Archive | February 18, 2017

Who Really Rules the United States?*

Who Really Rules the United States?*

By Matthew Continetti

How bureaucrats are fighting the voters for control of our country

Donald Trump was elected president last November by winning 306 electoral votes. He pledged to “drain the swamp” in Washington, D.C., to overturn the system of politics that had left the nation’s capital and major financial and tech centers flourishing but large swaths of the country mired in stagnation and decay. “What truly matters,” he said in his Inaugural Address, “is not which party controls our government, but whether our government is controlled by the people.”

Is it? By any historical and constitutional standard, “the people” elected Donald Trump and endorsed his program of nation-state populist reform. Yet over the last few weeks America has been in the throes of an unprecedented revolt. Not of the people against the government—that happened last year—but of the government against the people. What this says about the state of American democracy, and what it portends for the future, is incredibly disturbing.

There is, of course, the case of Michael Flynn. He made a lot of enemies inside the government during his career, suffice it to say. And when he exposed himself as vulnerable those enemies pounced. But consider the means: anonymous and possibly illegal leaks of private conversations. Yes, the conversation in question was with a foreign national. And no one doubts we spy on ambassadors. But we aren’t supposed to spy on Americans without probable cause. And we most certainly are not supposed to disclose the results of our spying in the pages of the Washington Post because it suits a partisan or personal agenda.

Here was a case of current and former national security officials using their position, their sources, and their methods to crush a political enemy. And no one but supporters of the president seems to be disturbed. Why? Because we are meant to believe that the mysterious, elusive, nefarious, and to date unproven connection between Donald Trump and the Kremlin is more important than the norms of intelligence and the decisions of the voters.

But why should we believe that? And who elected these officials to make this judgment for us?

Nor is Flynn the only example of nameless bureaucrats working to undermine and ultimately overturn the results of last year’s election. According to the New York Times, civil servants at the EPA are lobbying Congress to reject Donald Trump’s nominee to run the agency. Is it because Scott Pruitt lacks qualifications? No. Is it because he is ethically compromised? Sorry. The reason for the opposition is that Pruitt is a critic of the way the EPA was run during the presidency of Barack Obama. He has a policy difference with the men and women who are soon to be his employees. Up until, oh, this month, the normal course of action was for civil servants to follow the direction of the political appointees who serve as proxies for the elected president.

How quaint. These days an architect of the overreaching and antidemocratic Waters of the U.S. regulation worries that her work will be overturned so she undertakes extraordinary means to defeat her potential boss. But a change in policy is a risk of democratic politics. Nowhere does it say in the Constitution that the decisions of government employees are to be unquestioned and preserved forever. Yet that is precisely the implication of this unprecedented protest. “I can’t think of any other time when people in the bureaucracy have done this,” a professor of government tells the paper. That sentence does not leave me feeling reassured.

Opposition to this president takes many forms. Senate Democrats have slowed confirmations to the most sluggish pace since George Washington. Much of the New York and Beltway media does really function as a sort of opposition party, to the degree that reporters celebrated the sacking of Flynn as a partisan victory for journalism. Discontent manifests itself in direct actions such as the Women’s March.

But here’s the difference. Legislative roadblocks, adversarial journalists, and public marches are typical of a constitutional democracy. They are spelled out in our founding documents: the Senate and its rules, and the rights to speech, a free press, and assembly. Where in those documents is it written that regulators have the right not to be questioned, opposed, overturned, or indeed fired, that intelligence analysts can just call up David Ignatius and spill the beans whenever they feel like it?

The last few weeks have confirmed that there are two systems of government in the United States.

The first is the system of government outlined in the U.S. Constitution—its checks, its balances, its dispersion of power, its protection of individual rights. Donald Trump was elected to serve four years as the chief executive of this system. Whether you like it or not.

The second system is comprised of those elements not expressly addressed by the Founders. This is the permanent government, the so-called administrative state of bureaucracies, agencies, quasi-public organizations, and regulatory bodies and commissions, of rule-writers and the byzantine network of administrative law courts. This is the government of unelected judges with lifetime appointments who, far from comprising the “least dangerous branch,” now presume to think they know more about America’s national security interests than the man elected as commander in chief.

