UNITED NATIONS

The United Nations Exposed: Who Is In Control?

We are told that the United Nations (UN) is an international organization that aims to facilitate co-operation through social progress, economic development, international security and international law.  They promote themselves, and are outwardly promoted as a reputable body that deals with peace, security, development, human rights and humanitarian affairs. With this being the case it’s no surprise to see the UN at the forefront of all international conflict and instability, since these exact events give them the ideal atmosphere to promote themselves as bringers of all that I previously mentioned. Throughout history, authoritative figures have always tried to paint a perception of themselves in hopes of influencing and brainwashing the masses into a desired agenda.

 

By promoting themselves, I am referring to the UN’s use of mainstream media networks, like CNN. CNN is owned by Time Warner (1), which is owned by JP Morgan Chase and Company and Dodge & Cox Inc, to name a few (2). It also has a select group of direct holders, like Jeffrey L. Bewkes. Mr. Bewkes sits in the head office of Time Warner’s two towers built in 2001 -buildings purposely built to resemble the once standing World Trade Centers of New York City. Bewkes is also a member of The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) (3),which is headed and funded by the Rothschild and Rockefeller families (4)(5). In fact a large majority of mainstream media network owners are all members of the CFR, as well as the trilateral commission. Another example of this is Richard D. Parsons. who served as Time Warner’s Chairman of the Board from May 2003 to January 2009. Currently Mr. Parsons is a member of the Board of Trustees and is a Senior Advisor to the Rockefeller Foundation(6). I could even go on to look at Frank J. Caufield, another major direct holder of Time Warner Corp, who is also a member of the CFR(7). Let me remind you again, that CNN is owned by Time Warner Corp, which is owned by a number of individuals and corporations that are run by a few families. These families hide behind the corporations they run, using the employees and politicians they hire to do their dirty work. Why we continue to hand our perception of what is happening on the planet to a select few who show no regard for the human race is beyond me. As a child, I did not understand how a human being could have such negative intentions, and create so much conflict through the use of trickery. To this day I still believe that a human being cannot do what these “governing bodies” and multinational corporations do. Whether or not it holds the same effect on you, I hope the connections above at least raise an eyebrow for you.

 

There is no need for me to point out the JP Morgan (major institutional holder of Time Warner)/ Rockefeller connections, which also played a big role in the creation of the Federal Reserve System in 1912. So what does all this have to do with the United Nations?  Well, the same ones that own all of our mainstream media networks, also own, run and created the United Nations. The owners of the United Nations use their media networks to influence the perception of billions of people. Not many people know that our mainstream media networks are owned by less than 5 multinational corporations, and all of these corporations have ties to the Rothschild and Rockefeller families. If you dive in even further, all of the same corporations are directly related to suppressing clean energy technologies, like General Electric. You can find out more about free energy suppression here. More ties can be made in the food and medical industries as well. Our planet is owned by a small group of families and the corporations they run, this is no longer a secret, no longer a conspiracy theory. It’s becoming evident that these “people” do not have our best intentions at hand.

 

League of Nations/Treaty of Versailles

 

The forerunner to the United Nations, was the league of Nations. It was created under the treaty of versailles in 1919 (8)(14).  Many believe the idea of the UN’s creation was due to the second world war, it wasn’t. A plan for global control through a well disguised body of peace started long before 1945. The League of Nations was an intergovernmental organization created at the Paris peace conference that ended the First World War. Development of international organizations due to conflict is a way of trickery. The UN was created in 1945 as a result of World War 2. Anytime there is global conflict, something is created out of that conflict, to give the illusion that whatever is created out of that conflict is a direct solution to that conflict. Have you ever thought that the ones who created the conflict, are doing so in order to propose the solution? What a scam that would be, wouldn’t it? What a trick, using and controlling our will. Handing our will over to those who look to take advantage of us, to those that are not in service to others, but to themselves.  The League of Nations was created by the Rockefeller Family, they were responsible for funding the entire operation(9). At the same time, the International Labour Organization was developed, which is and was heavily funded by the Rockefeller and Rothschild families(10). It is clear that the Rockefeller and Rothschild families both created the United Nations, without them the development of this global organization would not be possible.

 

The Same Groups That Funded Nazi Germany Created The United Nations? Both Sides of the War Were Funded by the Same Group?

