The Mystery of Aligned Nebulae | Space News

The Mystery of Aligned Nebulae | Space News
Sept 20, 2013 | ThunderboltsProject


One of the most remarkable objects in space is the bipolar nebula. Recently a team of scientists reported an astonishing discovery. The axes of bipolar nebulae within the Milky Way's central bulge are aligned perpendicularly to the plane of the galaxy. This consistent alignment finds no reasonable explanation in the common theory of star-formation.

Subscribe to Thunderbolts Update newsletter: http://eepurl.com/ETy41

Thunderbolts Project Home: http://www.thunderbolts.info
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/thunderboltsp...
Picture of the Day: http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/daily...
Electric Universe (Wal Thornhill): http://www.holoscience.com/wp/
Essential Guide to the Electric Universe: http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/eg-co...

Neurologist warns of neurodegenerative disease surge due to chemtrail spraying

Neurologist warns of neurodegenerative disease surge due to chemtrail spraying
Sept 20, 2013 | LifeWise | Christina Sarich

Any skeptic will conscientiously question the doom and gloom scenarios being touted by the anti-geoengineering groups. Geoengineering Watch, Aircrap.org, and others, prolifically litter the Internet with environmental and health concerns which reach both global and epic proportions. Meanwhile, the governments of NATO nations (namely the US and Canada, but also France, New Zealand and other countries) continue to spray aerosol aluminum, barium, and strontium in our skies, that then pour down on us no differently than flakes of snow. Skeptics often include people from the medical profession, scientists and, of course, the government’s hired public relations people.

One neurologist; however, Russell L. Blaylock, M.D., is supporting the claims of these watch dog groups by stating that:

“There is evidence that they are spraying tons of nanosized aluminum compounds. It has been demonstrated in the scientific and medical literature that nanosized particles are infinitely more reactive and induce intense inflammation in a number of tissues. Of special concern is the effect of these nanoparticles on the brain and spinal cord, as a growing list of neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer’s dementia, Parkinson’s disease, and Lou Gehrig’s disease (ALS) are strongly related to exposure to environmental aluminum.”

In an important expose and documentary, What in the World Are They Spraying? researchers found that aluminum levels are “off the charts” with the highest reading so far nearing 4,610 times the maximum contaminate level for drinking water in California. Snow samples were taken after heavy chemtrail spraying from Ski Bowl and Mt. Shasta. A recent snow sample taken from the mountain showed 61,000 ug/L, 61 times the maximum contaminant level for aluminum in drinking water. The proliferation of this chemical in our environment is now impossible to deny, and it isn’t easy to detox.

Dr. Blaylock goes on to explain, not only are aluminum particles the cause of inflammation in the body – a known cause of numerous neurological diseases and cancers – but the particles also penetrate the brain through multiple channels. While the particles can travel to the brain via the blood or through the olfactory nerves,  studies have proven that the area of the brain most affected by Alzheimer’s disease is connected directly to the olfactory neural tracts. This area of the brain is also the earliest section to be affected with degenerative cognition in Alzheimer’s patients.

What this means is that as you breathe in aluminum dust – nano-particles that rain down after a chemtrail spray, you are inhaling, via the olfactory nerves, a heavy metal that doesn’t belong in your body, and will directly affect your cognitive ability. This is not just a concern for older generations, as Blaylock informs us, but even for small children and babies.  Even home air-filtering systems aren’t going to help, because the particles are nano-sized, far too small to be eliminated by even the most costly home air filter.

Once we breathe these aluminum nano-particles through our noses, and intoxicate the brain with this heavy metal, we will also start absorbing it through the vegetation that we eat – as the nano-particles infiltrate ground water and soil. This will concentrate the level of aluminum in our bodies, and as the body naturally tries to detox from something that doesn’t belong in its system, will distribute the aluminum to various organs. The brain and spinal chord will be highly subject to aluminum poisoning, but so will our livers, digestive tracts, lungs, kidneys, and so on. The same cycle of inflammation will continue, causing additional disease aside from neurological ones – like asthma, cardio-pulmonary diseases and immunity issues since a large portion of our immune system depends on gut health.