For some time, especially during Democratic presidencies, the second system of government was able to live with the first one. But that time has ended. The two systems are now in competition. And the contest is all the more vicious and frightening because more than offices are at stake. This fight is not about policy. It is about wealth, status, the privileges of an exclusive class.

“In our time, as in [Andrew] Jackson’s, the ruling classes claim a monopoly not just on the economy and society but also on the legitimate authority to regulate and restrain it, and even on the language in which such matters are discussed,” writes Christopher Caldwell in a brilliant essay in the Winter 2016/17 Claremont Review of Books.

Elites have full-spectrum dominance of a whole semiotic system. What has just happened in American politics is outside the system of meanings elites usually rely upon. Mike Pence’s neighbors on Tennyson street not only cannot accept their election loss; they cannot fathom it. They are reaching for their old prerogatives in much the way that recent amputees are said to feel an urge to scratch itches on limbs that are no longer there. Their instincts tell them to disbelieve what they rationally know. Their arguments have focused not on the new administration’s policies or its competence but on its very legitimacy.

Donald Trump did not cause the divergence between government of, by, and for the people and government, of, by, and for the residents of Cleveland Park and Arlington and Montgomery and Fairfax counties. But he did exacerbate it. He forced the winners of the global economy and the members of the D.C. establishment to reckon with the fact that they are resented, envied, opposed, and despised by about half the country. But this recognition did not humble the entrenched incumbents of the administrative state. It radicalized them to the point where they are readily accepting, even cheering on, the existence of a “deep state” beyond the control of the people and elected officials.

Who rules the United States? The simple and terrible answer is we do not know. But we are about to find out.

Source*

Related Topics:

Is U.S. Deep State in Deep Trouble?*

American Civil War: When Russia Blocked British-led Intervention against the Union

Judge Calls for U.S. Marshals and FBI to Arrest Congress and the President*

12-Year Old Discovers Most Presidents Related to King John*

Between the State of the City of London and the Crown*

Global Power and the History of Trusts

 

Advertisements

GMO Golden Rice Shows Stunted and Abnormal Growth with Reduced Grain Yield*

GMO Golden Rice Shows Stunted and Abnormal Growth with Reduced Grain Yield*

By Christoph Then

A new publication has reported unintended effects in genetically engineered rice producing precursors of vitamin A, so-called carotenoids. Crossing the manipulated rice with the Indian variety Swarna led to a nasty surprise: The resulting plants showed extensive disturbance in their growth. The researchers identified several reasons for this: The new gene constructs interfere with the plant’s own gene for producing growth hormones, and the additional gene constructs were not, as intended, active solely in the kernels, but also in the leaves. This led to a substantial reduction in the content of chlorophyll that is essential for vital functions in the plants.

These unintended effects were not detected in previous investigations, and it was assumed that the genetically engineered plants used in these trials would show genetic stability. In fact, these detrimental genomic effects remained undetected until the transgenic plants were crossed with the variety called Swarna, which is grown widely in India.

The observed effects are highly relevant for the risk assessment of the plants. Once released, the transgenic plants could spread their gene constructs into populations of weedy rice as well as other cultivated varieties. In addition, genomic effects not found in the original plants can occur in plant offspring. At the stage when the hazards are identified, it can be impossible to remove the transgenes from the environment.

“Instead of helping people to combat malnutrition, these plants, if grown on the fields, might endanger their whole rice harvest,” Christoph Then says for Testbiotech.

“It is worrying that effects that can arise from crossing genetically manipulated plants with other varieties are, as yet, not included in risk assessment.”

It is not the first time that such problems have been reported: Some other ‘Golden Rice’ lines are already known to show irregular patterns of inheritance. Furthermore, there are uncertainties regarding the biological quality and safety of the plants. For example, additional changes in the metabolism of the rice kernels were described in 2016.

So far, there are no varieties available for commercial cultivation. According to the International Rice Research Institute IRRI, the safety and usefulness of the plants for nutrition needs further investigation.

