No thanks.
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.
“Developing countries...” China and India are a gazillion years older than we are, and they’re still not yet, “developed?”
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.