The exact reason for chemtrail spraying is the cause of some controversy. Geo-engineering is part of a government plan to ‘protect’ us from global warming, but if this is the true reason it seems a high price to pay for the level of public health concerns it will raise. The website, geoengienner.org, which boasts over 3000 articles on the topic of geo-engineering, doesn’t pull up a single article about chemtrails. If this is an innocent practice being carried out by the government, then why is there such secrecy around it? There are loads of our tax-payer money being spent on the geo-engineering program, while poisoning us to death, and literally dumbing us down to infantile states. The CIA recently spent $630,000 on a study to control global climate, but it looks like the government thugs are really attempting to control the masses again, this time not with cell phone and Internet spying, but with chemical warfare on its own people.

The Resident: Recycling now goes to landfills

The Resident: Recycling now goes to landfills
Sept 19, 2013 | RTAmerica

The US has been exporting millions of tons of recyclables to China, but China's Operation Green Fence has put an end to much of that. It was implemented to curb the growth of China's huge garbage mountains. But the US doesn't have an industry to recycle much of its own waste. As a result, much of our recyclables now ends up in landfills. The Resident (aka Lori Harfenist) discusses.

Follow The Resident at http://www.twitter.com/TheResident
Find RT America in your area: http://rt.com/where-to-watch/
Or watch us online: http://rt.com/on-air/rt-america-air/

Like us on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/RTAmerica
Follow us on Twitter http://twitter.com/RT_America

How the International Food Information Council trains junk food companies to hide the truth about GMOs

Cross-posted from our brother site Healthesound.info under Key Journalism

SOTT: How the International Food Information Council trains junk food companies to hide the truth about GMOs
Sept 11, 2013 | Organic Consumers Association | Alexis Baden-Mayer

Editor's note: This is an edited version of a presentation made on Sept. 10, 2013, by OCA political director Alexis Baden-Mayer, at the American Frozen Food Institute's (AFFI) Government Action Summit. Presenting opposite Baden-Mayer was David Schmidt, president and CEO of the International Food Information Council (IFIC). AFFI is a trade group that opposes mandatory GMO labels. AFFI's largest and most influential member is ConAgra, which contributed $1,176,700 to defeat Prop 37, California's 2012 ballot initiative to label GMOs. ConAgra hasn't yet donated to oppose I-522, the 2013 Washington ballot initiative to label GMOs. But the company is a member of the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), which has so far donated $2.2 million to the NO on 522 campaign. ConAgra's CEO, Gary Rodki, is the GMA's chairman.

Soylent Green, the 1973 science fiction film starring Charlton Heston, depicts a dystopian future where a population suffering from pollution, depleted resources, poverty, dying oceans, and climate change survives largely on processed food rations produced by the Soylent Corporation. Soylent Green is a green wafer advertised to contain "high-energy plankton."

The climax of the film occurs when one of the characters reveals the truth: The world's polluted oceans no longer produce the plankton from which Soylent Green is reputedly made. Soylent Green is made from human remains.

Like all great science fiction, the story of Soylent Green sticks with us because it provides a glimpse into the future. Today, only 40 years after Soylent Green debuted in movie theaters, we have a population suffering from pollution, depleted resources, poverty, dying oceans and climate change. And we're surviving largely on processed foods derived from plants that have been genetically modified by the Monsanto Corporation. Very few of us, only 26 percent, know that there are genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in our food. Yet when polled, 93 percent of Americans say that they want the right to know. Yet the International Food Information Council (IFIC), which is supported by companies like Monsanto, Dow, Coca-Cola, Dannon, Kraft, McCormick and Mars, works on behalf of those companies to block the will of the nine out of 10 people who want the right to know what we're eating.

Could it be that the truth about GMOs, just like the truth behind the protein source in Soylent Green, is a science-fiction horror story? One that the food and biotech industries will go to any lengths to hide from consumers?

The IFIC has produced a handy, nicely Orwellian guide for food manufacturers on what to say, and what not to say, when talking about GMOs. Its very own GMO Newspeak. IFIC's "Food Biotechnology: A Communicator's Guide to Improving Understanding" contains a list of "Words to Use, Words to Lose." The guide instructs readers to "lose" phrases like "not a direct danger to human health" or "most research has not found an adverse effect" and replace them "safe, healthful, sustainable."

Is lack of safety testing evidence of safety?

The genetically engineered food we're eating today has never been safety tested for human consumption, using reliable, independent long-term testing methods. Yet the IFIC, which opposes the pre-market safety testing of GMOs, insists that the lack of safety testing is evidence of safety.