 

A key question we must ask ourselves when it comes to international global governing bodies is, who is in charge? Who is making the decisions? What connections can be made between the United Nations and the other major governing bodies of planet Earth? How often do we ask these questions? And how often do we make the connections? If the United Nations was created for peace and stability in conflicting War time, why would the same parties fund both sides of the war? Was it just for profit, or did they want to create War, to create government bodies that would control our entire planet? The United Nations has branched off into the World Health Organization, which has other branched within it like Codex Alimentarius and the Food and Drug Administration.

 

I’m talking about Paul M. Warburg, a German-born banker, who was an appointed member of the Federal Reserve System, on the board of governors(11). Isn’t the Federal Reserve a United States entity? He was heavily involved with the creation of the Federal Reserve, and his family was heavily involved with I.G Farben. I.G Farben was the largest chemical company in the world during its time, and one of the largest industrial booms next to the Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Company, and General Motors. I.G Farben was responsible for numerous war crimes, supplying the Nazis with weapons and even funding the Nazi party(12)(13). Why would the federal reserve system and the Rockefeller’s be involved with I.G Farben? Isn’t the federal reserve an American entity? Did they not fund the United States as well? Paul Warburg and his family were involved with the creation of the Federal Reserve, the Warburg family headed I.G Farben, a company that supported the Nazi movement. So what is going on here? There is a lot of evidence to show that both sides of World War II were funded by the same people, so I think a “fast one” has been pulled over our eyes. The Federal Reserve is still in tight with the Warburg family, as they have transformed themselves into several multinational corporations and financial institutions, like Warburg Pincus(15)(16).

It’s no secret that the Bush family also heavily profited from the war. Did you know that the Bush family also had members connected to the federal reserve, and that the Bush family is also very close to the Rockefeller family?(17).  It’s not a secret that the presidency has always been connected to the Federal Reserve. Prescott Bush even worked for the Nazis, he worked with and profited from companies that were funding Hitler. With all of these connections, it is easy to see how the real founders of the United Nations (if you follow the money) were connected to many inhumane acts. So what makes you think it has stopped today? What if the United Nations give you the illusion of a peace making body, in order to drive chaos, fear, and to fulfill an agenda that started long before we were all born? How can the UN protect us against mining corporations for example, that commit atrocities all over the world, when the same ones who created the UN own all of the major mining corps, like the Rockefeller Hughes Corporation(18). I’ve provided sources for all of my claims, at the same time I like to leave a few out to inspire the readers to do some research. Feel free to look into the Bush connections yourself! Keep in mind, I’ve used only a few examples and connections in this article, there is a tremendous amount that you can make on your own if you are sparked to further your research.

 

One aspect of the current consciousness shift is waking up to new facts and possibilities of what really happened in our recent human history. Many people take different paths to awakening, but in the end it all leads to one thing: we have to be the change we want to see. We’ve seen a lot of turmoil throughout the years on this planet, and in turn it’s created a very dense energetic state for planet Earth. More people are starting to find peace, they are experiencing more joy and desire change for all on planet Earth. Through awakening, we are changing the vibrational frequency of the planet. We’ve been blind to many things for thousands of years. We are living in the age of transparency, everything has presented itself for us to see from the “darkest” experiences to the “lightest”. Either way you look at it, everything that has and is playing out on planet Earth is all an experience for the human race. Events happen, in order to jolt us into waking up to truth. 9/11 for example, woke many up. Whether it’s the truth about hemp, the federal reserve, the illuminati, extraterrestrials, spreading love, or anything else, the age of transparency is leading to a new truth within billions of people, and that truth is love. Love is required as a necessary building block for a new world. We are responsible for what is happening here, when we awaken from our sleep, I’m sure we won’t let continue what we’ve let continue for so long. No longer will we be used to uphold a system that does not resonate with us, instead we will create a new one that makes the old one obsolete.

There are multiple sources that go beyond mine, I could have used many more. Please feel free to do your own research to further verify some facts.