Source*

Related Topics:

India’s Organic Rice Revolution Proves GMOs Are Unnecessary*

Rice from Fukushima to Be Sold in Britain*

Philippine Farmers Uproot Monsanto’s GM Golden Rice*

GMO Arctic Apples to Hit Shelves Without Clear Labeling*

FDA Approves New GM Pineapple*

On the Rights of Nature*

This Week the ‘Arch of Baal’ Was Displayed For the Third Time in Honour of ‘The World Government Summit’*

This Week the ‘Arch of Baal’ Was Displayed For the Third Time in Honour of ‘The World Government Summit’*

By Michael Snyder

Did you know that 4,000 world leaders from 130 different countries gathered in Dubai this week for the World Government Summit? It was held from February 12th to February 14th, and it featured more than 100 internationally-known speakers including U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres, Christine Lagarde and Elon Musk. If you would like to know more about this shadowy group, you can visit the official website right here. The first World Government Summit was held back in 2013, and that one was actually attended by Barack Obama. Unfortunately the mainstream media in the United States was almost entirely silent about this summit, so most of us in the western world didn’t even hear about it.

To honour the spirit of this summit, a reconstructed version of Palmyra’s Arch Of Triumph (also known as the Monumental Arch) was erected in Dubai. Previously it had been put up in London and New York City for brief periods of time, and so this marked only the third time that it has been displayed. The following comes from Breaking Israel News

A replica of a Roman arch that once stood in front of the pagan Temple of Ba’al was erected for the World Government Summit in Dubai this week, creating a scene that one rabbi claims symbolizes the dangerous fusion of Ishmael and Edom against Israel.

The original Roman Victory Arch stood for 1,800 years in Palmyra, Syria, until it was destroyed by ISIS in October 2015. A full-size 28-meter tall replica of the arch was created last year by the Institute for Digital Archeology, a joint project of Oxford and Harvard universities, and has been displayed twice before.

The replica was erected for the opening of the World Government Summit that opened on Sunday in Dubai.

In ancient Palmyra, the Arch of Triumph connected the main street of the Colonnade with the Temple of Bel. If ordinary people of the time wanted to visit the Temple of Bel, they would pass through this arch. And once they were done, they would pass through this arch again on their way out

And of course “Bel” and “Baal” are synonymous, and both titles can be traced all the way back to ancient Babylon and a very evil ruler named Nimrod. The following is an extended excerpt from one of my previous articles

—–

In a previous article, I included a quote from Wikipedia that discusses how “Bel” is an ancient Babylonian term for “Lord” or “Master”, and that “Baal” comes from that original root word…

Bel (/ˈbeɪl/; from Akkadian bēlu), signifying “lord” or “master”, is a title rather than a genuine name, applied to various gods in the Mesopotamian religion of Akkad, Assyria and Babylonia. The feminine form is Belit ‘Lady, Mistress’. Bel is represented in Greek as Belos and in Latin as Belus. Linguistically Bel is an East Semitic form cognate with Northwest Semitic Baal with the same meaning.

The title of “Bel” or “Baal” seems to have originally been used primarily for the Babylonian god Marduk. Here is more from Wikipedia

Bel became especially used of the Babylonian god Marduk and when found in Assyrian and neo-Babylonian personal names or mentioned in inscriptions in a Mesopotamian context it can usually be taken as referring to Marduk and no other god. Similarly Belit without some disambiguation mostly refers to Bel Marduk’s spouse Sarpanit. However Marduk’s mother, the Sumerian goddess called Ninhursag, Damkina, Ninmah and other names in Sumerian, was often known as Belit-ili ‘Lady of the Gods’ in Akkadian.

So where did “Marduk” come from?

Well, many scholars have traced the worship of Marduk all the way back to the historical figure of Nimrod

Traditionally the Tower of Babel event has been associated with Nimrod, and Jewish commentaries as well as the Jewish historian Josephus both seem very emphatic on this point. Regarding the Sumerian name Enmer-kar, the suffix “kar” means “hunter,” and so “Enmer-kar” is in fact “Enmer the Hunter,” just as Nimrod is referred to as the “Mighty Hunter” in Genesis 10. Furthermore, Enmerkar is named on the Sumerian King List as “the one who built Uruk,” just as Nimrod is described in Genesis 10:10 as having a kingdom that began in “Babel (Eridu) and Erech (Uruk)… in the land of Shinar.” After Enmerkar’s death he became honoured in Sumerian myth as the semi-divine hero Ninurta, and eventually this cult evolved into the great cult of Marduk, which became the state religion of Babylon after the conquests and religious innovations of Hammurabi.

Are you starting to see how everything fits together?

