The difference between a magnitude 6.1 earthquake in China and the USA

The video shows the complete and utter difference between the 6.1 earthquake in Napa, California, where 100 were injured, but no one died, and a similar earthquake this month in southwestern China which killed hundreds and destroyed thousands of homes.  

The immense difference is, apparently completely man-made, as China does not enforce the same building regulations as other countries in the world, thus endangering the lives of the Chinese residents in those buildings.  See the comparison clearly below....

Anonymous threatens California Police Department over shooting

Manteca - In June last year, a California police officer fired 11 shots at an unarmed suspect, killing him. The cop was cleared but Anonymous says he should pay.

After a video surfaced (above) of the cop in question firing 11 times at point-blank range, hacktivists from the collective Anonymous are now demanding that the California police department remove the officer from the force. 

 

According to the Manteca Police Department, Officer John Moody was in the right when shooting 11 bullets at Ernesto Duenez Jr. onJune 8, 2011, including several in his back when lying on the ground, and killing him.

 

Wanted for questioning in a domestic violence incident earlier in the day, Duenez, a 34-year-old parolee, apparently led the police on a car chase. When Duenez finally pulled up at a residence and left the vehicle, Moody fired the 11 shots. 

 

The officer claimed that the suspect was wielding a knife, but evidence now reveals that the weapon was left in the bed of the truck that he had been driving, throughout the shooting. Hence the officer had shot 11 rounds at an unarmed man, eventually killing him. 

 

In December, the San Joaquin Country District Attorney's office concluded that Officer Moody had been legally justified in the shooting of Duenez. 

 

 But since then, this decision has been called into question due to the video published on YouTube. Rosemary Duenez, mother of the victim, agreed to release the video after the court cleared Moody of the shooting of her son, saying, “As heartbreaking as it is, people need to see what happened,” she told the Chronicle. “They need to know what we see, and what we’re fighting for.” 

 

Now Anonymous has joined the fight, and is saying that they will retaliate for the death of the unarmed man,unless Moody's job with the police department is terminated. In a video uploaded to YouTube, a member of Anonymous says, “Having a badge does not give you legal permission to murder freely,” "Manteca police department, we demand as a final resort that you disband your corrupted Officer John Moody and serve justice for his despicable act of violence.” Otherwise, the actor warns, Anonymous will wage a cyberattack against the Mantec Police Department, including “a complete shutdown of the official website.” 

 

Sister of the victim, Reyna Duenez, says she did not know about Anonymous until their video was released. She told KXTV News, "We don't even know who they are. They're voicing their opinion and that's their right, but we don't condone anything that's illegal." 

 

Duenez continued, "We appreciate everyone's voices being heard and all the support and love that we've gotten, but we don't condone anything illegal done to the police department," 

 

"We want legal action against Officer John Moody; we're not trying to do anything illegal. We want to take the right steps all the way," she added. 

 

While the Manteca Police department has told Manteca Bulletin that they view the video by Anonymous as a valid threat, they have not, as yet, identified any persons involved in this video.  

 

The website for the Manteca Police Department doesn't show very much, and apparently lists former Captain Rex Osborn, who retired two years ago. News10 apparently phoned Osborn and he said it hasn't been updated for some time and contact information listed on the website is no longer in use. The site reportedly mostly offers phone lists along with links to other police websites.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/340058

 

Uncounted votes on California Proposition 37

The Yes on Proposition 37 campaign to label GMOs failed on November 6. But did it? An investigation has uncovered at least 1.6 million uncounted votes in various counties of California. 

Jon Rappoport is the author of an explosive new collection, 'The Matrix Revealed', and a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Rappoport has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic and creative power to audiences around the world.

Rappoport has recently published an article in Natural News, as he has been doing a bit of investigation into why Proposition 37, the ballot initiative to require mandatory labeling of GMO products, failed.

On November 8, two days after the election, he found that many votes in California remain uncounted. He decided to try and find out just how many, and contacted the Secretary of State of CA, responsible for elections in the state, who apparently doesn't know. He was informed that all counties in California have been asked, but not ordered, to report in those figures, but it is apparently voluntary. 

So Rappoport decided to pick the largest counties and called their voter registrar offices and these are the results he obtained:

• Santa Clara County: 180,000 votes remain uncounted

• Orange County: 241,336 votes remain uncounted

• San Diego County: 475,000 votes remain uncounted

• LA County: 782,658 votes remain uncounted

In other words, in just those four counties, 1.6 million votes remain uncounted. It is still unknown how many other votes are uncounted in other Californian counties. 