 

 Sources:

 

(1) http://www.timewarner.com/our-content/turner-broadcasting-system/

(2) http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=TWX

(3)http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/people/person.asp?personId=867387&ticker=TWX

(4)http://www.cfr.org/world/council-foreign-relations-special-symposium-honor-david-rockefellers-90th-birthday/p8133

(5)http://www.cfr.org/experts/world/david-rockefeller/b987

(6) http://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/about-us/board-trustees/richard-d-parsons

(7)http://www.usrf.ru/structure/board_caufield.html

(8) http://www.un.org/en/aboutun/history/index.shtml

(9)http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2012/sgsm14498.doc.htm

(10) http://ebha-bhsj-paris.sciencesconf.org/6318/document

(11)http://www.federalreserve.gov/bios/boardmembership.htm

(12) http://www.houseofpaine.org/IGF.htm

(13)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warburg_family

(14) http://www.versailles3d.com/en/over-the-centuries/xxe/1924.html

(15)http://search.newyorkfed.org/board_public/search?text=warburg&Search.x=0&Search.y=0

(16)http://www.warburgpincus.co

(17)http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

(18)http://rockefellerhughes.com

 

SOURCE: http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/02/26/the-united-nations-exposed-who-is-in-control/

 

DEPLETED URANIUM

Depleted uranium: a 4.5 billion year threat to Iraq

Written on June 20, 2011 by Editor in Iraq, KRG, USA

By Meer Ako Ali:

Our concept of the consequences of war is of shelled buildings, barren lands and disfigured men. We rarely think of malformed children, stillborn babies and raging cancers – although these are the worse consequences of war.

War-torn countries produce war-torn children. War-torn children are the ingredients of war-torn societies. The greatest harm war can render to a community is the damage done to its kids.

We have all heard of club-footed Japanese babies and the leukemia of Sadako Sasaki of the ‘Thousand Paper Cranes’ fame, caused by radiation from the 1945 nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We all remember the chemical attacks on Halabja and the sharp increase in birth defects and fetal losses that followed. But perhaps a less familiar source of post-war agony is depleted uranium (DU). Iraq and its people have been exposed to DU from military weaponry since 1991.

Depleted uranium is the byproduct of the uranium enrichment process used to make nuclear fuel. It contains three times less U-235 isotope than natural uranium. Even though DU is about 60-75% as radioactive as natural uranium, it has been observed that DU is very toxic and has potential long-term health effects due to its long half-life which is estimated at around 4.5 billion years. Dr. Rosalie Bertell, an environmental epidemiologist, says “The damage [caused by DU] is due to the length of time of the exposure more than the strength of the source.”

Depleted uranium has a mass of 19,050 kg/m³ and is 1.67 times denser than lead. Because of its high density, DU is valued for certain civilian and military purposes. It is used as counterweight in aircrafts and as protective material in radioactive settings. It is also used in ammunition and armors. Depleted uranium can penetrate armors, ignite on impact, and protect against normal bullets because of its high density. At impact, 20% of a DU penetrator’s mass turns into dust and can contaminate miles of land.

About 18 countries make use of DU in their military equipment as it is relatively cheap and readily available. The United States has used DU in its military equipment since the 1970s, contaminating Iraq in the 1991 Gulf War and again in the 2003 Operation Iraqi Freedom. In the Gulf War, 375 tons of DU ammunitions were used. In OIF, more than 2200 tons were used a year into the war.

Research conducted since 1990 indicate that exposure to depleted uranium can affect the function of the organs – including the brain, liver, kidney, and heart – in addition to causing genetic, reproductive, and neurological problems. And reports of high birth defect rates have always followed DU usage, especially in areas where DU munitions have been fired.

Malformed babies

DU results in dreadfully malformed babies. Anyone who browses Google Images for “depleted uranium” will either baulk at the images of hideously misshapen babies or have nightmares for the rest of the week.

During the Gulf War, Iraqi and American troops in the city of Basra received a total whole body radioactive dosage of 442-577 millisievert (mSv): the “recommended” yearly dosage is 1 mSv. In 2001, veterans of the Gulf War were reported to have about 14 times more chromosomal and DNA abnormalities in their genes and they had 220% more risk of having children with congenital malformations than their non-veteran peers. In 2004, another study showed that the risk of Gulf War male veterans having children with malformations was 50% higher than for non-veterans. It was also reported that even eight years after their brief exposure to DU in the Gulf War, US troops still had traces of DU in their semen and 100 times the “recommended” amount of uranium in their urine. Today, a third of the 1991 Gulf War veterans receive VA Disability Benefits. The damage was so immense that it is now referred to as the “Gulf War Syndrome”.

