare, but for other objects, wholly extraneous, (as for instance, for propagating Mahometanism among the Turks, or giving aids and subsidies to a foreign nation, to build palaces for its kings, or erect monuments to its heroes,) it would be wholly indefensible upon constitutional principles [emphases added].” —Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 2
Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp!
Remember in November ’18 !
Since Trump entered the ’16 presidential race too late for patriots to make sure that there were state sovereignty-respecting candidates on the primary ballots, patriots need make sure that such candidates are on the ’18 primary ballots so that they can be elected to support Trump in draining the unconstitutionally big federal government swamp.
Such a Congress will also be able to finish draining the swamp with respect to getting the remaining state sovereignty-ignoring, activist Supreme Court justices off of the bench.
In fact, if Justice Gorsuch is approved but turns out to be a liberal Trojan Horse then we will need 67 patriot senators to remove a House-impeached Gorsuch from office.
Noting that the primaries start in Iowa and New Hampshire in February ‘18, patriots need to challenge candidates for federal office in the following way.
While I Googled the primary information above concerning Iowa and New Hampshire, FReeper iowamark brought to my attention that the February primaries for these states apply only to presidential election years. And after doing some more scratching, since primary dates for most states for 2018 elections probably haven’t been uploaded at this time (March 14, 2017), FReepers will need to find out primary dates from sources and / or websites in their own states.
Patriots need to qualify candidates by asking them why the Founding States made the Constitution’s Section 8 of Article I; to limit (cripple) the federal government’s powers.
Patriots also need to find candidates that are knowledgeable of the Supreme Court's clarifications of the federal government’s limited powers listed below.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphasis added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.