And Nimrod was the great king of the very first “world government” in the post-flood world. The following is what Genesis 10:8-12 says in the Modern English Version

8 Cush was the father of Nimrod. He became a mighty one on the earth. 9 He was a mighty hunter before the Lord. Therefore it is said, “Even like Nimrod the mighty hunter before the Lord.” 10 The beginning of his kingdom was Babel, Uruk, Akkad, and Kalneh in the land of Shinar. 11 From that land he went to Assyria and built Nineveh, the city Rehoboth Ir, and Calah, 12 and Resen between Nineveh and Calah (that is the principal city).

So it seems more than a little bit strange that an arch with links to Nimrod has been erected to honor a summit devoted to the promotion of “world government” in our day.

It has been said that if we do not understand history we are doomed to repeat it. Nimrod’s world government in ancient times attempted to push God out of the picture, and the same thing is true with the globalists of today.

The globalists dream of a utopia where humanity has been united under a one world government, a one world economy and a one world religion. Donald Trump stands opposed to this twisted dream, and that is why the globalists hate him so much.

And the globalists understand the power of symbols very well. The erecting of this arch in Dubai at the exact same time the “World Government Summit” was being held sends a very powerful message.

Even though Donald Trump is now the president of the United States, the globalists are far from defeated, and if they have their way all of humanity will soon be within their ruthless grip.

Source*

Related Topics:

The Winged Bull of Nimrod and Part of the Temple of Baal Are Being Displayed in the Coliseum In Rome*

A Temple of Baal (Child sacrifice) is About to Be Erected in Times Square, New York City*

Looted Palmyra Treasures Discovered in Geneva Warehouse*

Mayor of London Unveils Replica of Palmyra’s Arch of Triumph in Central London*

What’s Left of Palmyra*

The Occult Reasoning behind the Cabal’s Battle for Syria*

Putin on the Declining Values of the West and Rising Practice of Satanism

Muslim Postmaster Saves Elderly Customer after Foiling MoneyGram Scam*

Muslim Postmaster Saves Elderly Customer after Foiling MoneyGram Scam*

Mohammed Khan [Credit: The Huddersfield Examiner]

Mohammed Khan [Credit: The Huddersfield Examiner]

Mohammed Khan [Credit: The Huddersfield Examiner]

A Muslim postmaster from Huddersfield rescued an elderly customer after foiling a scam which demanded her to pay £2,300 to a British Telecom company in China.

Mohammed Khan found that his customer was being ripped off by a conman and that the man was listening in on the customer’s mobile phone.

The 24-year-old postmaster Mohammed described the scammer as “heartless” and “deceitful”.

But he persuaded the regular customer to contact his bank and luckily the scam was avoided.

Mr Khan told the Huddersfield Daily Examiner:

“This person had hacked into his savings account, transferred money from that to his current account and then said it was an error by British Telecom and the money needed to be sent back.

“It was his own money! In total he was being asked to transfer £5,000 in two amounts: one of £2,300 and then another of £2,700.”

The incident happened earlier this week at Salendine Nook Post Office in New Hey Road. Mr Khan says he was instantly suspicious of a vulnerable person being pressured to send a BT payment to China.

Mr Khan added: “He said he had been told that BT had sent him a £5,000 payment instead of £200 and the money had to be paid back. I asked why and he couldn’t tell me. He just had a piece of paper with a Blackburn number on it.

“Then he said the person was on his mobile phone, still on the line in a live call.

“I knew it was dodgy. I spoke to the person on the phone, who sounded as if he was from an Asian background. He asked who I was and demanded to speak to my customer. I knew that as soon as he got the MoneyGram instruction the money would be gone, so I disconnected the call. The phone kept ringing but I told my customer not to answer it.”

Mr Khan is happy that he exposed the scam but remains very surprised over the sophistication of the con and the plausibility of the people responsible for it.

“It’s a very clever scam, heartless and deceitful. It made me very angry. There are people out there who will go to any lengths to take money from the vulnerable. I’m glad I was able to stop it. My advice to anyone who gets a call like this is to talk to their bank and not to send any money,” Mr Khan said.

Source*

Related Topics:

U.N. Scam: Rotten Food, Expired Drugs for Syrian Refugees*

U.S. Voter Fraud Investigation Order Quietly Trashed*

Thai Court Nullifies Rigged Election Scam*

New Bill to Enforce Vaccines After Whooping Cough Scam!