According to the American Medical Association (AMA), GMOs have been "consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature." So, no scientist has proven that GMOs are causing disease in humans. Does that mean that GMOs don't cause disease? Is it proof that GMOs are safe?

Here's how two different doctors' associations answer that question:

The AMA has a glass half-full approach, but they acknowledge that the reason we think everything's fine is that we haven't adequately addressed the potential harms of bioengineered food. The AMA wants U.S. regulators to do something they've never done before: require companies to submit to mandatory pre-market safety assessments instead of relying on the current voluntary notification process.

The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) has a glass half-empty approach. While the AMA talks about "potential harm," the AAEM talks about "probable harm." Just like the AMA, the AAEM supports a change in U.S. law to require mandatory pre-market safety testing. But in the meantime, rather than wait another decade or two for federal agencies to require pre-market testing, the AAEM encourages doctors to recommend non-GMO diets.

Despite the difference in policy positions between the two groups of doctors, there's one thing they can both agree on: GMOs haven't been safety-tested yet. And they need to be.
IFIC says: "Consuming foods produced through biotechnology is safe for children and women who are pregnant or nursing." Wow, that's reassuring. Wouldn't we all love for that to be true? But now that we know that to IFIC "safe" just means "hasn't been safety tested," let's look into this.

IFIC's reference for that statement is: U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Genetically engineered plants for food and feed, 2012. I wasn't aware the FDA had issued a statement on GMOs in 2012, so I clicked the link.

I found the old FDA statement of policy that hasn't been updated since 1997. I had read it before. But I read it again, and found that it says absolutely nothing about the safety of biotechnology for children or women who are pregnant or nursing. But I did notice something I hadn't before. A little asterisk at the bottom of the page that says, "Effective June 18, 2001, the Office of Premarket Approval is now the Office of Food Additive Safety."

Once the FDA had decided against putting GMOs through premarket safety tests, the agency could no longer claim to have an office of premarket approval. I suggest an additional entry to the IFIC's GMO Newspeak Dictionary, on behalf of the FDA: "Lack of premarket safety testing is food additive safety."

So what do we know about the safety of GMOs for children and pregnant or nursing women?

According to a study published in 2011 genetically engineered DNA survives in our bodies and is passed on to our children before birth. The study found that 93 percent of pregnant women and 80 percent of their babies have genetically engineered DNA in their blood.

Is this causing disease? We don't know yet. The researchers in this study said that babies developing in the womb are highly susceptible to the adverse effects of xenobiotics, chemicals found in an organism which are not normally produced or expected to be present in it. In this case, they're talking about crops that are genetically engineered to produce their own insecticides inside the plant. The researchers warn that GMOs could disrupt the biological events that are required to ensure normal growth and development. They say we need a new field of multi-disciplinary research, combining human reproduction, toxicology and nutrition.

In the meantime, we need to label GMOs and let people make their own choices about what they want to eat.

Many people are finding that their health and their children's health improves when they go non-GMO. The type of person I most frequently meet through my activism these days is a mother who had to address a health problem of her own, or a health problem in her children, and who found that going non-GMO improved that condition. This is case for Robyn O'Brien, who started Allergy Kids; Kathleen Hallal, who co-founded Moms Across America (her son had an autoimmune problem that was relieved with a non-GMO diet); Tara Cook-Littman, who is responsible for passing the country's first GMO labeling law with GMO Free CT (she got rid of a variety of her own health problems, including headaches, gastrointestinal issues, tingling fingers and anxiety by going non-GMO); and Diana Reeves, who started GMO Free USA (she treated health problems in her two daughters by going non-GMO after her son died from cancer at age 4).

Better nutrition from foods with no nutritional value?

Now, one question you might have is, if we label GMOs, and more people start eating non-GMO diets, could we be steering people away from healthy food? Is there nutrition that only GMO plants provide? IFIC says: "Food biotechnology is being used to improve nutrition."

Not really. Unless you think high fructose corn syrup, partially hydrogenated vegetable oils and refined sugar provide nutrition.

Genetically engineered crops are used to make the worst junk-food ingredients. GMOs are primarily used to produce high-fructose corn syrup made from genetically engineered corn, refined sugar made from genetically engineered sugar beets, and partially hydrogenated vegetable oils made from genetically engineered corn, soy, canola and cotton. If you don't think you're eating cotton, look at the ingredients on a box of Ritz crackers.

