There WAS a recount on the Prop 37 vote, and it was stopped cold

There WAS a recount on the Prop 37 vote, and it was stopped cold

by Jon Rappoport

March 17, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

The relentless Brad Friedman of TheBradBlog ran this story down and broke it. There was, indeed, a recount of the Prop 37 vote.

Prop 37, the ballot measure that would have mandated labeling of all GMO food sold in California, went down to defeat last November, under suspicious circumstances.

So a small group, headed by Tom Courbat, former senior budget analyst for LA County, decided to challenge the vote.

In California, any voter can do that, if they’re willing to pay for it. And they have to pay for the recount county by county. They pick the counties they want to start with, they contact the county registrars, and they’re told what the price is. It’s different in each county.

So the group picked Orange and Sierra Counties. They paid the fee. The votes were recounted, and there was no appreciable change in the numbers.

The group decided Fresno County should be next. That’s when trouble came and whole thing blew up. The county clerk in Fresno, in charge of all voting processes, is Brandi Orth.

As The Brad Blog reveals, Orth came up with a staggering price for a vote recount. Here are a few of the details:

Orth stated there would be an up-front fee, due before the recount even started, of $18,000.

The cost per DAY of doing the recount? $4,000. This included five vote counters who would each be paid $46 an hour—to sit and count. Then there would be a three-person executive staff, each of whom would be paid an astonishing $92 an hour.

Note: In Orange County, the Prop 37 recount didn’t cost $4,000 a day. The fee? Only $600 a day!

But here is the best part. As Tom Courbat, the leader of the Prop 37 recount group, spoke with Fresno County Clerk, Brandi Orth, he suddenly learned he was being charged for the phone conversation—and also for Orth’s staff “getting ready” for a recount!

Understand this. No recount had begun. Courbat hadn’t given the green light for a recount. But, he was informed, he was already $4000 in the hole.

Courbat estimated a vote recount in Fresno County was going to cost his group $78,000 by the end of three weeks worth of work. They didn’t have the money.

The Fresno County recount was toast. And with it went any chance (even if one assumes a recount would be honest) that Prop 37 could be fairly reviewed in California.

At this point, I ran down a few facts about Fresno County. It’s the number-one county in the US for agricultural production; in 2007, $5.3 billion. Major employers? Kraft Foods, Del Monte Foods, Foster Farms, Zacky Farms, Sun-Maid. A local outfit, David Sunflower Seeds, is owned by the giant ConAgra.

Beginning to form a picture? Fresno is Big Agriculture, and the last time I looked, Big Ag isn’t rushing to support GMO labeling. They love Monsanto, crime boss of the GMO world.

Brandi Orth, who blocked the recount, was installed as Fresno county clerk a mere 10 months before Prop 37 went up before California voters. This happened, as The Brad Blog points out, because the previous county clerk, Victor Salazar, suddenly announced his retirement with three years left on his contract.

Who picked Orth as the new county clerk? The five members of the Fresno board of supervisors. I noticed that two of them, Phil Larson and Debbie Poochigian, were members of the Fresno County Farm Bureau.

That’s quite interesting, because in the run-up to the November Prop 37 vote, the Farm Bureau was one of the organizations that signed on to a large NO on 37 print ad.


The Matrix Revealed

One of the two bonuses in THE MATRIX REVEALED is my complete 18-lesson course, LOGIC AND ANALYSIS. This is a new way to teach logic, the subject that has been missing from schools for decades.


Let’s recap. The recount on the Prop 37 vote is stopped cold in Fresno County (a major center of Big Ag), because the county clerk, Brandi Orth put up absurd, incredible, and arbitrary obstacles. Orth was selected for her job, in the first place, by a board of supervisors on which, at the very least, two of the five members were opponents of Prop 37.

Does the California state government and, in particular, the state attorney general’s office give this foul-smelling situation even a sniff? No.

Does the California Secretary of State, Debra Bowen, who is in charge of all voting in the State, budge from her office and investigate, or better yet, go down to Fresno and personally install a fair and equitable and affordable recount of Prop 37? Of course not. She moves right along to other matters.

What does that tell you?

The stink from the blocked vote-recount goes all the way from Fresno up to the capital city of Sacramento and back down again.

Naturally, the major media give this story no play. They remain silent.

As I’ve detailed in other articles (under the ~/category/yeson37/ section of my blog), there are many reasons to reject the truth of the original Prop 37 vote in California, as well as any election in the State. But after these revelations, if you accept California vote-counts as real, you should check your sanity.

Source: The Brad Blog, “Forget About Fresno: How One CA County Clerk Stopped Prop 37’s Oversight ‘Recount’

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 www.nomorefakenews.com

Breaking…Food Democracy Now calls Prop 37 election vote fraud!

 

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.


The Matrix Revealed


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 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 www.nomorefakenews.com

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

Yes on Prop 37 was classic “controlled opposition”

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.


the matrix revealed


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 29th 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

 

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?


The Matrix Revealed


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 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 www.nomorefakenews.com

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

Was the YES ON 37 campaign undermined by its allies?

 

Was the YES ON 37 campaign undermined by its allies?

By Jon Rappoport

November 19, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

 

Before you decide I’m just making this stuff up, answer this question: do you really think food sellers like Whole Foods wanted to see hundreds, maybe thousands of their store products suddenly say “GENETICALLY ENGINEERED” on them?

 

Are you kidding?

 

Well, that’s exactly what would have happened if YES ON 37 had won.

 

With that prologue, let’s begin.

