Imagine you are a lawyer arguing a case before a judge. There is no jury. The judge will decide the outcome.

The judge tells you, “Look, the other side, your opponents in this case, have filed documents with me. These documents are at the heart of their argument. I can’t allow you to read the documents. I can only give you access to heavily redacted versions. You’ll have to do the best you can. I have read the full documents. Your opponents, of course, know every word of those documents. But you don’t. And you won’t. Good luck. Limp along as well as you can.”

That’s what we’re talking about here.

(The link to the document is located at the bottm of this article.)

Last Election Day, the people of Maui County voted to halt all local GMO and pesticide experimentation being carried out by Monsanto and Dow.

During the temporary halt, a complete independent investigation would be done, to find out exactly how harmful the pesticides and GMOs were.

But the legal and binding vote was suspended, because Monsanto and Dow immediately sued.

The case is now hung up in Federal Court.

I’ve just learned that Monsanto filed documents “under seal,” to make its case in the proceeding now before Federal Judge Susan Oki Mollway.

Monsano requested the court make the documents secret, and the previous Judge, Barry Kurren, agreed to it.

Read More: https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/revealed-secret-monsanto-document-maui-gmo-case

(NaturalNews) According to the site stopsmartmeters.org, thousands of people have complained of tinnitus, headaches, nausea, sleeplessness, heart arrhythmia, and other symptoms after a ‘smart’ meter was installed. The ongoing research results and evidence of the health hazards of wireless technology is growing right alongside the staggering increase of use of these devices. Smart meters are being installed all around the world and can exceed the already high FCC limits on human exposure to microwave radiation and are not optional even in homes of people who have “electro-sensitivity”. There have been some concerns whether ‘smart’ meters may cause interference with pacemakers and other implants.

Cancer victim leaves a legacy
Attorney Jimmy Gonzalez gives testimony in October 2012 to the Pembroke Pines Florida Commission asking them to petition the City to issue a Resolution raising awareness of the health risks of cell phone radiation. He warns others about cell phone use and the connection of usage to his three fatal tumors. He spent the last of his energy and passion lobbying for these issues. Mr. Gonzalez died in November, 2014 at the age of 42. You can watch his impressive appeal that hopefully leaves a legacy of change here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIlOVJd0lA8

Insurance exclusions based on EMF risks
And now some major players in the insurance world are taking their own stance against the risks being posed by exposure wireless technology including “smart meters”. A global insurer, Lloyd’s of London, known for taking on risky policies has put in a major exclusion clause for all policy holders, to exclude coverage related to exposure to wireless devices as of February 7, 2015.

Lloyd’s of London is one of the largest insurers in the world and often leads the way in protection, taking on risks that no one else will. The Electromagnetic Fields Exclusion (Exclusion 32) is a General Insurance Exclusion and is applied across the market as standard. The purpose of the exclusion is to exclude cover for illnesses caused by continuous long-term non-ionising radiation exposure i.e. through mobile phone usage.

This means that the Province (that is we, the taxpayer) will be held liable for claims from teachers and parents of children suffering biological effects from wifi in schools, from homeowners exposed to RF from mandated smart meters on homes, and from employees forced to use cell phones or exposed to wifi at work. Lawsuits in other countries have resulted in huge payments already, and it is only a matter of time before similar lawsuits are filed and won in Canada.

Potentially those who allow such devices, after having been fully informed about the dangers, could be held liable for negligence, and directors’ insurance may not provide financial protection. Directors’ insurance applies when people are performing their duties “in good faith”. It is hard to argue they are acting “in good faith” after having been warned by true scientific experts and by a well-respected insurer. (Excerpt from letter by Sharon Noble Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters in British Columbia Victoria, British Columbia, Canada)

Lloyd’s exclusion is basically on all of their liability insurance policies. Without reinsurance coverage all insurance policies will exclude coverage of health damaging radiation. If suits for cancer and other associated health issues occur from wireless radiation exposure there would be a catastrophic influx of claims. This is a standard liability insurance response to risk exposure from a global and universal health danger. Perhaps this could be a repeat to issues like asbestos, chemical hazards in building materials and other types of toxic exposure.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/049345_smart_meters_EMFs_insurance.html#ixzz3YqjHLzyC

(NaturalNews) A U.S.-based web site critical of interventionist conflict has alleged that Google has censored some of its content, calling the action “authoritarian” and accusing the media giant of acting like “an arm of the U.S. State Department.