Beyond talking about what genetic engineering might produce someday in the future, there's really no way for IFIC to spin the fact that genetic engineering hasn't produced any uniquely nutritious foods. IFIC's list of "Foods from Crops & Animals Raised Using Biotechnology" is "sweet corn, papaya, dairy products [from cows given genetically engineered growth hormone], sweeteners (e.g. corn syrup, sugar), vegetable oils, corn starch, soy protein, and more." By "more" they mean more processed food ingredients made from corn, soy, cotton, canola and sugar beets. Where's the "improved nutrition" on that list?

More pesticides equals fewer pesticides?

IFIC says that GMOs have reduced the amount of insecticide used on crops. But where's the proof?

Independent scientists have reviewed industry's claims of insecticide reduction and found that overall, when you balance a supposed reduction in insecticide use against how GMOs have increased herbicide use, GMOs have actually increased the use of pesticides on average by 404 million pounds per year.

Herbicides used to be sprayed around your food. Now, thanks to genetic engineering, they can be sprayed directly on your food. Insecticides used to be sprayed on your food. Now, thanks to genetic engineering, they're produced by your food. And, as we've learned from the Journal of Reproductive Toxicology study, the genetically engineered insecticide gene stays in your body and can be passed on to your children before birth.

Contrary to Monsanto's marketing, RoundUp, the herbicide used on genetically engineered crops, is not benign. Ask the people who live in Argentina in what have come to be known as the "crop-sprayed towns." They live so close to the genetically engineered "RoundUp Ready" soy plantations that they are regularly sprayed with the herbicide. They have extremely high rates of birth defects, cancers and other serious health problems.

If consumers knew about genetically engineered food, would they still eat it? The New York Times poll that showed nearly unanimous support for GMO labels also revealed that about half us would not eat genetically engineered food if we knew how to avoid it. This is why IFIC has to hide the truth about GMOs.

Consumers' growing distrust of GMO foods is also why IFIC's "Words to Use, Words to Lose" guide advises proponents of GMOs not to say "genetically altered" and instead use the word "enhanced." Why it suggests GMO proponents drop the word "pesticides" and talk about "crop protection" or even "organic" it explains why the IFIC recommends replacing "transgenic" with "high-quality." And substituting "chemical" for "natural." And dropping the words "insect- or drought-resistant" in favor of "plentiful."

It also explains why the IFIC wants the purveyors of GMOs to talk about "ancestors" not "DNA," and why they substitute "biology," "genetically modified."

Obviously, I think the way IFIC talks about GMOs is ridiculous and deceiving, but I'll give them this: Talk about GMO food any way you like, just label it.

It's possible that I'm in a room filled entirely with people who are outside the 93 percent who want GMOs labeled. But just in case anyone here agrees with me, you can help make history this year by supporting the Yes on 522 campaign for GMO labels in Washington State.

TED aligns with Monsanto, halting any talks about GMOs, 'food as medicine' or natural healing

© Natural News

TED aligns with Monsanto, halting any talks about GMOs, 'food as medicine' or natural healing
Sept 18, 2013 | Natural News | Mike Adams

Allow me to be the first to announce that TED is dead. Why? Because the group that organizes so-called "TED talks" has been thoroughly hijacked by corporate junk science and now openly rejects any talks about GMOs, food as medicine, or even the subject of how food can help prevent behavioral disorders in children. All these areas of discussion are now red-flagged from being presented on any TED stage.

This is openly admitted by TEDx itself in a little-known letter publicly published on December 7, 2012. Click here to view the letter.

In that letter, TED says that people who talk about GMOs are engaged in "pseudoscience." Those who discuss the healing potential of foods are spreading "health hoaxes."

The letter also advises TEDx organizers to, "reject bad science, pseudoscience and health hoaxes," meaning anyone who talks about GMOs, "food as medicine" or similar topics.

The TED organization, incredibly, believes that food cannot be medicine and does not contain medicine. Perhaps someone should educate TED about resveratrol, curcumin, phycocyanins, polyphenols and ten thousand other chemicals created by plants that have medicinal functions in the human body. To deny this is to nearly admit you believe the Earth is flat and that the sun and stars revolve around our planet. It is a sure sign of a feeble mind that cannot grasp the very simple and readily evident idea that the human body evolved in an environment full of plants with beneficial physiological effects, including many medicinal effects.