Reports from doctors in Iraq show that birth defects have increased by 2-6 times and that some types of cancer are 3-12 times more frequently seen since 1991. The Lancet, the world’s leading general medical journal, published a report in 1998 stating that around the world about 500 children die everyday as a result of Iraqi warfare, and that the mortality rate among Iraqi children under age 5 has increased from 2.3% in 1989 to 16.6% in 1993. In 2001, a decade after the Gulf War, doctors in Basra, one of the most contaminated cities in Iraq, reported sharp increases in the rate of congenital malformations at birth. 18 out of 1,000 children were born with some kind of defect. Doctors also reported a horrible new trend: mothers after labor no longer ask for the gender of their infants, but whether they are “normal or not.” This trend is likely to continue and become more frequent as the very genes of the exposed may have been damaged and the DU dust remains present.

Dr. Chris Busby, a British radiation expert, says:

“I’m horrified. The people out there – the Iraqis, the media and the troops – risk the most appalling ill health. And the radiation from depleted uranium can travel literally anywhere. It’s going to destroy the lives of thousands of children, all over the world. We all know how far radiation can travel”.

This radiation expert expresses his concern for troops, reporters, and Iraqis who might have been contaminated by Depleted Uranium in the Iraq war.

Six years into OIF, Dr. Busby and two other researchers conducted a survey in Fallujah, the most contaminated city in Iraq, and concluded that infant mortality has risen to 8%. In Fallujah, the incidence rate of leukemia had increased 38 times and breast cancer in females 10 times by 2009. Shockingly, these figures are higher than the ones reported in Hiroshima and Nagasaki after 1945.

In the world of politics, depleted uranium is a very sensitive subject. In 1996-1997, UN Human Rights Tribunals labeled the use of DU for military purposes as a violation of the Geneva Convention and marked DU munitions as weapons of mass destruction. Dozens of humanitarian organizations, like the Campaign Against Depleted Uranium (CADU), and documentary movies, like Poison DUst, raise awareness about the dangers of DU.

‘Crime against humanity’

Grave accusations were leveled against the coalition forces during the Gulf War and later during the Iraq War, and the propriety of many of their actions has been brought into question. Human rights activists around the world condemn the American and British occupation forces for using DU. One American veteran says American use of DU is “a crime against humanity which may, in the eyes of historians, rank with the worst atrocities of all time. [Iraq Military Veterans] are on DU death row, waiting to die.” This ex-soldier speaks for the quarter million US and UK troops who are now gravely ill allegedly because of DU exposure.

To avoid pressure from the UN and humanitarian organizations, the US, UK, and other coalition forces have refused to release specific information about the amounts and types of DU they used in Iraq. The US government’s Veterans Administration maintains that the Gulf War Syndrome is caused by the biological and chemical effects of the oil fields in Southern Iraq and, in one instance, it blocked an experiment by Dr. Asaf Durakovic.

This professor of radiology and nuclear medicine exposed a group of dogs to depleted uranium in an experiment and found that 84% of the dogs died of lung cancer. Dr. Durakovic concluded:

“Uranium does cause cancer, uranium does cause mutation, and uranium does kill. If we continue with the irresponsible contamination of the biosphere, and denial of the fact that human life is endangered by the deadly isotope uranium, then we are doing disservice to ourselves, disservice to the truth, disservice to God and to all generations who follow”.

By blocking controversial experiments like Dr Durakovic’s, the militaries of the superpowers communicate to us that they have an interest in continuing to use depleted uranium and will revert to force if necessary.

Even though in public the US Veterans Administration denies the dangers of DU, they privately acknowledge them. A leaked US administration report in 1995 purportedly admits the dangers of DU but states that the issue “must be viewed in perspective.” The report acknowledges that the cost of repairing the damage done would be “excessive.” They are just not ready to pay for the mistakes made.

Time to act

Even with all the research and international fuss about DU, most Iraqis are still ignorant concerning the subject of DU. But, just as someone walking with blindfolds cannot be sure that he will never hit a wall, we cannot be sure that we will never be affected by DU. Just because most of us have not yet fallen victim to DU does not mean it won’t happen. DU is patient: it can strike anytime during its 4.5-billion-year-stay.

What does it take for us to start worrying about DU contamination in Iraq? Do we all need get lung cancer and have malformed babies before we start to care?

Unless we start caring, we will all eventually suffer the deadly consequences of DU contamination, and mortality and birth defect rates will keep rising at a steady pace for the next 4.5 billion years.

Each and every one of us, as inhabitants of this land, is entitled to a share in the responsibility for decontaminating it and spreading awareness about the dangers of DU.

