Obama Promises UN $3 Billion for Green Climate

For a president who complained that GW Bush carelessly contributed to the growth of national debt, Obama seems to have lost touch with reality. Where is he, the US Treasury, going to get $3 Billion he promised to the United Nations for the "Green Climate Fund"?
His reasoning, if one can call it that, is to help countries who cannot afford environmental controls to curb and stop the natural cycle of climate changes.



Even if there were $3 Billion available - how could he do so without the consent of Congress. A prudent president would seek support from Congress before making such a boastful, foolish promise of funding to the United Nations, an entity that has become worthless because of its corrupt leadership.
The pledge was made in conjunction with Japan that totals to $4.5 Billion.

It is so easy to give away other people's money.
Has anyone checked to see how much of Obama's personal wealth goes to charities?
Obama has spent, during his tenure as President of the United States, $120 Billion of taxpayer-funded money to the climate change ideology.
Senator Jim Inhofe, Oklahoma, stated:

The President’s climate change agenda has only siphoned precious taxpayer dollars away from the real problems facing the American people. In a new Congress, I will be working with my colleagues to reset the misguided priorities of Washington in the past six years. This includes getting our nation’s debt under control, securing proper equipment and training to protect our men and women in uniform, and repairing our nation’s crumbling roads and bridges. These are the realistic priorities of today.

 The Green Climate Fund was established during the Copenhagen Accord in 2009. Its goal is to raise $100 Billion per year by 2020. Questions have been raised more than once concerning accountability of funding and the non-transparency of its board members. Another scheme and loss of credibility for the United States - again.
 It is just another reason that the United Nations should be dissolved, at least in regards to US membership - moving the United Nations headquarters somewhere else besides US soil.

Since the Oil-for-Food scandal, there has not been much of a reason to trust the United Nations with much of anything. It is an entity who has clear intentions of becoming the seat of world power with the help of tyrants and international con artists who operate the multi-national agency, whose leadership is appointed, not elected by the people. Indeed, Obama and other presidents have contributed more than any other nation to the UN with not much to show any results intended by the established programs. That includes 'peacekeeping' endeavors.
It has been a waste of funding for sometime and dangerous when the agenda for those operating the UN want it to be a global central authority.
American voters: Why on Earth did you allow this person to be reelected? As doubtful as it was to back Mitt Romney, I am sure he could not possibly have caused this much trouble, the executive branch not having serious scandals seen since 2012 (and before).

The Benghazi affair (September 2012) should have been enough to prevent his reelection in November of 2012.
I realize that choosing the best of the worst is not a way to commit to responsible voting; but it just verifies my repeated advice and warning - more Americans need to take primary elections more seriously. It determines who get the face-off election campaign for president.
Meanwhile, Russia and China plan to dump the US dollar. Thanks to Nixon dropping US gold standard for 'Petrodollars' and US progressives insisting that United States NOT produce its own crude oil - this could become a reality. Guess who the US is deepest in debt with? (Hint: China)