Team Obama Dumps $500 Million Into UN Climate Slush Fund

Thank goodness, the UN Green Climate Fund was almost out of cash. Seriously, what would dictators do without it? Fortunately, there’s almost no transparency in the way the funds are used

(Reuters) The United States has paid $500 million into the United Nations’ Green Climate Fund, the first tranche of the $3 billion it pledged as part of the commitments it made in the December Paris Climate Agreement, the State Department confirmed Monday.

“This grant is the first step toward meeting the president’s commitment of $3 billion to the GCF, and shows that the United States stands squarely behind our international climate commitments,” a State Department spokesman said.

I’d like to say this is Obama’s commitment, so, he should use his own money or raise it from soliciting donations from all the uber-rich Warmists in the U.S. But, they don’t like to use their own money, they like Other People’s money, and the idiot Republicans in Congress authorized this money in the latest sprawling budget deal.

Think what we could do with $500 million. Work programs for US citizens. Fixing the issue in Flint, Michigan. Fixing the problems with the Veteran’s Administration. Heck, it could be used to save much of Obamacare’s failing co-ops and exchanges. Liberals would like that, right? Help send US citizens to college. At the end of the day, this is just a redistribution of wealth scheme, which enriches the United Nations and dictators. The United State will receive no benefit from this. Like much of the aid money the US gives to the UN, we’ll not be given any kudos when it is distributed.

Héla Cheikhrouhou, the fund’s executive director, told Reuters earlier this month she will ask the board to approve an increase of between 80 and 120 new staff to meet the spending target.

So, instead of being spent on ‘climate change’ initiatives, a goodly chunk will simply go towards paying for administration. Will the UN provide all the details on how the money is spent? Doubtful.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

RSS feed

You can login to comment with:



Comment by Jobn
2016-03-08 08:13:05

Teach please tell us what the actual percentage of 500,000,000 the salaries of 100 people would be? Is that a “goodly chunk”?
Isn’t it really just 2-3% that seems pretty low for the administrative costs for ANY program
Isn’t your share of that likely to be less than a penny per day ?
The USA has about 50000 miles of interstate
That 500 million would have added 50 more miles at a typical cost of 10 million per Mile
Or 2 more F35s

Comment by Dana
2016-03-08 08:53:24

The problem is that the Congress, both Houses of which are controlled by Republicans, authorized and appropriated this money.

This is why Donald Trump is surging: the taxpayers are tired of the Republicans they elected wasting money on bovine feces like this.

Comment by Jeffery
2016-03-08 10:17:33

But, they don’t like to use their own money

Just like the conservatives used the US military and taxpayers money to invade Iraq for political, not strategic, purposes.

Of course far right-wing extremists opposes this. Far right-wing extremists only support government spending for military in general and for other specific expenditures that reward specific conservatives at taxpayer’s expense, for example, road-building. And although the House and Senate are controlled by Republicans, not all Republicans (yet) are far-right wing extremists.

If you want to change it you should elect (legally!) a President that sees things your way.

Comment by Hank_M
2016-03-08 10:50:40

“Just like the conservatives used the US military and taxpayers money to invade Iraq for political, not strategic, purposes.”

And they had a lot of democrat support, including your presidential idol, Hillary email Clinton.

Comment by Jl
2016-03-08 11:03:36

Yes, J showing his intelligence again conveniently “forgets” about all the Dems who supported the same war. And by the way, repeating “extreme right wing Republicans” or whatever does nothing to make your point, of which you have none. Just makes you look desperate

Comment by Jeffery
2016-03-08 12:06:24


The conservatives in the White House led the charge into Iraq by lying and exaggerating. That is not to excuse the political cowardice of the Democrats who voted to allow Bush et al to do what that wanted to do. In my opinion, Secretary Clinton and others made a political calculation – if the invasion went very well, those that voted for authorization would look pretty good in the 2008 primaries. The moment Senator Clinton voted in favor of the authorization, one knew she was running for Prez in 2008. If things went poorly (as it did), and it was demonstrated that the conservative administration lied us into Iraq (as was shown), those that authorized the use of force would have some ‘splainin’ to do. Of course, she calls her vote a “mistake” now, but she knew it was a “mistake” then, but voted out of cowardly political expediency.