Media Caught Covering Up Clinton’s Ongoing Looting Of Haiti*

Health Care Scams Employees

French Caught Planning an ISIS False Flag Terror Attack on the French*

Founder of George Soros backed Media Matters Caught Conspiring with Facebook and Google to Shut-down Independent Media*

U.S. EPA Scientist Fired for Telling the Truth about Climate Engineering + Fluoridated Water*

Odebrecht Accounts Blocked in Venezuela in Corruption Probe*

Odebrecht Accounts Blocked in Venezuela in Corruption Probe*

By Rachael Boothroyd Rojas

Bank accounts in Venezuela belonging to the construction giant Odebrecht were officially frozen on Wednesday pending ongoing investigations by the country’s Public Prosecution into corruption allegations.

The cautionary measure was taken in response to an injunction filed by public attorneys Pedro Lupera and Luis Sánchez, and is designed to ensure that Odebrecht cannot move its financial capital out of Venezuela while investigations take place.

In a statement on its webpage Wednesday, Venezuela’s Public Prosecution also confirmed that a legal prohibition had been placed on the transfer or sale of all Odebrecht property, and an arrest warrant requested for an as-of-yet unnamed person thought to be linked to “detected irregularities”. Interpol was also informed of the warrant, confirmed the press release.

The injunctions are the second in a series of actions taken against the building conglomerate by the public institution in less than a week, after the body supervised a raid on the company’s headquarters near the capital on Tuesday.

Odebrecht is currently at the centre of a corruption storm, and is accused of funnelling hundreds of millions of dollars in bribes to public officials across Latin America in exchange for lucrative government construction contracts.

In December 2016, the company was found guilty in a U.S. court of violating anti-bribery laws and forced to pay a record-breaking USD$3.5 billion.

According to its plea deal, representatives acting on behalf of the company paid approximately US$98 million in bribes to Venezuelan government officials and intermediaries since 2006 – the largest amount for any country outside Brazil.

Over the past fifteen years, Odebrecht has been granted several public works contracts by the Venezuelan national government, as well as by the state governor office of Miranda, currently held by opposition politician Henrique Carriles Radonski.

Earlier in January, Capriles was summoned to appear before the Comptroller General’s office for questioning in relation to the case, however no further action against the politician has been taken to date.

According to the Attorney General’s office, Tuesday’s search of Odebrecht’s HQ was carried out in order to determine which of the company’s many Venezuela contracts remained unfinished, as well as to identify the recipients of contract payments.

Venezuela is one of several Latin American countries currently carrying out investigations into the company’s international bribery racket.

On Friday, Venezuela Attorney General Luisa Ortega Diaz confirmed that her office would collaborate with investigators in ten other countries, including Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Mexico and Portugal, in order to facilitate the inter-continental investigations.

Source*

Related Topics:

Bolivia Strikes a Nerve in Rich’s Wealth!

Leaked Trump Presidential Memo Would Free U.S. Companies to Buy Conflict Minerals from Central African Warlords*

Occupy World: Peru Aiming to Dismantle Rothschild’s Media Monopoly*

U.K. Taxpayers Subsidising World’s Largest Oil Companies to Exploit Its Own Natural Resources*

Federal Government Works with Pharmaceutical Companies to Prevent Natural Cures*

U.S. Air Force Hires Private Companies to Fly Drones in War Zones*

Oil vs. Communities: Has the Chicken Come Home to Roost for ExxonMobil!

Chevron and Exxon: The Criminals Behind Katrina*

India’s Centre Shuts Health Mission Gate on Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation*

On the Rights of Nature*

On the Rights of Nature*

By Mari Margil

Reading headlines on the environment can be terrifying.

In November, a New York Times headline stated, “Great Barrier Reef Hit by Worst Coral Die-Off on Record, Scientists Say.” In December, USA Today reported “Giraffes face ‘silent extinction’ as population shrinks nearly 40%.” And in January, the Washington Post reported that “U.S. scientists officially declare 2016 the hottest year on record. That makes three in a row.

Environmental degradation is advancing around the world. The United Nations has warned that we are heading toward “major planetary catastrophe.” With this there is a growing recognition of the need for fundamental change in how we, humankind, live on planet.

More than forty years after the passage of the major federal environmental laws in the United States, including the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act – laws which are now mirrored around the world – the earth’s species, waterways, oceans, coral reefs, forests, and other ecosystems are rapidly declining.