We should also work to:

• secure the banning of DU for military purposes
• convince the US military to submit necessary data about the types, amounts, and locations of all DU expenditures in Iraq
• cooperate with foreign organizations (like the Preemptive Love Coalition that works to provide life-saving heart surgeries for kids who have been born with heart defects, some allegedly from exposure to DU)
• assist local doctors in providing best medical treatment to victims of DU warfare
• allow the UN and humanitarian organizations to do extensive research about lingering DU effects in Iraq and find out if the damage done to the victims can be reversed.

But perhaps the first thing we need to do is to change our concept of the consequences of war from shelled buildings to malformed children.
Meer Ako Ali, aged 16, is co-founder and editor-in-chief of Awat Newspaper, an independent English newspaper run by Kurdish youth, and a Kurdistan Tribune columnist
References:

• Wikipedia (June 16, 2011). Depleted Uranium. Retrieved from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium
• Preemptive Love Coalition (2011). Birth Defects in Iraq, PLC Mission. Retrieved from: http://preemptivelove.org/about/mission/
• World Health Organization (January 2003). Depleted Uranium. Retrieved from: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/index.html
• Professor Souad N. Al-Azzawi (August 31, 2011). Depleted Uranium Radioactive Contamination in Iraq: An Overview. Retrieved 2011, from: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=3116
• CADU (2008). Depleted Uranium. Retrieved 2011, from: http://www.cadu.org.uk/intro.htm
• News-Medical (Unknown). Gulf War Syndrome. Retrieved 2011, from: http://www.news-medical.net/health/What-is-Gulf-War-Syndrome.aspx
• James Denver (April 29, 2005). Horror of US Depleted Uranium in Iraq Threatens the World. Retrieved 2011, from: http://www.rense.com/general64/du.htm
• Kewe (November 2, 2006). Depleted Uranium: A War Crime Within a War Crime. Retrieved from: http://www.thewe.cc/weplanet/news/depleted_uranium_iraq_afghanistan_balkans.html
• Poison DUst (November 4, 2007). International Appeal to Ban DU. Retrieved from: http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/du.htm

Source: http://kurdistantribune.com/2011/depleted-uranium-billion-year-threat-iraq/

UN DECLARES ACCESS TO CLEAN WATER

July 29, 2010 - BROADCAST

Clean Water is a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT

The United Nations General Assembly has declared for the first time that access to clean water and sanitation is a fundamental human right. In a historic vote Wednesday, 122 countries supported the resolution, and over forty countries abstained from voting, including the United States, Canada and several European and other industrialized countries. There were no votes against the resolution. We speak with longtime water justice activist, Maude Barlow. [includes rush transcript]

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

JUAN GONZALEZ: The United Nations General Assembly has declared for the first time that access to clean water and sanitation is a fundamental human right. In an historic vote Wednesday, 122 countries supported the resolution, and over forty countries abstained from voting, including the United States, Canada and several European and other industrialized countries. There were no votes against the resolution.

Nearly one billion people lack clean drinking water, and over two-and-a-half billion do not have basic sanitation.

Bolivia’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Pablo Solon, introduced the resolution at the General Assembly Wednesday.

PABLO SOLON: [translated] At the global level, approximately one out of every eight people do not have drinking water. In just one day, more than 200 million hours of the time used by women is spent collecting and transporting water for their homes. The lack of sanitation is even worse, because it affects 2.6 billion people, which represents 40 percent of the global population. According to the report of the World Health Organization and of UNICEF of 2009, which is titled "Diarrhoea: Why Children Are [Still] Dying and What We Can Do," every day 24,000 children die in developing countries due to causes that can be prevented, such as diarrhea, which is caused by contaminated water. This means that a child dies every three-and-a-half seconds. One, two, three. As they say in my village, the time is now.

AMY GOODMAN: Bolivia’s ambassador to the United Nations, Pablo Solon, urging support for the resolution Bolivia introduced recognizing access to clean water and sanitation as a fundamental human right.

For more on this historic vote, we’re joined now here in New York by longtime water justice advocate Maude Barlow. She’s the chair of the Council of Canadians, co-founder of the Blue Planet Project and board chair of Food and Water Watch. Last year she served as senior adviser on water to the President of the United Nations General Assembly.

Welcome to Democracy Now!

MAUDE BARLOW: So glad to be here.

AMY GOODMAN: Talk about the significance of this. If you asked people in this country, they would have no idea this has passed.

