BREAKING…FOOD DEMOCRACY NOW IS FINDING EVIDENCE OF VOTE FRAUD IN PROP 37!

by Jon Rappoport

December 9, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

The cat is jumping out of the bag.

Food Democracy Now is weighing in on Prop 37 vote fraud, having discovered that the California Secretary of State, in charge of all elections in CA, has stopped posting updates on the ongoing vote count.

From November 6 all the way to up to December 4, these updates were posted daily on the Secretary of State’s website. Then…blackout. No more updates.

Maybe it has something to do with this: On December 4, YES ON 37 votes climbed over the six-million mark: 6,004,628. Food Democracy Now reported it. Suddenly, the YES ON 37 votes reversed!

That’s right. They went back to the previously reported number: 5,986,652.

This is apparently a new wrinkle in vote counting. You can not only add votes, you can go backwards. You can lose 18,000 votes with the flick of a wrist or the blink of a digital operation.

Here’s a screen shot:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/fooddemocracynow/images/sos_prop_37_6million_deleted.jpg

Now you see 18,000 Yes votes, now you don’t.

Here’s the latest Food Democracy Now article on vote fraud:

http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/sign/prop_37_demand_transparency/

Note that mention is made of a team of independent statisticians, who have found “statistical anomalies” in the largest voting precincts of nine CA counties, including LA, San Francisco, San Diego, Alameda, and Orange.

So far, I haven’t found out who this team is. We’ll see what they come up with. They’re still working.

To anyone who has followed this debacle of an election, it’s clear that Prop 37 suffered a stunning setback in the early vote reports, on election night. No on 37 jumped out to a huge lead, shortly after the polls closed. Then, Yes on 37 began making up ground.

So it’s likely fraud occurred in that early period.

Also worth noting: I previously wrote about the Secretary of State’s “top-to-bottom” review (2007) of all electronic voting systems then in use in CA. This review discovered fatal flaws in all four systems…and then three of those systems were re-approved for use, after being disqualified.

In the review, it was mentioned that Alameda County (one of the counties the team of statisticians is now studying for fraud) had purchased voting machines that turned out to be counterfeits. They had been advertised as legitimate, but they weren’t.

I’m told the Yes on 37 campaign is alert to Food Democracy Now’s charges of fraud, and they are considering a petition for a recount. We’ll see.

Of course, no recount will expose electronic fraud unless very talented experts can examine the full range of electronic systems now in use in CA.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th 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 www.nomorefakenews.com

If you shop through Amazon, then consider supporting Jon’s work by shopping through Jon’s Amazon referral link.

Bottom line: Prop 37 was classic “controlled opposition” led by comfortable businessmen

by Jon Rappoport

December 6, 2012

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

“Agricultural co-existence?” Huh? What does that mean? It’s an elite strategy. It means we accept different ways of growing food in America. It’s the big ag-corp message these days.

Co-existence is an idea that’s being sold. “Let’s be tolerant…” “Let’s have the free market decide what food is sold and isn’t sold.” On another level, it’s a yuppy fetish.

“We have organic food over here, and then we have GMO food there, and then over here we have conventionally grown food with pesticides but no GMOs.”

And that is exactly and precisely what Prop 37 said. We can co-exist as long as we know what kind of food we’re buying. As long as it’s labeled GMO if it’s GMO.

Okay? Keep all this in mind, because the punchline will be big.

Researching the whole Prop 37 debacle has proved to me, one more time, that Web journalists are miles ahead of the mainstream press.

In particular, I call your attention to an explosive piece written by Nick Brannigan. It just arrived by email. The title: “Is ‘Just Label It’ Controlled Opposition?” Read it here.

Brannigan reveals the approach of Gary Hirshberg, the renowned CEO of Stoneyfield. Hirshberg, like several major players in the YES ON 37 campaign, opts for co-existence.

In other words, it’s assumed that GMO food is here to stay, and we need to inform consumers they have a choice, and then the free market will decide our future. GMO? Organic? Conventional with pesticides but no GMOs? The consumer will pick the winning horse in the race.

The labeling campaigns, like YES ON 37, aim at just that. “You have a right to know what’s in your food, and when you do, you can make a choice.”

I revealed, in past articles, that this was the whole message to voters in California during the run-up to Election Day. YES ON 37 wasn’t about spelling out the health dangers of GMOs. It wasn’t about showing how Monsanto, through patents, is going after control of the world’s food supply. It wasn’t about demonstrably false Monsanto science or government collusion to allow GMO crops into the US food supply.