These environmental laws, rather than protecting the rights of the environment to exist and thrive, instead regulate its use and exploitation. Thus, environmental laws largely legalize harm – including fracking, mountaintop removal mining, and pipelines – rather than protect against it.

These laws are premised on nature being considered property under the law, and therefore, as right-less. Much like indigenous peoples, slaves, and women have been considered right-less under the law – unable to defend their own basic rights to life and well-being – so today do environmental laws treat nature.

A movement is building to advance a different paradigm, one which is recognizing the inherent rights of nature

Rights of nature laws have now been passed in more than three dozen communities in the United States, as well as codified in Ecuador’s Constitution. These laws recognize the inalienable rights of nature – or Pacha Mama as is stated in Article 71 of the Ecuador Constitution – to exist, thrive, evolve, and be restored. These laws transform nature from being property under the law to being rights-bearing.

While the passage of laws recognizing the rights of nature is new – the first laws in the world were first established within the past decade or so – the idea of nature having rights is not new.

Many have said that the recognition of legal rights of nature is a codification of indigenous culture into law, thus reaching back thousands of years of human history. More recently, though still more than a century ago, environmentalist John Muir wrote that we must respect “the rights of all the rest of creation.” In 2015, Pope Francis called for a new era of environmental protection, stating in a speech before the United Nations, “A true ‘right of the environment’ does exist…”

Much of the more modern day discussion heralds back to Professor Christopher Stone’s 1972 law review article titled “Should Trees Have Standing – Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects” in which he considered why we might want, and what it might mean, to recognize legal rights of nature.

Stone described how under the existing structure of law, nature was considered “right-less” having no legally recognized rights to defend and enforce. Thus, nature – much like slaves once were – was treated by the law as a thing, as property, existing for the use of its owner.

Moving from the idea of rights of nature to the codification of those rights in law first occurred in Tamaqua Borough in Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania, in 2006. Now communities in a number of states have such laws in place, the largest being Pittsburgh, where the City Council unanimously passed the rights of nature law in 2010. These laws recognize that ecosystems and natural communities have the legal right to exist and flourish, and that residents and their government have the authority to enforce and defend those rights.

There are several cases now in the United States, in which oil and gas companies are challenging laws recognizing the rights of nature. The companies , Pennsylvania General Energy and Seneca Resources, are claiming that these laws – which prohibit fracking related activities as a violation of the rights of nature – violate their corporate constitutional rights. The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (for which the author works) is representing ecosystems that are seeking to intervene in the cases to defend their own rights.

In Ecuador, we are also beginning to see the impact of these laws, as indigenous and non-indigenous peoples, communities, and public interest organizations seek to enforce and defend the rights of nature in the face of numerous threats from governmental and corporate actors.

In a 2015 decision related to illegal shrimp farming, the Constitutional Court of Ecuador explained that enshrining the rights of nature in the country’s constitution establishes a “biocentric vision in which nature is prioritized, as opposed to the classical anthropocentric conception in which the human being is the center and measure of all things, whereas nature was considered a mere provider of means.”

The Court ruled that the lower court, which had earlier ruled in the case, had failed to consider the rights of nature in its decision. In not considering these rights, the Court explained, the lower court failed to recognize that the rights of nature are “transversal” such that “all the actions of the State, as well as of individuals, must be in observance…to the rights of nature.”

The Court explained that under Ecuador’s Constitution, nature is now a holder of rights, and that government and the people have a responsibility to uphold and protect those rights. This comes with the recognition that until and unless we establish a harmonious relationship with nature – much different than humankind’s relationship with the natural world today – we will continue to see the decline of ecosystems and species, the very fabric of life.

As communities in the United States advance the rights of nature, and in Ecuador people seek to defend the constitutional rights of nature, peoples in other parts of the world are advancing such rights as well.

In India, for example, the National Ganga River Rights Act is being advanced for consideration by the national Parliament. Half a billion people depend on the river, yet it is an ecosystem in severe decline. The Act would establish rights of the river to exist and flourish, and the right of people of India to water and a healthy, thriving river ecosystem.

In Nepal, a rights of nature constitutional amendment is being considered to address climate change. As one of the world’s most mountainous nations, Nepal is facing the melting of the Himalayan glaciers, which people, species, and ecosystems throughout the country depend on for water. As a Sherpa explained to me, with the melting of ice and snow, “The mountains are turning black.”