Maybe someone should remind TED that nearly 25% of all prescription medicines are in some way derived from plants, including statin drugs. Drug companies expend enormous resources searching the world's botanical treasures for amazing molecules that they can pirate from nature and alter in some way to make them patentable as a drug. Even the World Resources Institute readily admits this, while also remind us that 80 percent of the world population still relies largely on plant-based medicine.

TED apparently thinks 80 percent of the world population is purely delusional, because obviously, as TED insists, real medicine can only come from pharmacological factories spewing out deadly chemicals, right?

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/042112_TED_conferences_pseudoscience_GMO.html#ixzz2fI8JCZfB

Ionic Order? Reversal of Sun's magnetic field 'will affect power, telecommunications on Earth'

© Inconnu

SOTT: Reversal of Sun's magnetic field 'will affect power, telecommunications on Earth'
Sept 14, 2013 | Swati Chandra / The Times of India

Be prepared for some major power failure, degradation of oil pipelines and disrupted telecommunication in next three to four months due to the reversing of the polarity of Sun's magnetic field, said Dr BN Dwivedi, professor, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Banaras Hindu University (BHU).

Dr Dwivedi is also an associate scientist of Solar Ultraviolet Measurements of Emitted Radiation (SUMER). He is the only scientist from non-European countries on the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) spacecraft (a major ESA/NASA project of international cooperation). According to Dwivedi, when the Sun's polarity will change, which has been predicted to occur in next three to four months, the entire solar system will experience its effect. However, the magnitude of these changes might not be very high as the strength of this change is very weak.

It may be noted here that Sun's magnetic field changes its polarity after every 11 years after which the north of the Sun's magnetic field becomes south and the south becomes north. The Sun completes its magnetic cycle in 22 years.

A member of the science team of 'Enhanced Visible Emission Line Coronagraph (VELC)' and 'Solar Ultraviolet Imaging Telescope (SUIT)' for the ISRO's ADITYA-L1 MISSION, scheduled to be launched by ISRO in 2018, Dr Dwivedi said, "Today's technology depends on space weather. Solar activity, such as coronal mass ejection during solar maximum will create more active space weather around Earth and other planets. This change in the magnetic field can also cause damage to the power grids and disrupt telecommunication to a great extent. There are chances that mobile phones, internet connection and other satellite communication, which are not enveloped by the thick atmosphere of Earth, might get hampered during this period."

He further added, "It is important to know that Sun has been changing its polarity since the conception of the solar system, however, it has not affected the general life on Earth as till now the life and human activities were confined within the limits of the Earth. Now we have gone beyond the Earth and it has made us vulnerable to the affects of the magnetic field reversal of the Sun. Our day to day communication is based on the satellites in space which will be affected by this reversal. The space communication, astronauts, satellite electronics will also get affected apart from space projects for other planets of the solar system."

According to Dwivedi, the domain of the Sun's magnetic influence stretches billions of kilometres in the solar system.

"Every body present in the universe has a magnetic field. The Sun's magnetic field dominates the heliosphere, the bubble of ionized gas (plasma) formed by the solar wind. It envelops the entire solar system out to more than 100-times the Sun-Earth distance. The pole shift might also ionize the Earth's upper atmosphere by allowing fewer cosmic rays to hit the Earth," he said.

Comment: Our history and our minds are intertwined as we create the things we already know by giving them names that already exist. This marker for magnetism exists as the Ionic order created long ago in architecture. In this sense, mind control is always present but we seem to refuse to acknowledge it.

Greg Palast: A Memo that Confirmed Every Conspiracy Freak's Fantasy [VIDEO]

Greg Palast: A Memo that Confirmed Every Conspiracy Freak's Fantasy
Sept 13, 2013 | wearechange


In this video Luke Rudkowski interviews investigative journalist Greg Palast about the secret memo he uncovered. The End Game memo uncovered how top US Treasury officials secretly conspired with a small cabal of banker big-shots to benefit themselves. The memo indicates high level politicians like Larry Summers, who is most likely going to be appointed the next chairman of the Federal Reserve by Obama.

To learn more about Greg check out http://www.gregpalast.com/

follow luke on https://twitter.com/Lukewearechange
https://facebook.com/LukeWeAreChange
http://instagram.com/lukewearechange
https://plus.google.com/1023224594778...