MAUDE BARLOW: I know, I know, which is why you matter, I just have to say. This is very, very distressing to know something this important happened and it’s been blanketed. There’s no media here; it’s just like it didn’t happen. It’s had media in other places.

There’s no human — there has been on human right to water. It wasn’t included in the 1948 Declaration of Human Rights. And then, more recently, when people have realized that it needed to happen, there were very powerful forces against it — powerful countries, powerful corporate interests and so on. But Ambassador Solon and a number of developing countries decided that they were going to move this, countries from the Global South, that they were going to move this through, and they just tabled it a month ago, and yesterday, at the vote at the United Nations, they won. Not one country had the guts to stand against them, even though lots of them wanted to do it.

And basically, for the first time, the United Nations General Assembly debated the right to water and sanitation — it’s very important both were included — and acknowledged and recognized the right of every human being on earth to water and sanitation. And this matters because — as you know, because we’ve talked so many times — we are running — a planet running out of water. Brand new World Bank study says that the demand is going to exceed supply by 40 percent in twenty years. It’s just a phenomenal statement. And the human suffering behind that is just unbelievable. And what this did was basically say that the United Nations has decided it’s not going to let huge populations leave them behind as this crisis unfolds, that the new priority is to be given to these populations without water and sanitation.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And the countries that abstained, could you talk about — did any of them talk about why they were not voting "yes," or did they just remain quiet?

MAUDE BARLOW: Oh, it was the usual gang. It was the United States and Canada, the European — not the European Union — the United Kingdom — some of the European countries voted to abstain; some were wonderful — Australia, New Zealand. So it was all of the Anglophone, neoliberal, you know, bought into this whole agenda that everything is to be commodified, countries who are able to continue to supply clean water to their citizens, which makes it doubly appalling that they would deny the right to water to the billions of people who are suffering right now.

They used procedural language about this and that. There’s another process in Geneva with the Human Rights Council, which we support, and they used the excuse that we have to wait for that. But that’s a long-term process, and it could or could not end in something very specific. So they just cut through it. A bunch of brave countries from the Global South said, "We can’t wait. We need this now." And it’s not a surprise that it came from Bolivia, because, remember, Bolivia is suffering double whammy with a, you know, dearth of water, dearth of clean water, but also melting glaciers from climate change.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, let’s go back to Bolivia. I want to go back to Bolivia’s UN representative, Ambassador Pablo Solon, at a speech he gave in Toronto, the event that you organized, Maude, last month, shortly before the G20 meetings. He outlined the need to support a UN declaration on the human right to water, referencing the long struggle for water rights in Bolivia, which successfully fought against Bechtel’s water privatization efforts ten years ago.

PABLO SOLON: In those days, I was a water warrior. Now I’m a water warrior ambassador. We have to have water declared as a human right in the UN. It is not possible to see that we have declared in the UN food, the right to food, the right to health, the right to education, the right to shelter, the right to development, but not the right to water. And we all know that without water, we can’t live. So nobody can argue that it’s not a basic and fundamental and universal human right. But even though, until now, it’s not recognized as a human right. So, we have presented, two weeks ago, a draft resolution so that this coming month, in July, we expect to have a vote in the General Assembly of the United Nations. And we want to see which countries are going to vote against that resolution. We want to go to vote to see which governments are going to say to the humanity that water is not a human right.

AMY GOODMAN: That was Bolivia’s ambassador to the United Nations, Pablo Solon, speaking in Toronto. Which nations are not going to say that water is a human right? Well, you said the United States didn’t vote for this. Canada didn’t, though they didn’t vote against. What is their rationale?

MAUDE BARLOW: Well, it depends on the country. The United Kingdom says they "don’t want to pay for the toilets in Africa." That’s a direct quote from somebody who wouldn’t be quoted, from a senior diplomat in the government of Great Britain, that was in — quoted in a Canadian paper.

Canada hides behind the false statement that we might have to share our water, sell our water to the United States, which is nonsense. We’re in way more danger from NAFTA, which declares water to be a commodity.

The United States, as you know, has not been supporting rights regimes for decades now, so this is just a continuation. And I have to tell you, listening to the statement from the United States yesterday at the United Nations, I wouldn’t have thought there was any difference between George Bush and Barack Obama’s administrations. It was haughty language. They scolded Bolivia. Bolivia came under a lot of heat, a lot of insults yesterday from these countries.