The Ho-Chunk Nation in Wisconsin is the first tribal nation in the United States to advance an amendment to their tribal constitution to recognize the rights of nature. In September 2016, the Ho-Chunk General Council voted overwhelmingly in support of the proposed amendment. A vote of the full membership is expected later this year.

The preamble to the proposed Ho-Chunk constitution amendment reads:

Whereas, in the tradition of the Nation’s relationship with Mother Earth, from which we came and upon which we depend…we recognize that to protect Mother Earth, we must place the highest protections on nature, through the recognition of rights in the Nation’s highest law, our Constitution…

As Bill Greendeer of the Ho-Chunk Nation explained,

Passing the Rights of Nature amendment will help us protect our land.

Source*

Related Topics:

Schooled in Nature: There’s a way to Teach Children Without Colonizing Their Minds*

Nature Doesn’t Need People

Do Women Who Surround Themselves With Nature Live Longer?

Has a Foreign Fracking Company Quietly Buys Rights to Botswana Conservation Park?*

****Up Nature: Sex change for Nine-year-olds*

Bolivia: Rights of Mother Earth Becomes Legal*

Law of Mother Earth: Chile Suspends Nature Buster!

Seattle Council Votes to Divest Billions from Wells Fargo over DAPL Support*

Couple Forced to Destroy 40yo Pond on their Own Property because Govt Owns the Rainwater*

Kenya: Rights Of Mother Earth: Maasai Response

City Threatens to Turn Off Flint Residents’ Water*

City Threatens to Turn Off Flint Residents’ Water*

Residents who don’t start paying for their lead-contaminated water will face shut-off notices this spring.

The Last Drop!By Yessenia Funes

Residents in Flint, Michigan, have been dealing with lead-contaminated water for years now—since 2014, to be exact. Many people have responded by refusing to pay their water bills.

Soon, however, those who ignore their bills will have their water turned off. Flint’s chief financial officer, David Sabuda, told the Detroit Free Press on Wednesday (February 15) that the city will begin issuing water shut-off notices in the spring. The move follows Governor Rick Snyder’s February 7 announcement that the state will stop subsidizing the cost of the city’s water by the end of the month.

While the city says water shut-offs aren’t directly linked to the governor’s announcement, the decision shapes how the city will handle future water payments. Per the Free Press:

Sabuda said there isn’t a direct link between the end of the state credits and the resumption of water shutoffs, except that the end of the credits makes it even more important for Flint to collect the water payments businesses and residents owe, while at the same time making it harder for many customers to make those payments.

The city used to threaten shut offs for lack of payment, but that practice ended last year when local and national media, including Slate and CNN, reported that the city was issuing notices to residents and businesses for lead-contaminated water. The Associated Press reports that Snyder originally committed to providing customer credits through March, but the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality’s (MDEQ) January 24 announcement that water lead levels now meet federal limits changed that timeline.

Though the state cites the decrease in lead levels as the reason to end its funding, the water is still not safe right out of the tap. Per the MDEQ: “The state continues its recommendation that residents use filtered water for drinking and cooking for everyone in their household due to the chance for disruption to pipes as the city replaces lead service lines.”

Members of the state’s water advisory committee worry that the declaration is premature, reports MLive.

“We are making a huge mistake by claiming things are getting better and will continue to get better,” said Laura Sullivan, a Kettering University professor and Flint Water Interagency Coordinating Committee member. Sullivan worries that the state would be “10 steps further back in establishing trust with residents,” if lead levels spike again.

Flint Mayor Karen Weaver told The AP that city officials will push the state to continue the assistance until the water is safe to drink. Ending the subsidies would save Michigan more than $2 million a month.

Source*

Related Topics:

In Flint, Level of lead in Children’s Blood Leads to a State of Emergency*

Finally $170M to Help Clean Up the Mess State of Michigan Created in Flint*

Students Give Bottled Water to Senior Citizens in Flint, Michigan*

Six More Charged in Flint Water Crisis*

Students Give Bottled Water to Senior Citizens in Flint, Michigan*

Activists from all Over the U.S. Deliver Aid to Flint*

Matt Damon Calls on Governor Snyder to Resign Over Flint Water Crisis*