Yes on 37 failed by just 559,776 votes. With the possibility of many more "yes" votes just sitting out there uncounted, is this a fair election result? What is the point of having an election, and people casting their votes, if they are not counted?

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/336548#ixzz2Boe1mk00

Four simple questions before you cast your vote for Prop 37

Zack Kaldveer, Assistant Media Director of the Yes on 37 Ca Right to Know campaign, had a 45 minute interview the other day about GMOs and labeling. The director immediately cut a 2 minute segment and put it up on YouTube, as it asks the right questions.

 

On Tuesday, November 6, Californians can make the decision to vote yes or no on Proposition 37 - the initiative to make labeling of GMO products mandatory. Here are four questions that Kaldveer asks you, before you cast your vote: 

1. Since when have the pesticide and junk food corporations ever spent $45 million to save you money, improve your health or protect the environment?
   
2. When it comes to your health and the health of your family, who do you trust? The pesticide and junk food corporations, bank-rolling the No on 37 campaign? Or groups like the California Nurses Association, The Breast Cancer Action Fund and the American Public Health Association?
3. Who do you trust to protect the environment? Companies like Monsanto and Dupont, who brought us DDT and Agent Orange? Or do you trust Prop 37 supporters, like the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the California League of Conservation Voters.
4. Who do you trust when it comes to whether you have the right to know what's in the food that you eat? Companies like Monsanto and Dupont and the pesticide and junk food corporations, bank-rolling the No on 37 campaign? Or Prop 37 supporters, like Consumers Union, the Consumer Federation of America and Public Citizen. 

"What we are being asked is to trust, in all of these areas, corporations that have a long history of deceiving the public, polluting the environment, and endangering public health, and disregarding the support that the Prop 37 has from organizations that have dedicated their lives and decades to improving our health and fighting for peoples' rights over corporate profit."

All Proposition 37 is asking for is a simple label, as is currently required for 3,000 other ingredients. This would come at no cost to the consumer, but would inform the purchaser of the content of the food, so that they can make an informed choice of what to feed their families. 

Prop 37 was put on the ballot by a million Californians, just like you.

No on 37, embodied by Big Pesticide and the junk food companies, has spent a whopping $45 million to try to prevent you knowing what is in your food. 

On the other hand, the California Nurses Association says: "Nurses see people suffering from serious diet-related diseases every day. The potential danger of genetically modified foods is why CNA supports Prop 37." 

The Los Angeles Times says: "Such labeling wouldn’t result in significant increases in food costs, no matter what the industry tries to tell you. After all, food companies regularly change their labels in one way or another." 

Ken Cook, president of Environmental Working Group and a Californian resident said, “Makers of sugar-laden cereal and soda companies once tried to label their products as beneficial to children’s well-being." 

"Federal regulators forced them to drop their bogus health claims. Now these same companies are pouring millions into defeating Prop 37, even though the label would actually be true and useful to consumers who want more information about their food. If their products were made with genetically engineered ingredients, then they’d be labeled as such. No more, no less.” 

For more information visit: www.carighttoknow.org/ and read more by Zack Kaldveer here.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/336206#ixzz2BLJY8yZy

Video: California kids say 'Yes on 37' to label GMOs

 

A bunch of youngsters in California are concerned about the food that they are eating. While they can't personally vote on Prop 37, they are urging others to say yes to the ballot initiative to label GMOs.

You have to be 18-years-old to vote, but not to make a video. A group of kids got together and made the above video, which is doing the rounds on YouTube. 

 

The kids urge Californians to vote yes on Proposition 37, the ballot initiative to label genetically modified food products and products that contain genetically engineered ingredients.

 

 

All they, and other proponents of Proposition 37, are asking, is for a simple label, telling them what is in their food. No extra cost to the consumer, just transparency. 

 

As they say in the video, the opposition to Proposition 37 does not consist of one single human being, just a bunch of the biggest pesticide and junk food companies. For more information, visit www.carighttoknow.org/

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/335667#ixzz2AaPjuhTg

Video: 'Trust us' — Vote yes on Proposition 37 to label GMOs

Some of your favorite stars have got together again, impersonating scientists at leading biotech firms and ironically telling you to trust them. But really, they want you to vote "Yes on 37" to label GMO foods.

"Trust Us" is an ironic public service announcement by Consumer Advocates for Safe Food and Water, sponsored by Food and Water Watch, in support of Proposition 37, California's ballot initiative to label genetically engineered foods.

