Uncategorized

Why it’s not too late to win Prop 37

http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?llr=4tixiugab&v=001ljJ4p7aX-nGEei8kjzkN_AZaARH37ry6aqgD5JpVau-islig39QjNLOjKA3CmUnz7tt3iZNUBo9ny0EFG4NyFVzDGOeFAkVXVaivf4ugBfI%3D

Why it’s not too late to win Prop 37

WHY IT’S NOT TOO LATE TO WIN PROP 37

by Jon Rappoport

December 3, 2012

http://www.nomorefakenews.com

An email written and sent to me by Natalia Lee Gardener has offered a basic strategy for winning Prop 37, even at this late date. (chakra.yoga.bridge@gmail.com)

Of course, it will take some persistence and a few smarts. I’m sure the lawyers who worked for the YES ON 37 campaign have thought of it.

Basically, it goes this way: the NO ON 37 campaign committed fraud in their ads. They also committed fraud in statements they made in the California Voter’s Guide, which is a felony.

Another felony? Misappropriating the FDA seal and using it in their ads below a statement they falsely claimed was made by the FDA.

NO ON 37 was lying front to back. Read all about it here:

http://www.carighttoknow.org/documented_deceptions

Therefore, the election should be overturned. Voters were defrauded by false information. Votes were made against 37 based on lies spread by the NO ON 37 campaign.

A new special election should be held.

I know what you’re going to say. “If every election filled with lying statements were overturned, we’d be re-voting for every job from president to dog-catcher from now until the sun burns out.”

Perhaps. But let’s focus on the Prop 37 election.

The strategy of YES ON 37 is: let’s move on to other states and other ballots; we educated a whole lot of people in California; let’s take our fight elsewhere now.

Who says you can’t do two things at once? Go ahead to Washington state and mount a new GMO labeling campaign. But your lawyers? They can launch a legal campaign here in CA.

As Gardener pointed out to me in her email, chiropractors engaged in a long hard battle to gain proper recognition. They went all the way to the Supreme Court. They fought against very heavy odds. They played hardball. They won.

So why can’t the GMO-labeling forces do that?

And if they lose in court? They make a lot of noise and they appeal. They stir the pot. If the appeal loses, they appeal higher. They make a big deal out of this because it is a big deal. They kick ass. They act tough because they are tough. If they are.

I can’t tell you how many times important health-freedom issues have been lost because the people leading the good guys folded up their tents and walked away.

That’s always a losing strategy.

Why play nice with criminals? Why?

Being an idealist doesn’t rule out going into battle.

The issue is clear. The NO ON 37 forces committed fraud and felonies in their campaign. Therefore, many people voted against 37 because they bought the fraud and didn’t recognize the crimes. Therefore, we need a new Prop 37 election.

It’s like this. A guy sells you a bottle of medicine. He says the FDA approved the medicine. He says even the police favor the medicine. He says Stanford University and other esteemed scientific groups have praised the medicine.

These are all lies. But because you believe this guy, you buy the medicine. Then later, you find out he was lying wall to wall. So you take him to court.

Let me defuse another argument. It goes this way: “We’re succeeding. We’ve educated millions of people in CA about GMO labeling. Let’s build on that momentum and take the fight to other states and other ballot measures. If we suddenly challenge the Prop 37 election in a CA court and make a big stink about it, if we act nasty, we’ll drive away people in other states who would be on our side…”

Yeah, well, this makes no sense at all. Did millions of angry people in the streets during the Vietnam war have anything at all to do with ending that war? Should they have stayed home and eaten organic candy bars?

If the YES ON 37 lawyers show people everywhere they won’t back down from a fight, that they’ll take this all the way, they’ll gain allies. They’ll wake people up. They’ll add a new dimension to this war. A good dimension.

Forget all the pseudo-mystical nonsense about being nice and the universe being nice right back to you, or whatever it is that keeps people in a state of internally imposed slavery. A) The universe doesn’t work that way and b) it’s just an excuse to stay passive. In other words, it’s pure bullshit.

Forget the legal niceties and hair splitting over what the CA election law says about what constitutes fraud. Forget some carefully reasoned argument about why YES ON 37 stands no chance in court challenging the election.