Brannigan presents some very vital information, in his article, about an organization called AGree. Gary Hirshberg of Stoneyfield is a co-chair. Partners in this organization include, Brannigan states, the omnipresent Bill and Melinda Gates, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Ford Foundation.

You should visit the AGree site and read through their literature.

http://foodandagpolicy.org/

To me, it resembles a man talking with his mouth full of marbles. The language is dense, but you’ll find proposals for multi-faceted types of agriculture to fit different areas and needs—including GMOs.

In other words, AGee is talking about co-existence. They’re spreading that message, and their co-chair, Gary Hirshberg, who also supported YES ON 37, is fine with the message.

And if co-existence can be sold, then Monsanto wins. They absolutely win. They spread their genes through the food supply, from one end to the other.

Well, you say, how can we have anything but co-existence? How is that possible? How can we get GMO crops out of America? They’re everywhere.

Well, not quite everywhere.

http://www.examiner.com/article/what-countries-have-banned-gmo-crops

South Australia has banned them. So has Switzerland. Ditto for Japan, New Zealand, Ireland, Austria, Hungary, Greece, Bulgaria, Luxembourg, Medeira.

Germany has banned the growing or sale of GMO maize. Three counties in California have banned GMO crops: Mendocino, Trinity, and Marin.

And this is the whole point. Monsanto and its allies want to stop the ban from happening in the US. That’s their bottom-line. Above all, there must not be a ban on GMO crops in America.

A ballot proposition that mandates labeling of foods? Not the best thing, Monsanto says, but it’s tolerable. If the Prop loses, then that sets back the anti-GMO forces, and they have to re-group and try again elsewhere.

That gives Monsanto more time to spread more GMO crops across America. If Prop 37 wins, Monsanto can live with that. They’ll come up with a Plan B to deal with the loss.

Monsanto already did that in the UK, after the European Union ruled that labeling of GMO foods was mandatory, in 1997. Monsanto supported labeling. They could do that now in American states that pass ballot measures.

“Well, we were against labeling, sure. We thought it was unnecessary. But now that it’s passed, the people have spoken. We will do everything we can to support this decision, and we’re confident that our food meets the highest standards…” Blah-blah.

But Monsanto doesn’t want a ban on GMO crops. No. And they certainly don’t want a strong movement in America to insist on a ban.

Solution? Promote the idea of agricultural coexistence, just as AGree is doing. Divert anti-GMO forces into campaigns for labeling. Let those folks spend all their time, money, and energy trying to get labeling. Make sure the movement doesn’t turn into a powerful force demanding a ban.

Look at it this way. “Agricultural coexistence” is a soft stance. It covertly claims that choice is always a good thing, as if we’re debating which lamp to buy or which flashlight.

What’s left out of that equation? One of the flashlights happens to emit a powerful and invisible toxic cloud every time you turn it on.

But let’s not discuss that. No. Let’s just “let the market decide.”

Get it? It’s all based on the notion that GMO foods are here to stay in America, and therefore we shouldn’t worry our pretty little heads about it. We should just insist that we have the right to know whether there are GMOs in the food we buy. That’s all.

It’s a smokescreen. And it’s promoted to keep us from flat-out saying, “Hey, wait a minute. GMO food is toxic. Monsanto has committed multiple crimes and they should be prosecuted. We should BAN GMO food.”

I know what the proponents of Prop 37 are going to say, and I want to take up their argument. They’re going to say, “No. If we gain the right to know what’s in our food, millions of people in California are going to stop buying GMO food, and this refusal is going to spread, and then we’ll win. We’ll starve Monsanto. The free market will win. From state to state, new ballot measures will win for labeling, and the resistance to GMO food will grow…”

However, that argument depends on consumers caring. Will consumers really give a damn that they’re buying GMO food?

Monsanto will continue to introduce new GMO crops into the American landscape, like apples and salmon. Monsanto will put more and more GMOs into food products. They’ll fight a war of attrition, and in the end, they stand a very good chance of winning…because most consumers won’t care, any more than they care when they enter a public building and see some ridiculous sign on the wall about carcinogenic compounds being present in the building.

Monsanto will bet that, after a time, GMO labels on food products won’t bother most people. Monsanto will spend untold millions of dollars claiming that GMO food is identical to non-GMO.

And again, the most important thing for Monsanto is: there won’t be a ban on GMO crops in America.