New Zealand and Australia are both going private. Australia has privatized its water totally, and basically it’s now for sale. And there’s a big American investment firm that’s actually buying up water rights. It was supposed to be, originally, just to get the farmers of the big farm conglomerates to share, to trade, but now it’s all gone private and international, so they’re hardly going to support something that says that water, you know, is a human right, when they’ve commodified it and said it’s a market commodity.

So, really, what you’re seeing is a split between those countries that see water as a public trust, although that wasn’t in the language of the legislation, but that see water as a public trust and a human right and that should belong to all, as opposed to those who are going to move to a market model. And I think that’s the truth behind what happened.

And it’s very important for you to know that they did not allow the inclusion of the words "access to," and that was one of the demands. I think some of those countries would have said yes to something that said "access to." And it’s very important. It’s not semantic, because if you say you have access to it, then all the country — all the government has to do is provide you access. Then they can charge you, or they can have a private company come in and deliver it and charge you. And if you can’t afford it, they provided you access, it’s not their fault if you can’t pay it. So it’s very important that Bolivia and the other sponsoring countries held on to the language of the human right to drinking water and sanitation. They wouldn’t drop sanitation. They wouldn’t add the words "access to." And those were the sticking points.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And in practical terms, what will be the impact of this resolution on those efforts to continue to commodify or privatize water supplies in countries around the world, especially in the third world?

MAUDE BARLOW: It’s a fight we’re in. You know, I’m not going to say that suddenly everything is going to be fine tomorrow or today, today being the day after the vote, that anybody woke up in a different situation today, anybody had more water today than they did yesterday, or more access to sanitation.

What it is is a moral statement, a guiding principle, of the countries of the world — and basically the UN is the closest thing we have to a global parliament — that they have taken a step in a direction of saying that water is a human right and a public trust and that no one should be dying for lack of water, and they shouldn’t have to watch their children die a horrible death for lack of water because they cannot pay. And that was a statement that has taken us years and years to get the UN — they hadn’t even debated the water issue. They hadn’t even debated it in the past. They’ve done all this work on climate and absolutely no work on water. So it was a huge step forward to establishing some principles that we need if we are to avoid the crisis that I honestly see coming, that I think is going to be worse than anybody can imagine, in terms of the suffering.

AMY GOODMAN: Maude Barlow, talk about the connection between lack of water and global warming. June 2010 is the hottest June ever recorded on earth.

MAUDE BARLOW: Yeah, two connections. One is that climate change from greenhouse gas emissions and other causes is impacting water. So it’s melting glaciers. It’s melting ice packs, so that places like the Great Lakes don’t have the thick ice pack that they used to, so that the evaporation takes place more quickly. The water is eroding and evaporating far too quickly. So we know that global warming is having an impact on water. Conversely, our thinking that water is just a resource for our convenience and our profit has made us act as if there’s no tomorrow with water, so we move it all over the place. We take big pipes, and we move water from aquifers and watersheds, where it is maintaining a healthy hydrologic cycle, maintaining the rain cycle, maintaining vegetation that’s needed for the retention of water in the soil, and we move it to grow crops we shouldn’t in deserts. We move massive amounts of water into huge cities. And when they’re finished with it, they dump it in the ocean as garbage. A colleague in — a scientist colleague in Slovakia who estimates that we send — trying to do the math from liters to gallons —

AMY GOODMAN: And we have ten seconds.

MAUDE BARLOW: Trillions and trillions of gallons of water from land-based systems into the ocean every year. So we’ve got to change. This resolution is the first step towards a different attitude, towards nature and towards one another.

AMY GOODMAN: And this UN resolution that’s just been passed says water is a basic human right, we will link to at democracynow.org [draft resolution]. Maude Barlow, thank you very much, head of the Council of Canadians, considered the most important water justice activist in the world. Thanks so much.

 

WATCH THE BROADCAST HERE 

    

SOURCE: Democracy Now

40 OUTRAGEOS FACTS

40 Outrageous Facts Most People Don’t Know

Once you go down the rabbit hole, you will discover things that most people don’t know. Here are 40 outrageous facts that most people are clueless about.

1. The IRS is not a U.S. Government Agency. It is an Agency of the IMF. (Diversified Metal Products v. IRS et al. CV-93-405E-EJE U.S.D.C.D.I., Public Law 94-564, Senate Report 94-1148 pg. 5967, Reorganization Plan No. 26, Public Law 102-391.)