She is still far and away the best candidate for President right now. Since around 2008, the Republicans have gone of the deep end and are a danger to America and the world.


Extremist right-wing Republicans refers to the new wave of Tea Party backed buffoons that were swept in. Unfortunately for America, the GOP has been working hard to “normalize” their deviant ideas, and succeeding, at least in part. Even “moderate” Repubs now harbor extremist views, but not all their views are extremist. Extremist right-wingers harbor nothing but extremist views and are a danger to this nation and the world.

George W. Bush and his administration made the unfortunate decision to invade Iraq. Period. Bill Clinton was President just before Bush, had the same information as Bush, but DID NOT even considering doing something as stupid and counterproductive as invading Iraq. Congress was not pushing Bush Inc to invade.

Like any good marketing team, Bush Inc made an effective argument for invasion, but it was a con job. They knew they were lying/exaggerating/marketing, but probably also believed their own hype – in and out in 90 days with Saddam’s head on a spike and democracy spreading throughout the middle east!

There was NO reason to invade Iraq. It was a deadly misadventure sponsored by the American right that destabilized the entire region.

We understand that the far-right have backed themselves into corners time and again. Reaganomics, Iraq, global warming and on and on. We also understand how dangerous cornered animals can be.

Comment by Hank_M
2016-03-08 13:28:37

Jeffery…”The conservatives in the White House led the charge into Iraq by lying and exaggerating. ”

This is an outright lie or you’re woefully misinformed. Bob Woodward spent 18 months looking into this and concluded Bush did not lie. He did however conclude that your man in the White House screwed up any gains we made in Iraq. Obama and Clinton then went on to completely destroy the middle east leading to the debacle we have today. Ironic really, since in 2010 Biden and Obama were bragging about Iraq being one of the great achievements of the Obama administration.

As for Clinton being the best candidate for President, sure, if corruption, constant lying, and gross incompetence are your metrics, she wins hands down.

Comment by drowningpuppies
2016-03-08 13:35:08

There was NO reason to invade Iraq. It was a deadly misadventure sponsored by the American right that destabilized the entire region.

-the little guy who exaggerates often and continues his leftist revision of recent history

Comment by drowningpuppies
2016-03-08 13:44:36

Meanwhile, the U.S. State Department had difficulty Monday explaining why the nuclear agreement limits public reporting by the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, on potential deal violations by Iran.

Thanks Obama.

Comment by Jeffery
2016-03-08 14:28:30

1/30/01 — Saddam’s removal is top item of Bush’s inaugural national security meeting. Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill later recalls, “It was all about finding a way to do it. The president saying, ‘Go find me a way to do this.'”

9/11/01 — Al Qaeda attacks. Minutes taken by a Rumsfeld aide five hours later: “Best info fast. Judge whether good enough [to] hit SH [Saddam Hussein] @ same time. Not only UBL [Usama bin Laden].”

9/12/01 — According to counterterror czar Richard Clarke, “[Bush] told us, ‘I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this.'” Told evidence against Al Qaeda overwhelming, Bush asks for “any shred” Saddam was involved.

9/19/01 — Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board, chaired by Richard Perle and featuring Henry Kissinger and Newt Gingrich, declares that Iraq should be invaded after Afghanistan.

9/20/01 — British PM Tony Blair advises Bush not to lose focus on Al Qaeda. Bush replies: “I agree with you, Tony. But when we have dealt with Afghanistan, we must come back to Iraq.”

9/20/01 — PNAC letter to Bush: “Even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power.”

9/21/01 — Bush briefed by intel community that there is no evidence linking Saddam to 9/11.

11/21/01 — Bush collars Rumsfeld physically and asks: “What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq? What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret.”—Bob Woodward.

12/9/01 — Cheney on Meet the Press: “Well, the evidence is pretty conclusive that the Iraqis have indeed harbored terrorists.” Also claims 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi spy in Prague, a claim he’ll repeat long after CIA and Czechs disavow.

3/14/02 — Downing Street memo: “Condi’s enthusiasm for regime change is undimmed…Bush has yet to find the answers to the big questions…what happens the morning after?”

3/15/02 — British intel reports that there’s only “sporadic and patchy” evidence of Iraqi WMD. “There is no intelligence on any [biological weapons] production facilities.”