That’s not the point. Don’t be a moron.

The point is what’s right and what’s true and what justice is.

Fight on that basis, and publicize the fight from one end of the planet to the other. Hold live streaming press conferences on the Web every week. Bring in Jeffrey Smith and other experts who will spell out all the dangers of GMO food, who will spell out all the lies Monsanto and the government have told about GMO food.

Get it?

GET IT?

Double down on the Prop 37 election.

USE the fraud to score victories.

If I’m reading the tea leaves correctly, the lawyers connected to YES ON 37 don’t want this fight. They absolutely don’t want it. (Joe Sandler, Andrew Kimbrell) But I believe some other lawyer can step up on behalf of the voters of CA and gain standing and go to court. How about you, Gerry Spencer? Or do we need Bill Kunstler to rise out of his grave and start raising hell?

In 1982, I interviewed Bill Perry, who was the chief PR man for Lawrence Livermore Labs, where they design nuclear weapons. Bill told me the nuclear freeze campaign, which was getting off the ground, wasn’t an issue for him…until one day he saw that the protestors at the Lab fence came from all walks of life.

They were hippies, guys in suits, housewives, lawyers, doctors, office workers, long hairs, short hairs, no hairs. Then, he said, he knew he was on the wrong side.

That’s what the GMO issue can be. People from everywhere, all kinds of different people, standing together on this issue. When that is reflected on television and computer screens, then others will realize it’s a universal situation.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was 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. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at http://www.nomorefakenews.com

Uncategorized

Like the Taliban, BBC Erase Banksy Artwork Which Exposed Their Internal Savile Cover-up | 21st Century Wire

http://21stcenturywire.com/2012/12/02/like-the-taliban-bbc-erase-banksy-artwork-which-exposed-their-internal-savile-cover-up/

Like the Taliban, BBC Erase Banksy Artwork Which Exposed Their Internal Savile Cover-up

What Do The Taliban And The BBC Have In Common?

The Needle

[Taliban]

Before……. and After the Taliban

[BBC]

Before and……and After the BBC

Yes, that’s right, they both destroy great works of art in pursuit of their closed minded ideology.

Banksy, to my mind the UK’s greatest living artist (and actually, yes, I could justify that statement) created a piece of meaningful art outside of BBC Television Centre in central London which summed up just how disillusioned the British public, especially of my generation, feel right now. It was the poignant image of a young boy dropping his ‘Jim’ll Fix It’ medal into a drain. The BBC sent the workmen in to scrub it away.

Why ? Because it implied criticism of the corporation. All great art speaks, all great art stimulates thought, all great art, from Giotto via Manet’s ‘Olympia’ and beyond Picasso’s ‘Guernica’ to the present day, has been provocative.

The cultural philistines at the BBC can have as many Yentob inspired documentaries as they like but until they put artistic creation above managerial expediency they can never be a Corporation that Broadcasts for the British license fee paying public.

And do they own that hoarding ?

Does the BBC actually own that piece of hardboard that Banksy chose to place this artwork ?

And if the BBC are sued because a precious work of art has been destroyed and they didn’t own the hardboard hoarding opposite BBC Telivision Centre, who pays ?

Not the BBC management on their ludicrously high salaries, but all of us who pay the BBC license fee.

Just like McAlpine’s £185,000.

RELATED: THE BBC: IT’S THE VATICAN AND THE MAFIA ALL ROLLED INTO ONE

Uncategorized

Neotame: 13,000 Times Sweeter Than Sugar And Even More Toxic Than Aspartame

http://mobile.dudamobile.com/site/preventdisease?url=http%3A%2F%2Fpreventdisease.com%2Fnews%2F12%2F031212_Neotame-13000-Times-Sweeter-Than-Sugar-And-Even-More-Toxic-Than-Aspartame.shtml#2899

Neotame: 13,000 Times Sweeter Than Sugar And Even More Toxic Than Aspartame March 13, 2012