Monsanto won’t be prosecuted for crimes by the US Dept. of Justice.

And even if, say, in the state of Washington, where the next Prop 37-type ballot measure is about to be mounted, the campaign involves educating people about GMOs, will that really make a difference? Will there be an all-out attack on GMOs and Monsanto? Or will it be a soft attack?

I ask this because I believe the leaders of Prop 37 don’t want to make serious waves. They are dedicated to “the right to know what’s in your food” proposition, above all. They are satisfied with that. They have no intention of really going after the people who make that flashlight that exudes clouds of poison when it’s turned on. And those leaders of Prop 37 are pulling along, behind them, many, many people who might otherwise back a real campaign to have GMO crops banned in America.

A civilization does not survive when elites can commit grave and ongoing crimes with impunity. And that’s exactly the situation we have. Monsanto is the chief criminal.

Am I saying the YES ON 37 campaign was entirely useless? No, it educated some people. But in the long run (and Monsanto is in this for the long run), it functioned as a diversion away from the main event: BANNING GMO CROPS.

There is no powerful movement in America to ban GMO crops and prosecute Monsanto for heavy crimes.

Instead, we have groups led by businessmen who want the free market to decide, and who want labeling. In the long run, that’s a loser.

Monsanto knows this.

Look at the legal adviser for the California Right to Know Campaign, Joe Sandler. Sandler has been very active, over the years, working at high levels for the Democratic Party. He’s a beltway attorney. He takes a hand in steering the GMO-labeling ship. There is no way he is going to step out front and say, “Let’s ban the whole mess. Let’s turn this into a war against Monsanto and ban all GMO crops in America.” You could wait for several hells to freeze over before that happens.

Look at Gary Hirshberg or Grant Lundberg or another lawyer in the YES ON 37 mix, Andy Kimbrell. No way they’re going to go all the way. They’re going to demand labeling and that’s it.

And Monsanto can live with that. Obama can live with that.

Monsanto can sit back and say, “It’s a very good thing there is no powerful movement in America to ban GMO crops. We like that. We like that a lot.”

Which is exactly what they’re doing and saying right now.

Did Monsanto fight against YES ON 37? Did they employ dirty tricks? Of course they did. But that was on the minor stage. That wasn’t the big time.

On the big stage, they’re already winning.

They’re winning, in part, because a handful of natural-food entrepreneurs and their lawyers are in charge of the anti-GMO movement in America, and are selling the idea that mandatory labeling is going to grow into a tsunami against GMOs. That’s their mindset and that’s their bet.

They’re “realists.” They don’t take a clue from those countries that have, in fact, banned GMOs. They work from the premise that, in America, we need to co-exist. We need to bow to the free market and let the chips fall where they may.

Yeah, well, many of those chips are going to be GMO.

Most of the growing land in America is going to be GMO.

And the Monsanto genes are going to drift and drift into the whole food supply, and the huge tonnage of toxic pesticide sprayed on GMO crops is going to drift and settle into the soil…as we coexist.

So let’s not bullshit each other, okay?

Let’s not wave a few flags and claim we’re winning against Monsanto, when the fact is we don’t have a powerful movement in America to ban GMO crops.

Don’t label the bastards. Ban them.

My advice to the ground troops who are fighting to get mandatory GMO labeling in various states around the country? Talk to your leaders. Tell them that, instead, you want an all-out fight against Monsanto and GMOs. You want a ban. And if they refuse, get rid of those leaders. Start your own organization.

Stay in it for the long haul. Don’t go for the partial solution. Yes, it makes the battle harder, but it’s the only battle that counts.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. 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 NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

WHY IT’S NOT TOO LATE TO WIN PROP 37

by Jon Rappoport

December 3, 2012

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 Spence? 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 29^th 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 www.nomorefakenews.com

If you shop through Amazon, then consider supporting Jon’s work by doing your shopping through Jon’s Amazon referral link.

WHY THE PROP 37 VOTE-COUNT IS TOO PERFECT

by Jon Rappoport

November 17, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

Late yesterday afternoon, I consulted a map of California counties on the secretary of state’s website. You can see it here:

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/maps/ballot-measures/prop/37/

This page has a summary of the Prop 37 vote-count so far.

This is an ongoing figure, because the state of California is still counting votes.

In the box, you’ll see YES on 37 has 5,329,994 votes. NO on 37 has 5,869,382 votes.

YES on 37 has 47.6% of the vote, while NO has 52.4%.