3/22/02 — Downing Street memo: “US scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and Al Qaida is so far frankly unconvincing…We are still left with a problem of bringing public opinion to accept the imminence of a threat from Iraq…Regime change does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam.”

3/24/02 — Saddam “is actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time.”—Cheney on CNN

3/25/02 — Downing Street memo: “There has been no credible evidence to link Iraq with Al Qaida…In the documents so far presented it has been hard to glean whether the threat from Iraq is so significantly different from that of Iran or North Korea as to justify action.”

8/20/02 — “We may or may not attack. I have no idea yet.”—Bush. “There are Al Qaeda in Iraq…There are.”—Rumsfeld.

8/26/02 — “There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends…and against us.” —Cheney

9/7/02 — Bush claims a new UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report states Iraq is six months from developing a nuclear weapon. There is no such report.

9/8/02 — Page 1 Times story by Judith Miller and Michael Gordon cites anonymous administration officials saying Saddam has repeatedly tried to acquire aluminum tubes “specially designed” to enrich uranium. “The first sign of a ‘smoking gun,’ they argue, may be a mushroom cloud.”

9/8/02 — Tubes “are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs…we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”—Rice on CNN

9/8/02 — “We do know, with absolute certainty, that he is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon.”—Cheney on Meet the Press

9/12/02 — Bush repeats aluminum-tube claim before UN General Assembly.

9/13/02 — Cheney tells Rush Limbaugh: “What’s happening, of course, is we’re getting additional information that, in fact, Hussein is reconstituting his biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons programs.” There is no such new intel.

9/16/02 — “The president hasn’t made a decision to do anything with respect to Iraq.”—Rumsfeld

9/18/02 — Bush calls Saddam’s offer to let inspectors back into Iraq “his latest ploy.”

9/19/02 — Rumsfeld tells Congress that Saddam “has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX, sarin, and mustard gas.”

9/25/02 — “You can’t distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror.”—Bush

9/25/02 — Citing Libi intel, Rice says: “High-ranking detainees have said that Iraq provided some training to Al Qaeda in chemical weapons development.”

9/26/02 — In a Rose Garden speech, Bush says: “The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons.”

9/26/02 — In a speech in Houston, Bush says of Saddam: “After all, this is a guy who tried to kill my dad.”

9/27/02 — Rumsfeld calls link between Iraq and Al Qaeda “accurate and not debatable.”

9/28/02 — Bush’s address to nation: “The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more, and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given.”

10/4/02 — Asked by Sen. Graham to make gist of NIE public, Tenet produces 25-page document titled “Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs.” It says Saddam has them and omits dissenting views contained in the classified NIE.

10/4/02 — Knight Ridder reports: “Several senior administration officials and intelligence officers, all of whom spoke only on the condition of anonymity, charged that the decision to publicize one analysis of the aluminum tubes and ignore the contrary one is typical of the way the administration has been handling intelligence about Iraq.”

10/7/02 — Bush delivers a speech in which he says, “Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof—the smoking gun—that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.” Also says Iraq is exploring ways of using drones to target the US, although Iraq’s drones have a reach of only 300 miles.

10/8/02 Knight Ridder reports: “[A] growing number of military officers, intelligence professionals and diplomats in his own government privately have deep misgivings about the administration’s double-time march toward war. These officials charge that administration hawks have exaggerated evidence of the threat that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein poses…’Analysts at the working level in the intelligence community are feeling very strong pressure from the Pentagon to cook the intelligence books,’ said one official, speaking on condition of anonymity.”

10/16/02 — Bush tells public, “I have not ordered the use of force. I hope the use of force will not become necessary.”

11/7/02 — “War is not my first choice. It’s my last choice.”—Bush

11/14/02 — Rumsfeld handicaps war length: “Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn’t going to last any longer than that.”

Jan 2003 — National Intelligence Council warns Bush that war in Iraq could lead to an anti-US insurgency and “increase popular sympathy for terrorist objectives.”

1/3/03 — “The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American.”—Bush

1/9/03 — Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the U.N.’s IAEA, echoes DOE’s view that the aluminum tubes sought by Iraq are likely for artillery rockets, not centrifuges. A senior Bush official responds, “I think the Iraqis are spinning the IAEA.”