The complaint from the founders of AntiWar.com, a news portal which has been online for more than a decade, came after they said Google stopped providing adverts on a number of its stories. Officials from Google said the content violated the company’s policies.

As reported by Russia Today:

The conflict erupted [March 22], when the tech giant notified the website that its advertising service AdSense would be disabled, due to depictions of “violence” and “gore” next to its ads, in what Antiwar.com said was a “big hit” to its funding. As an example of the violations it listed a 2006 article containing photos of torture from Abu Ghraib Prison in Iraq – which Antiwar.com says has been viewed over 2 million times – and urged the administrators to “check all other remaining sites in your account for compliance.”

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/049348_Google_censorship_anti-war.html#ixzz3YqirLa9N

(NaturalNews) Just how bad was the radiation fallout from the near-complete destruction of three nuclear reactors at the Fukushima power station following a massive earthquake-generated tsunami in March 2011? The answer is, most people simply don’t know – because the media coverage of the damage and fallout, at the time of the accident and in the four years since, has been grossly inadequate, according to a new study.

As noted by American University sociology Prof. Celine Marie Pascale, there has especially been a dearth of U.S. media coverage, the disaster long disappearing from the headlines of domestic newspapers and cable news networks, despite the fact that the crippled plant dumps three hundred tons of radioactive water into the ocean daily, and the region surrounding the plant remains uninhabitable – probably forever.

Further, her new analysis found that U.S. news media coverage of Fukushima “largely minimized health risks to the general population,” says a press release from the university.

The release further states:

Pascale analyzed more than 2,000 news articles from four major U.S. outlets following the disaster’s occurrence March 11, 2011 through the second anniversary on March 11, 2013. Only 6 percent of the coverage – 129 articles – focused on health risks to the public in Japan or elsewhere. Human risks were framed, instead, in terms of workers in the disabled nuclear plant.

‘Articles discuss instead how dangerous cosmic radiation is’
“It’s shocking to see how few articles discussed risk to the general population, and when they did, they typically characterized risk as low,” said Pascale, who studies the social construction of risk and meanings of risk in the current century.

“We see articles in prestigious news outlets claiming that radioactivity from cosmic rays and rocks is more dangerous than the radiation emanating from the collapsing Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant,” she added.

The sociology prof examined news articles, editorials and letters from two major U.S. papers – The New York Times and The Washington Post – and two additional, prominent online news sites – Politico and The Huffington Post. The four outlets are not only among the largest, most influential in the U.S., they are also the most-cited by television news and talk shows, as well as other newspapers and blogs. Also, they are talked up in social media often, says Pascale. So, in that sense, she says, seeing how risk is presented in national prominent media can provide data on how the issue is framed nationally, in public conversations.

The press release further discussed Pascale’s analytical method and variables:

Pascale’s analysis identified three primary ways in which the news outlets minimized the risk posed by radioactive contamination to the general population. Articles made comparisons to mundane, low-level forms of radiation; defined the risks as unknowable, given the lack of long-term studies; and largely excluded concerns expressed by experts and residents who challenged the dominant narrative.

The results, she says, demonstrates that corporations and government agencies provided disproportionate information and data regarding the impact of the disaster – on the environment, the long-term effects of massive radiation contamination (which are well-known), the oceanic ecosystems, the migration of the radiation globally, and on the exposed human populations.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/049350_Fukushima_media_coverage_radiation.html#ixzz3YqiGjDvv

(NaturalNews) The lawless entity posing as the federal government has issued a new guideline pertaining to the distribution of funding for disaster and emergency preparedness that crystallizes the man-made climate change myth. States that refuse to acknowledge and assess the “long-term vulnerability” caused by global warming may be refused federal funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for emergency preparedness, according to new reports.