This is vitally important. Why? Because when the networks called the election early, on election night, a couple of hours after the polls closed, this was almost exactly the percentage breakdown they claimed existed then.

It’s no different from the vote percentages now: less than one percentage point.

Eleven days later, as millions more votes have been counted, and are being counted, these election-night percentages are still holding firm.

What are the odds of that happening?

Any sane person would demand to know how these percentage splits are being manipulated, created, invented.

We are led to believe the projections offered by networks on election night are astonishingly accurate, but this is a fairy tale.

It’s especially a fairy tale when, eleven days after Election Tuesday, when millions more votes have been counted, the percentage-splits don’t budge.

We know next to nothing about the people who actually make these early projections on election night. That is troubling. They are shaping the perception of the American people, and we don’t know how they operate.

We can say, yes, they work for Edison Media Research or the Associated Press, and they hand out early-call projections to media outlets, but beyond that, we have few clues.

Yet, as soon as the networks make their calls on who has won an election, everyone folds up his tent and walks away. It’s as if a magic wand has been waved, and everyone obeys.

These “projection gurus” do some exit polls and, poof, they predict winners. They pick the moment when they’re going to put the word out to media outlets: “it’s time to say Prop 37 lost.”

And then it’s over.

And then 11 days later, the percentage splits that existed when the media made the call, on election night, are virtually the same.

Only a fool drinks that Kool-Aid.

It’s as if these projection gurus were watching horses coming out of the gate in the Kentucky Derby. A hundred yards down the track they call the winner. Not only are they right, but their horse had a two-length lead at a hundred yards and the same two-length lead as he crossed the wire at the finish.

When are people going to give up their religious belief in the sanctity of elections? Are they afraid that, if they leave that church, they’re going to Hell?

Let’s rework PT Barnum’s famous dictum: “There are 300 million suckers born every election night.”

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th 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 www.nomorefakenews.com

A CALL TO HACKERS EVERYWHERE: TEST THE PROP 37 VOTE-COUNT

by Jon Rappoport

November 15, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

I’ve now established the most probable truth about the fate of Prop 37 in California. The election was electronically controlled.

See my definitive piece here:

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2012/11/14/prop-37-the-top-7-reasons-not-to-believe-the-vote-count/

Now, to earn a place in the white-hat hall of fame, a few very talented hackers need to prove that the California election system, the vote-counting apparatus can be hacked.

I’m NOT calling for anything illegal. In fact, this only works if it’s done in front of election officials and FBI agents and the FEC. In broad daylight. As it is broadcast to hundreds of millions of people around the world, online.

Start, I suppose, with hacking into individual vote machines. Go from there to hacking the information relayed from those machines up the line. Hack larger computers and tabulating machines in the sequence. Hack pieces of the count. Hack the whole count. Reverse election winners. Whatever can be done.

In no possible way do I support or countenance just hacking in privately or illegally. I want something definitive accomplished above board. I want everybody who believes we’re living in a real system to see it’s virtual, to know the networks who do the absurd early projections on election night are puppets in a parade.

Let’s make something clear. This isn’t some idea I came up with as an original suggestion. I’m not fomenting anything. This has been done before. Every hacker worth his salt already knows about the idea of hacking an election count. Every hacker knows, for example, about the group of Michigan computer scientists who broke into the District of Columbia’s system and reversed the mayoral race winner, fabricated absentee votes, and canceled actual votes. They did this by invitation, to prove it could be achieved.

Of course, the implications here go a lot farther than Prop 37. Ultimately, they call into question the whole voting system of America—or anywhere where computers are at the heart of the system.

Would California election officials and the FBI and the FEC permit a “teaching moment” like this? Would they cooperate in a grand experiment, publicly carried out by the best of the best?

If they refused, that would tell something very valuable. It would tells they’re scared. It would tell us they don’t really want the system tested to the limit.

How about it? Let’s cut through the crap. Let’s show what a real hacking test looks like. Let’s have the most talented among you display your stuff.

Naturally, certain conditions apply. We have to know this is the real California vote-count system we’re dealing with. Not some phony version. We have to know there are no tricks up anybody’s sleeve. No normal information pathways being blocked off.

I say, if Pentagon and Interpol and FBI and NASA systems can be hacked, the California voting system can be cracked like an egg and manipulated, without leaving obvious traces or alerting officials.

Right? Wrong?

Let’s find out.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th 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 www.nomorefakenews.com