1/9/03 — After nearly two months, UN’s Hans Blix says his inspectors have not found any “smoking guns” in Iraq.

1/28/03 — In State of the Union, Bush says “the 16 words”: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” Bush adds Saddam has “tried to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production” and has “mobile biological weapons labs.”

1/29/03 — “Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country.”—Rumsfeld

2/4/03 — Powell asks Tenet to personally assure intel for speech is good. Tenet does.

2/5/03 — In UN speech, Powell says, “Every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we’re giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.” Cites Libi’s claims and Curveball’s “eyewitness” accounts of mobile weapons labs. (German officer who supervised Curveball’s handler will later recall thinking, “Mein Gott!”) Powell also claims that Saddam’s son Qusay has ordered WMD removed from palace complexes; that key WMD files are being driven around Iraq by intelligence agents; that bioweapons warheads have been hidden in palm groves; that a water truck at an Iraqi military installation is a “decontamination vehicle” for chemical weapons; that Iraq has drones it can use for bioweapons attacks; and that WMD experts have been corralled into one of Saddam’s guest houses. All but the last of those claims had been flagged by the State Department’s own intelligence unit as “WEAK.”

2/6/03 — Reiterating Powell’s claim, Bush says an Iraqi drone loaded with bioweapons could strike US mainland. The US Air Force is on the record as saying that “the small size of Iraq’s new UAV strongly suggests a primary role of reconnaissance.”

2/7/03 — Rumsfeld ups war length estimate: “It could last…six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.”

2/7/03 As anti-war demonstrations increase, DHS Secretary Ridge warns of Al Qaeda “credible threats” and raises the terror alert level to orange.

2/8/03 — In radio address to the nation, Bush warns that “firsthand witnesses [read: Curveball] have informed us that Iraq has at least seven mobile factories” for germ warfare.

2/20/03 — Rumsfeld: “There is no question but that [the invasion] would be welcomed.” Later says: “Never said that. Never did…You may remember it well, but you’re thinking of somebody else.”

2/23/03 — “UN weapons inspectors are being seriously deceived…It reminds me of the way the Nazis hoodwinked Red Cross officials.”—Perle

2/27/03 — Wolfowitz tells congressional hearing: “I am reasonably certain that they will greet us as liberators…the notion of hundreds of thousands of American troops is way off the mark.”

3/8/03 — “We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq.”—Bush

3/16/03 — Cheney on Meet the Press: “We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.” (Cheney later claims he misspoke.) Adds, “I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators.”

3/20/03 — War begins.

bush, cheney, rice, powell, wolfowitz, rumsfeld, perle and hundreds more should be in prison for what they did. To his discredit, President Obama chose not to pursue an investigation into the misdeeds of these people who cost this nation and world so much.

They lied. They lied directly, they lied by cherry-picking evidence, they lied by terrifying the American people.

Anyone who seriously believes that the Bush administration did not invade Iraq under false pretenses is not capable of evaluating the simplest of evidence.

Even a buffoon like Trump knows they lied.

Extremists: Your guys got away with it! Rejoice.

Comment by drowningpuppies
2016-03-08 14:40:08

-the little guy who exaggerates often and totally ignores what others were saying and doing so

Time again for the little guy to play…

The Who Said It Game – Iraq Style

Comment by Hank_M
2016-03-08 14:52:16

Mother Jones? Now there’s an unbiased source.
And now you’re using Trump to bolster your lies?

As someone stated today, “Only conspiracy theorists and manipulative demagogues continue to claim that “Bush lied us into war in Iraq.” Consider it a self-identifying behavior and choose accordingly.”

Comment by Hank_M
2016-03-08 14:57:01

drowningpuppies, good link. Looks like a LOT of prominent democrats were lying according to our resident conspiracy theorist masquerading as a demagogue.

But as he’s stated, lies only matter when republicans do it. For democrats, it’s a quality worthy of his vote.

Comment by Tomcat
2016-03-08 15:41:49

The longer I see how Washington watches after our money more I realize how much trouble this beautiful nation is truly in. And they, collectively , couldn’t care less. And if asked the reason for such irresponsibility, we would be fed a rich helping of BS.


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Bad Behavior has blocked 7703 access attempts in the last 7 days.