Neotame: 13,000 Times Sweeter Than Sugar And Even More Toxic Than Aspartame

In the event that the public becomes too informed and savvy about toxic additives in our food supply, what’s a multi-billion dollar industry to do? The first step is to create another more toxic version of the additive. The second step is to collude with regulatory authorities such as the FDA to convince the public that the new, more toxic additive is safe. The third and final step is to prevent the toxic additive from being listed on any ingredient labels. From the folks that brought us Aspartame, meet Neotame, a deadly sweetener that you’ll never see on a label because…well that’s just the way the FDA wants it. [http://preventdisease.com/images/neotame.jpg]
Neotame is officially marketed as an inexpensive artificial sweetener made by NutraSweet, which is a former division of Monsanto/preventdisease/default?url=http%3A%2F%2Fpreventdisease.com%2Fnews%2F10%2F073010_monsanto.shtml> and original manufacturer of aspartame/preventdisease/default?url=http%3A%2F%2Fpreventdisease.com%2FGoogleSearchResults.shtml%3Fq%3Daspartame%26sa.x%3D0%26sa.y%3D0%26cx%3Dpartner-pub-0663688274569192%253Ae1bgloqgmc2%26cof%3DFORID%253A10%26ie%3DISO-8859-1%26siteurl%3Dpreventdisease.com%252Fnews%252F12%252F031212_Neotame-13000-Times-Sweeter-Than-Sugar-And-Even-More-Toxic-Than-Aspartame.shtml%26ref%3Dpreventdisease.com%252F> .

Eighty percent of all Food and Drug Administration (FDA) complaints pertain to aspartame’s adverse reactions. These reports include: grand mal seizures, brain tumors, blindness and other health-related problems, including deaths. Monsanto’s Nick Rosa stated in 1998, that Neotame is “based on the aspartame formula.”

It is up to 13,000 times sweeter than sucrose (table sugar). The product is very attractive to food manufacturers, as its use greatly lowers the cost of production compared to using sugar or high fructose corn syrup (due to the lower quantities needed to achieve the same sweetening).

Neotame is aspartame plus 3-di-methylbutyl, which can be found on the EPA’s list of most hazardous chemicals. The aspartame formula is comprised of Phenylalanine [50%], which caused seizures in lab animals and Aspartic Acid [40%], which caused “holes in the brains” of lab animals — bonded by Methyl Alcohol, or Methanol [10%] which is capable of causing blindness, liver damage and death.

Methanol, or wood alcohol in aspartame breaks down further in heat and in the body, into Formaldehyde (embalming fluid), Formic Acid (venom in ant stings) and the most deadly of all — Diketopiperazine (DKP), a brain tumor agent.

When it comes to human health, neotame is in the same dangerous category as aspartame, but it is a deadlier neurotoxin, immunotoxin and excitotoxin. The long-term effects are essentially cell-death.

Even Monsanto’s own pre-approval studies of neotame revealed adverse reactions. Unfortunately, Monsanto only conducted a few one-day studies in humans rather than encouraging independent researchers to obtain NIH funding to conduct long-term human studies on the effects of neotame.

There were NO independent studies that found neotame to be safe. All industry-funded studies are now being found to be based on very poorly designed, deceptive and fraudulent research .

This is no surprise given all of the problems with aspartame industry research and scientific abuse. It is clear that any neotame research that Monsanto, industry groups, or consultants of Monsanto should be rejected until which time more trustworthy, independent research can be conducted. Such experiments should include independent animals studies and especially long-term (e.g., 4-5 years+) human studies in various susceptible population groups.

Approval and Labeling

Neotame was approved by the FDA for general use in July 2002, and has now been approved by the EU. It is also is approved for use in Australia, New Zealand and Canada.

The FDA loosened all labeling requirements for Neotame as part of a large-scale effort to make it a near-ubiquitous artificial sweetener, to be found on the tabletop, in all prepared foods, even in organics. It simply does not have to be included in the ingredient list. How’s that for stealth?

If you purchase processed foods, whether USDA Certified Organic or not, that food may likely contain Neotame because it is cost-effective, and since no one knows it is there, there is no public backlash.

The USDA states that their National Organic Program (NOP) does not permit the use of neotame in products labeled certified organic, however this is likely a deceptive ploy to soothe the public’s concerns about this toxic sweetener.