With a very diverse, all-star cast, including Danny DeVito, Emily Deschanel, Glenn Howerton, Kaitlin Olson, KaDee Strickland and Kristin Bauer van Straten, impersonating scientists at leading biotech firms speaking their "subconscious minds" about why the general public should just trust them and not fight for mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods (GMOs).

To learn more about Proposition 37 and Food & Water Watch's campaign to make labeling of GMOs the law, and to help raise money to broadcast this public service announcement and others like it far and wide, visit www.voteyes37.org and www.carighttoknow.org/

Original source: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/335476#ixzz2AIrofZuC

"Right To Know" - Music Video - Yes on California Prop 37 - No GMO - Everyman & Boyz In The Wood

Op-Ed: Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: 'No on 37' misleading public

Oakland - The "No on 37" campaign, opposing the proposition to label GMOs in California, has once again hit trouble for misleading the public. This time from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.

The latest critique to the "No on 37" campaign comes in the form of a press release from the world's largest organization for food and nutrition professionals, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.

This press release states that the "No on 37" campaign "misled" the public in its ballot argument, printed in the Secretary of State's Official California Voter Information Guide. The press release reads as follows:

"CHICAGO – The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics is calling for voters to be made aware of an error in the California Official Voter Information Guide regarding Proposition 37, which inaccurately states that the Academy "has concluded that biotech foods are safe." The false statement is used as an "Argument Against Proposition 37" in the voter's guide. "We are concerned that California's voters are being misled to believe the nation's largest organization of food and nutrition professionals is against Proposition 37, when in fact, the Academy does not have a position on the issue," said registered dietitian Ethan A. Bergman, president of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. "Voters need accurate information in order to make an informed choice," Bergman said. The voter's guide was published by the Secretary of State, with a disclaimer that its accuracy has not been verified and that the opinions stated are those of the authors. An expired, and therefore invalid, position of the Academy apparently was used by the guide's authors to draw the erroneous conclusion regarding Proposition 37. The Academy does not have a position on issues pertaining to labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or genetically engineered (GE) foods. The inaccurate information has led to confusion and an inaccurate portrayal of in the media and health-care community of the Academy and its state affiliate, the California Dietetic Association. "In addition to being untruthful, the statement attributed to the Academy may give voters a false impression of registered dietitians and the Academy. Our members are the nation's trusted and credible source of food and nutrition information," Bergman said. As an evidence-based organization, the Academy extensively analyzes relevant scientific studies before taking a position on any issue and systematically reviews and updates its positions as needed. A new position paper that will address GMO and GE foods is expected to be published in 2013."

The full statement can be read here and the offending quotation can be viewed here. Monday's revelation on the part of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics comes after the Sacramento Bee, San Jose Mercury News and San Francisco Chronicle all report on the inaccuracies of the "No on 37" radio and TV ads. In fact, the "No on 37" had to pull one ad featuring a long-time PR front man for the tobacco and oil industries, misrepresenting Stanford University. An extract from the Sacramento Bee article reads:

The ad says the measure will ban products that don't carry the required labels, but those foods could still be sold – without the labels – if the manufacturers go organic or use ingredients that are not genetically engineered. In fact, the assertion that Proposition 37 will raise grocery prices is based on the belief that many companies will switch to costlier non-genetically engineered ingredients instead of putting the new labels on their food. That was the conclusion of an economic study paid for by the No on Proposition 37 campaign – which is funded largely by biotech companies and major food and beverage manufacturers. The report said the typical California household would see a $350 to $400 annual increase in grocery prices if companies switched to non-genetically engineered ingredients. No independent studies have confirmed those estimates. The assertion that the measure would "cost California taxpayers millions for more bureaucracy and red tape" exaggerates estimates from the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office, which figures regulation of food labeling would cost a few hundred thousand dollars to $1 million annually.

San Jose Mercury News talks about "Arbitrary Exemptions" on certain products and says that the "No on 37" campaign is partially misleading the public.

CA Right to Know

Yes on 37 - Right to Know Campaign

Likes1

Stacy Malkan, California Right to Know spokesperson, says, “The No on 37 Campaign knows that basic facts do not support their argument for denying consumers the right to know what’s in our food, so they are resorting to a $35 million campaign of misrepresentations, misleading statements, and outright lies.”

 

“Prop. 37 comes down to a question of who is more credible, the leading health and consumer advocates, faith based groups, working families and millions of everyday Californians - or the same small group of financially motivated special interests and political operatives who told us Agent Orange, DDT and cigarettes were safe?” For more information visit www.carighttoknow.org

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/334482#ixzz28mxwrjbn