President Obama: Reject Keystone XL, promote clean energy

Before and after tar sands

President Obama: Reject Keystone XL, promote clean energy
Sept 16, 2013 | Press TV

The Keystone XL and tar sands expansion have no place in a clean energy future.

I can understand why oil companies love tar sands. There is a lot of money to be made by strip mining and drilling the dirtiest oil on the planet.

The oil industry is lobbying hard for President Obama's approval to let the Keystone XL pipeline cross our border and move a river of tar sands to the Gulf Coast, where much of it will be shipped overseas. But why should the rest of us pay the price so that the oil companies can line their pockets?

Developing the Canadian tar sands is destroying our continent's great northern forest at a terrifying rate. It is producing enough carbon pollution to wreak havoc with our climate for decades to come. And the pipelines that carry this dirty fuel are a direct threat to our nation's own drinking water supplies.

If you ask me, tar sands oil is exactly the type of dirty oil we can no longer afford. It may be great for oil companies, but it is killing our planet. There is no energy security in that.



 President Obama has promised to reject the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline if it will drive significantly more global warming pollution and more climate chaos. We have clear and compelling evidence that the Keystone XL fails the President's climate test. We already know that tar sands development causes more carbon pollution than conventional oil. And now a slew of experts from industry insiders to financial analysts all agree that the Keystone XL is the linchpin for Big Oil's plan to more than triple tar sands production over the next 20 years -- and the climate disruption that will follow.

The government of Canada surely knows this as well. Thus the recent reports that Canada is seeking approval of Keystone XL in exchange for a promise to make new climate commitments.

This fanciful trade-off is like embarking on a 20-year eating binge while promising to diet at the same time. Canada can't have it both ways. Its skyrocketing global warming emissions are a product of uncontrolled tar sands development. It will never get a handle on the former until it reins in the latter.

In this case, the way the Obama administration can help North America solve our climate problem is by rejecting the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline and calling on the Canadian government to cap tar sands production.

Instead of embarking on a tar sands binge and more climate chaos, the United States and Canada should be partnering on clean energy -- ramping up the high-tech energy solutions of today and tomorrow.

That's the saner environmental and economic choice for both of our countries. But we're not going to get it unless millions of us demand it. Please make your own voice heard at www.demandcleanpower.org. Watch my new video and send the President a clear message: reject the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline and promote clean energy instead.

AN/ISH

A Story from the Estes Park Flood Colorado -- September 12, 2013

A Story from the Estes Park Flood Colorado -- September 12, 2013
Sept 13, 2013 | Tony Bielat

Editor's note: It's still raining in Colorado, and Estes Park is way up in the mountains on the Big Thompson Valley River. Keep driving up, and you hit the Continental Divide, where water can still originate on its journey to Loveland, which is way down in the foot hills and open plains where the water is desperately journeying.

United Nations: The Perversion of a Good Intention

United Nations: The Perversion of a Good Intention
Sept 15, 2013 | News Junkie Post | Dady Chery

"Over the last 20 years or so of UN “peacekeeping,” the crimes of UN soldiers have included gunrunning, trading food for sex, cholera contamination, human trafficking, child prostitution, rape, and murders of all sorts. What makes UN “peacekeeping” so attractive to psychopaths is that it gives them complete license to commit the most egregious crimes."

Once upon a time, the United Nations was held up as a beacon of moral authority and hope for world peace. That was long before the UN formally became a criminal organization. The Dutch Supreme Court ruled on September 6, 2013, in the Hasan Nuhanovic case, that UN personnel called “Dutchbat”, under the authority of the Dutch State, have violated the rights of three Bosnian Muslims to life and protection from inhuman treatment and must make reparations for this crime.

The UN has fallen quite short of the original vision of Eleanor Roosevelt and others to create a forum in which disputes between countries might be peacefully resolved. Back when the UN was created, the West was gasping from the mass slaughter of Europeans in two World Wars; furthermore, while the colonial powers were preoccupied with each other, much of the world had seized the opportunity to gain independence. This should never happen again, everyone agreed, but instead of a body that enforces international law equally for all nations, we got the Security Council: an elite group with veto power made up of those countries that had committed the most violations against the principles of the UN Charter.

Continue reading..