Since the USDA is controlled by politicians and lobbyists, it cannot be trusted to follow through to protect any of its regulatory policies. The NOP is a division within the USDA in charge of regulating the USDA Certified Organic products, labeling, enforcement etc. Considering the size of this division in comparison to the amount of organic food they regulate, NOP standards are arguably as lax and useless as USDA’s conventional foods. The employees that enforce NOP standards know this very well.

Bottom Line: Don’t trust USDA organic foods and confide in local farms with reputable practices.

Where Do We Go From Here ?

Due to corporate greed, it is becoming quite apparent that the entire food supply is becoming one toxic wasteland that none of us can rely on. We need to support local farms and move our sustenance back to sustainble farming practices that benefit the population rather than harm it.

If you’re still consuming processed foods with artificial sweeteners, you are gambling with your long-term well being. There are no corporations that serve agribusiness that can be trusted to safeguard public health, and the regulatory agencies that are officially in charge of that mandate are in bed with them. Where does that leave the safety of the food industry? I think you can figure that one out.

Marco Torres/preventdisease/home?url=http%3A%2F%2Fpreventdisease.com> is a research specialist, writer and consumer advocate for healthy lifestyles. He holds degrees in Public Health and Environmental Science and is a professional speaker on topics such as disease prevention, environmental toxins and health policy.

Sources:
aspartamesafety.com medicinenet.com food.gov.uk
gazette.gc.ca holisticmed.com neotame.com
wikipedia.org
farmwars.info

Reference Sources/preventdisease/default?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.preventdisease.com%2FReference%2Freference3.shtml>

………………………………………………………………………………………………… [http://assets.pinterest.com/images/PinExt.png]

Uncategorized

Prison Planet.com » Just ONE soft drink a day increases prostate cancer risk

http://www.prisonplanet.com/just-one-soft-drink-a-day-increases-prostate-cancer-risk.html

Just ONE soft drink a day increases prostate cancer risk

J. D. Heyes
Natural News
Dec 2, 2012

The ill-effects of sugary soft drinks has been well documented but new research continues to show just how bad such beverages can be for you, especially over the long term. Now, according to a just-released Swedish study, drinking even one normal-sized soda per day can boost a man’s chances of developing more aggressive forms of prostate cancer.

“Among the men who drank a lot of soft drinks or other drinks with added sugar, we saw an increased risk of prostate cancer of around 40 percent,” said Isabel Drake, a PhD student at Lund University, according to Agence France Presse.

The study, which will be published in the upcoming edition of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, followed more than 8,000 men aged 45 to 73 for about 15 years on average. Those who drank one 11-fluid-ounce (330 ml) soft drink per day were 40 percent more likely to develop the more serious forms of prostate cancer that ultimately required treatment.

The cancer among the study’s all-male participants was discovered after they showed symptoms of disease, not through a screening process known as Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA).

Other risk factors exist, but soda is the worst

Other factors led to increases in the incidence of prostate cancer. Those who consumed a diet heavy in rice and pastas boosted their risk of getting milder forms of the disease, which often did not require any treatment, by some 31 percent. Those who had a high intake of sugary breakfast cereals, meanwhile, raised the rates of the milder forms by 38 percent, Drake told the French newswire service.

The men in the study underwent regular medical exams and kept a journal of what they ate and drank.

In previous studies, Chinese and Japanese immigrants to the United States were shown to have developed prostate cancer more often than peers who remain in their home countries.

Researchers said further study is needed before any recommendations for dietary changes could be made. But they noted there are already a number of reasons why a person ought to cut back on sugary soft drinks.

Drake said additional research on how genes respond to different types of diets would make it possible to “tailor food and drink guidelines for certain high-risk groups.”

Previous studies have shown other links between sugary sodas and cancer.

A study published in 2010, in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, found that people who drink two high-calorie soft drinks a week have nearly twice the risk of developing pancreatic cancer, compared to those who drink less.

Soda is filled with cancer danger

Researchers tracked 60,524 men and women in the Singapore Chinese Health Study for 14 years, finding that those who drank soda boosted their risk of contracting the largely fatal cancer by a staggering 87 percent. The figure held up even when smoking and some other bad habits were taken into account, The Washington Post reported.