2. The IMF is an Agency of the UN. (Blacks Law Dictionary 6th Ed. Pg. 816)

3. The U.S. Has not had a Treasury since 1921. (41 Stat. Ch.214 pg. 654)

4. The U.S. Treasury is now the IMF. (Presidential Documents Volume 29-No.4 pg. 113, 22 U.S.C. 285-288)

5. The United States does not have any employees because there is no longer a United States. No more reorganizations. After over 200 years of operating under bankruptcy its finally over. (Executive Order 12803) Do not personate one of the creditors or share holders or you will go to Prison.18 U.S.C. 914
6. The FCC, CIA, FBI, NASA and all of the other alphabet gangs were never part of the United States government. Even though the “US Government” held shares of stock in the various Agencies. (U.S. V. Strang , 254 US 491, Lewis v. US, 680 F.2d, 1239)


7. Social Security Numbers are issued by the UN through the IMF. The Application for a Social Security Number is the SS5 form. The Department of the Treasury (IMF) issues the SS5 not the Social Security Administration. The new SS5 forms do not state who or what publishes them, the earlier SS5 forms state that they are Department of the Treasury forms. You can get a copy of the SS5 you filled out by sending form SSA-L996 to the SS Administration. (20 CFR chapter 111, subpart B 42 2.103 (b) (2) (2) Read the cites above)

8. There are no Judicial courts in America and there has not been since 1789. Judges do not enforce Statutes and Codes. Executive Administrators enforce Statutes and Codes. (FRC v. GE 281 US 464, Keller v. PE 261 US 428, 1 Stat. 138-178)

9. There have not been any Judges in America since 1789. There have just been Administrators. (FRC v. GE 281 US 464, Keller v. PE 261 US 428 1Stat. 138-178)

10. According to the GATT you must have a Social Security number. House Report (103-826)

11. We have One World Government, One World Law and a One World Monetary System.
12. The UN is a One World Super Government.
13. No one on this planet has ever been free. This planet is a Slave Colony. There has always been a One World Government. It is just that now it is much better organized and has changed its name as of 1945 to the United Nations.
14. New York City is defined in the Federal Regulations as the United Nations. Rudolph Gulliani stated on C-Span that “New York City was the capital of the World” and he was correct. (20 CFR chapter 111, subpart B 422.103 (b) (2) (2)

15. Social Security is not insurance or a contract, nor is there a Trust Fund. (Helvering v. Davis 301 US 619, Steward Co. V. Davis 301 US 548.)

16. Your Social Security check comes directly from the IMF which is an Agency of the UN. (Look at it if you receive one. It should have written on the top left United States Treasury.)

17. You own no property, slaves can’t own property. Read the Deed to the property that you think is yours. You are listed as a Tenant. (Senate Document 43, 73rd Congress 1st Session)

18. The most powerful court in America is not the United States Supreme Court but, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. (42 Pa.C.S.A. 502)

19. The Revolutionary War was a fraud. See (22, 23 and 24)

20. The King of England financially backed both sides of the Revolutionary war. (Treaty at Versailles July 16, 1782, Treaty of Peace 8 Stat 80)

…and as history repeats itself, Prescott Bush, father of George HW Bush and grandfather of George W. Bush, funded both sides of World War II.  The Bush family have been traitors to the American citizens for decades.
“Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched.”
George Bush Senior speaking in an interview with Sarah McClendon in December 1992

21. You can not use the Constitution to defend yourself because you are not a party to it. (Padelford Fay & Co. v. The Mayor and Alderman of The City of Savannah 14 Georgia 438, 520)


22. America is a British Colony. (THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION, NOT A LAND MASS AND IT EXISTED BEFORE THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR AND THE BRITISH TROOPS DID NOT LEAVE UNTIL 1796.) Respublica v. Sweers 1 Dallas 43, Treaty of Commerce 8 Stat 116, The Society for Propagating the Gospel, &c. V. New Haven 8 Wheat 464, Treaty of Peace 8 Stat 80, IRS Publication 6209, Articles of Association October 20, 1774.)

23. Britain is owned by the Vatican. (Treaty of 1213)

24. The Pope can abolish any law in the United States. (Elements of Ecclesiastical Law Vol.1 53-54)

25. A 1040 form is for tribute paid to Britain. (IRS Publication 6209)

26. The Pope claims to own the entire planet through the laws of conquest and discovery. (Papal Bulls of 1455 and 1493)

READ MORE

Source: http://www.secretsofthefed.com/40-outrageous-facts-most-people-dont-know/