Under the leadership of the Obama Administration, FEMA is now mandating that states conduct a new type of risk assessment that includes “consideration of changing environmental or climate conditions that may affect and influence the long-term vulnerability from hazards in the state.” Any states that refuse to comply with this mandate face being cut off from the gravy train for preemptive emergency preparedness.

FEMA’s 2008 guidelines for emergency preparedness funding did not include this assessment requirement. But those set to go into effect in March 2016 will, according to The Washington Times, which puts so-called “conservative” states (many of which more closely resemble neo-conservative fascist states, but that’s a topic for another article) in a bind.

FEMA says it “recognizes there exists inherent uncertainty about future conditions, and will work with states to identify tools and approaches that enable decision-making to reduce risks and increase resilience from a changing climate,” according to an official statement issued by the agency. “An understanding of vulnerabilities will assist with prioritizing mitigation actions and policies that reduce risk from future events.”

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/049353_FEMA_disaster_preparedness_climate_change.html#ixzz3YqhfD48g

(NaturalNews) Fast food giant McDonald’s has announced that the company will be phasing out the use of some antibiotics in its factory-farmed chicken products to accommodate what it says are the “changing preferences” of its customers. But a major disparity between the media’s version of what McDonald’s is doing and what the company is actually doing is causing all sorts of confusion among consumers.

The issue lies in the verbiage concerning McDonald’s new antibiotics policy, which contrary to what is being claimed by some does not mean that Chicken McNuggets, Chicken Select Tenders, and other McDonald’s chicken products will suddenly be antibiotic-free. To the contrary, the company is merely asking its chicken meat suppliers to phase out dual-use antibiotics that are also used in human medicine.

A recent press release issued by McDonald’s repeatedly states that the company will be sourcing chicken raised without antibiotics that are important to human medicine. Those deemed not important to human medicine will continue to be used in McDonald’s chicken products, exposing customers to pharmaceutical drugs for which they do not have a prescription.

Some are calling it “greenwashing” by McDonald’s — a public relations stunt to make it seem as though the most popular fast food chain in the world is suddenly concerned about the well-being of the animals from which it sources its meat. But don’t be fooled. McDonald’s chicken won’t be much better after the implementation of the company’s new “menu sourcing initiatives” than it was before their implementation.

McDonald’s chicken meat will still contain antibiotics, and some of its milk products will still contain rBST
McDonald’s claims that it’s been working for years to reduce the use of antibiotics in its poultry supply to fulfill what it now calls its “Global Vision for Antimicrobial Stewardship in Food Animals.” But the Big Mac chain has been promising this since 2003 when it first announced that it would “ask its meat suppliers to stop using antibiotics to promote growth.”

You can read the announcement, as archived by the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), here:
www.organicconsumers.org

More than a decade later and McDonald’s is still feeding children Chicken McNuggets made from pink slime and growth-accelerating antibiotics, which have contributed significantly to the rise of antibiotic-resistant “superbugs” in hospitals. So who’s to say that things will be any different this time around, especially since McDonald’s is still just asking, rather than requiring, its suppliers to provide drug-free poultry meat?

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/049354_McDonalds_antibiotics_chicken_McNuggets.html#ixzz3Yqh8R8NY

Nothing comes closer to the stereotypical, secretive group determining the fate of over 7 billion people, than the Bank of International Settlements

by Zero Hedge April 12, 2015

Over the centuries there have been many stories, some based on loose facts, others based on hearsay, conjecture, speculation and outright lies, about groups of people who “control the world.” Some of these are partially accurate, others are wildly hyperbolic, but when it comes to the historic record, nothing comes closer to the stereotypical, secretive group determining the fate of over 7 billion people, than the Bank of International Settlements, which hides in such plain sight, that few have ever paid much attention

Read More: http://www.infowars.com/meet-the-secretive-group-that-runs-the-world/