Scientists did not examine the effects of so-called diet sodas, but only those soft drinks that were defined as “sugar-sweetened carbonated beverages.”

Funded by the National Cancer Institute, the study denoted that lifestyles in Singapore were similar to those in the U.S. Researchers said the findings should apply to Caucasians as well as to Asians who were tracked.

Lead author Mark Pereira, an associate professor in the School of Public Health at the University of Minnesota, hinted that high sugar levels in soda likely boost insulin levels in the body, which in turn could trigger the development of pancreatic cancer cells.

Besides cancer, high-fructose corn syrup-infused drinks also contribute mightily to obesity, diabetes and, ultimately, heart disease.

Sources:

http://ph.news.yahoo.com

http://voices.washingtonpost.com

http://www.naturalnews.com/prostate_cancer.html

Print Print this page.

Infowars.com Videos:

The Engineered Fiscal Cliff

Uncategorized

Is Michelle Obama’s “natural food” campaign a covert op?

http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?llr=4tixiugab&v=001WeBrwlP3VB1YyoeJY4jzpRUxMSpZRVfE_T99mAbmFaQeGNix_A2Zql-IjPIA84L34KoKmeej6vLuxzYhZqp5dn7lwrZCHZfIl_CmJd9u-v4%3D

Is Michelle Obama’s “natural food” campaign a covert op?

Is Michelle Obama’s “natural food campaign” designed to hide a coordinated White House attack on organic food?

By Jon Rappoport

December 2, 2012

http://www.nomorefakenews.com

This article follows up on Mike Adams’ devastating pieces exposing Dr. Oz and a coordinated high-level assault on organic food.

http://www.naturalnews.com/038172_Dr_Oz_organics_propaganda_campaign.html

http://www.naturalnews.com/038157_Dr_Oz_organic_food_sellout.html

How high does this assault on organic food go?

Soon after her husband’s 2008 inauguration, Michelle Obama announced her “First Lady do-good project” to the press and public.

Every First Lady picks one.

It’s mandatory. Better education, some charity, a worthy cause. It’s designed PR, aimed at creating good will for the husband sitting in the Oval Office.

That’s the First Lady’s job. She’s a PR agent.

Michelle chose an organic vegetable garden and the health of children. More than her work with military families or her personal fashion/style interests, the organic garden and the bee hives she installed on the South Lawn of the White House became her signature.

The White House vegetable garden was the first planted on the grounds since the days of Eleanor Roosevelt.

As the press trumpeted, Michelle instructed the White House kitchen to order organic food for meals.

We were told produce and honey from the South Lawn garden were served up for the First Family and even at State dinners.

The title of Michelle Obama’s 2012 book is American Grown: The Story of the White House Kitchen Garden and Gardens Across America.

She has tied the issue of childhood obesity to deteriorating eating habits and unhealthy food.

All in all, her presentation has been quite effective and convincing. She’s done a first-rate job.

The all-important impression is unmistakable: the White house stands for “healthy eating.”

But meanwhile…

Her husband is the most powerful enabler of Monsanto in America.

Despite his hints that he would support labeling of GMO food, Barack Obama has done herculean work to destroy true natural food.

The details are undeniable. They include his mind-boggling political appointments of Monsanto operatives to key government posts, and a parade of new GMO crops into the food supply, during his first presidential term.

Monsanto and their allies couldn’t have wished for a better partner. The president has given them everything they’ve asked for.

The new president filled key posts with Monsanto people, in federal agencies that wield tremendous force in food issues, the USDA and the FDA:

At the USDA, as the director of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Roger Beachy, former director of the Monsanto Danforth Center.

As deputy commissioner of the FDA, the new food-safety-issues czar, the infamous Michael Taylor, former vice-president for public policy for Monsanto. Taylor had been instrumental in getting approval for Monsanto’s genetically engineered bovine growth hormone.

As commissioner of the USDA, Iowa governor, Tom Vilsack. Vilsack had set up a national group, the Governors’ Biotechnology Partnership, and had been given a Governor of the Year Award by the Biotechnology Industry Organization, whose members include Monsanto.

As the new Agriculture Trade Representative, who would push GMOs for export, Islam Siddiqui, a former Monsanto lobbyist.

As the new counsel for the USDA, Ramona Romero, who had been corporate counsel for another biotech giant, DuPont.

As the new head of the USAID, Rajiv Shah, who had previously worked in key positions for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a major funder of GMO agriculture research.

We should also remember that Obama’s secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, once worked for the Rose law firm. That firm was counsel to Monsanto.

Obama nominated Elena Kagan to the US Supreme Court. Kagan, as federal solicitor general, had previously argued for Monsanto in the Monsanto v. Geertson seed case before the Supreme Court.

The deck was stacked. Obama hadn’t simply made honest mistakes. Obama hadn’t just failed to exercise proper oversight in selecting appointees. He wasn’t just experiencing a failure of short-term memory. He was staking out territory on behalf of Monsanto and other GMO corporate giants.

And now let us look at what key Obama appointees have wrought for their true bosses. Let’s see what GMO crops have walked through the open door of the Obama presidency.

Monsanto GMO alfalfa.

Monsanto GMO sugar beets.

Monsanto GMO Bt soybean.

Coming soon: Monsanto’s GMO sweet corn.

Syngenta GMO corn for ethanol.

Syngenta GMO stacked corn.

Pioneer GMO soybean.

Syngenta GMO Bt cotton.

Bayer GMO cotton.

ATryn, an anti-clotting agent from the milk of transgenic goats.

A GMO papaya strain.

And perhaps, soon, genetically engineered salmon and apples.

This is an extraordinary parade. It, in fact, makes Barack Obama the most GMO-dedicated politician in America.

You don’t attain that position through errors or oversights. Obama was, all along, a stealth operative on behalf of Monsanto, biotech, GMOs, and corporate control of the future of agriculture.

From this perspective, Michelle Obama’s campaign for gardens and clean, organic, nutritious food is nothing more than a diversion, a cover story floated to obscure what her husband has actually been doing.

Nor is it coincidental that two of the Obama’s biggest supporters, Bill Gates and George Soros, purchased 900,000 and 500,000 shares of Monsanto, respectively, in 2010.

Now in 2012, we are seeing, as Mike Adams reveals, a new attack on organic food: organic is an elitist fetish, a nonsensical preoccupation of the 1%, as against the 99%. We are told that conventionally grown, pesticide-laden, genetically engineered food is just as good, is no problem, and patriotic Americans should be loyal to it.

In other words, we should be loyal to the corporate giants who are taking over the food supply, are exercising patent rights on food ownership, are doing whatever they can to squeeze small farmers out of business, are giving us nutritionally deficient food, are lying through their teeth about the heavy health risks of eating this GMO food.

We should be loyal to the police who are ordering homeowners to rip out their vegetable gardens on their lawns.

Yes, this is a coordinated attack on clean nutritious unpoisoned food, and it reaches all the way up into the White House, does a quick detour around Michelle Obama’s smokescreen operation, and arrives in the Oval Office, at the desk of Barack Obama.

Why isn’t Barack out there on the White House lawn picking a few delicious organic vegetables from the garden?

Why isn’t he posing in front of a hundred media cameras taking a bite out of an organic non-GMO tomato?

Why isn’t he leading the way on a campaign to have people in inner cities plant more community organic gardens, to fend off hunger, ill-health, and poverty?

Why isn’t he?

Because he’s working for Monsanto.

Monsanto, the same company, by the way, who took the advice of Mitt Romney, many years ago, to stop overtly promoting chemical pesticides and, instead, get into genetics.

Sources:

http://redgreenandblue.org/2012/02/02/monsanto-employees-in-the-halls-of-government-part-2/

http://redgreenandblue.org/2011/02/09/monsanto-employees-in-the-halls-of-government/

http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2011/10/fda-labeling-gmo-genetically-modified-foods

http://fooddemocracynow.org/blog/2011/feb/15/update-obama-goes-rogue-gmos-tell-him-say-no-monsa/

http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/food/genetically-engineered-foods/

http://news.yahoo.com/not-altruistic-truth-behind-obamas-global-food-security-174700462.html

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was 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. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at http://www.nomorefakenews.com