 

I’m not talking about the workers for the YES ON 37 campaign. There is no doubt the ground game was fought by honest people. But at the top level, a few “suits” relied on advice from professionals who told them there was only one way to win the vote:

 

Focus on the consumers’ right to know what was in their food.

 

That’s it. That was the biggest message.

 

Why?

 

Because the other message would have exposed the natural foods industry. And that other message was:

 

GMOs are horrible. GMO food is destructive to health, to the soil, to farmers…and, by the way:

 

The natural foods industry, which is big business in California, sells tons and tons of GMO food.

 

It’s labeled “natural.” But in a huge number of cases, “natural” contains GMOs.

 

Get it?

 

Without all that “natural” food ringing cash registers, big health-food sellers would go belly up.

 

If YES ON 37 had gone all in on a campaign to educate the people of California about the dangers of GMOs, this would have inevitably revealed that the “natural” food that people were already buying and eating was contaminated to the hilt with GMOs.

 

And that would have been bad for business.

 

There were many people at lower levels of the YES ON 37 campaign who wanted to educate the people of California about the dangers of GMO food. But they were rebuffed.

 

Face it, some big natural food sellers in America have accepted the presence of Monsanto and other GMO crocodiles as permanent fixtures in the landscape. These food sellers reason this way:

 

We sell organic food, which is free from all but small traces of GMOs. That’s what we offer to those who don’t want GMOs. All our “natural” products? That’s GMO territory, and there is nothing we can do about it.”

 

In any election campaign, you go after the undecided vote. Everybody else has already made up their minds. In California, the undecided people were on the fence because they didn’t know why labeling GMO food was necessary. They needed to be taught.

 

But that wasn’t the major thrust of the YES ON 37 campaign.

 

People needed to know they should want labeling because eating GMO food is dangerous.

 

The people of CA didn’t get that message loud and clear. It wasn’t delivered with great energy and power.

 

And that helped the natural food industry. It helped them a lot.

 

They can continue to sell thousands of food products with “natural” labels on them, and consumers won’t know they’re eating GMOs, and consumers won’t know why that’s a very bad thing.

 

People who already understand the GMO issue and what Monsanto is doing to the planet assume millions of other people know, too. They see the YES ON 37 campaign as the first big wedge into other states and other campaigns.

 

They don’t realize how many Americans don’t have a clue about GMOs and Monsanto.

 

The big-shot suits from the YES ON 37 campaign better take a long hard look at the pollsters and advisers they’re using. When those pollsters tell them, again, in other states, to focus only on “the right to know what’s in your food,” they should stop and ask themselves:

 

Whose side are these pollsters really on?

 

And the non-organic “natural food” sellers? Whose side are they on?

 

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 www.nomorefakenews.com

Why the Prop 37 vote-count is too perfect

 

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 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 www.nomorefakenews.com

Disrupting the flow of matrix virtual reality

 

DISRUPTING THE FLOW OF MATRIX VIRTUAL REALITY

by Jon Rappoport

November 15, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

 

Election night on planet Earth is an illustration of the virtual reality we live in.

 

A news anchor on a network, who has learned how to impart information as if it is real, who can effortlessly assume a position of earnest authority, who seems to emanate the correct amount of empathy without descending into a cloying familiarity with the audience, who can seamlessly switch from reporting to giving way to other reporters to breaking for commercial, who can listen to instructions in his earpiece while talking at the same time, who can generate exactly the right amount of enthusiasm without straining credulity, who can appear to care about what he is reporting, who can maintain a pose of neutrality:

 

Tells us what the numbers are, and:

 

When the moment is right, makes the projection of the winner and the loser, as if:

 

The information comes through to him from an unimpeachable source.

 

The anchor can hand off to an analyst who explains why the projection is correct, who points to a map to reveal the breakdown.

 

It all passes before us, and the goal is to make us accept, and by accepting, believe.

 

The system is air-tight.

 

The truth has been made known.

 

The predictive power of unseen experts is formidable.

 

But, in fact, we are watching images and listening to voices on television, and what is actually happening in voting booths, what has been happening in voting booths, and what will happen in voting booths is a mystery.

 

However, as long as we are in the flow, we sense things are all right.

 

This virtual flow is a tiny corner of the Matrix in action.

 

What would happen, though, if out of nowhere, on our television screens, we saw an egg cracking and Donald Duck crawling out of it wearing a bright pink suit holding a handful of cash?

 

Right in the middle of an election projection for a senate race in New Jersey.

 

What would happen if the face of the anchor began to drip tears of steel as he was making a call on the presidential race in Ohio?

 

What would happen if we heard the Mormon Tabernacle Choir singing, “Something is happening here, but you don’t know what it is, do you, Mr Jones,” swelling in volume, until the anchor was drowned out and we could only see his mouth working in silence.

 

This is, in fact, the sort of thing that happens when you back up and analyze where the election information is coming from and discover you don’t know.

 

You do know, however, that the channel through which it is expressed is electronic and deploys computers.

 

You know that computers are programmed to deal with millions of crumbs in certain assigned ways.

 

So it occurs to you, like a joke unfolding, that if the situation were right, those machines could spit out anything.

 

They could say Bob Dylan or James Bond had just been elected the next president of the United States. They could.

 

So you wonder how that might be done. Then you wonder how it’s actually done, to produce the name of the winner you automatically accept as genuine and true and authentic. The real-real winner.

 

Then you realize the real-real winner could be no more real than President James Bond.

 

The Matrix is very much like a hall in a painting. You walk into the painting and you’re in the hall. Having arrived in the hall, you look for a room. You find one. There are books on the shelves and a fire in the fireplace. You sit down. A man comes in and tells you it’s raining and the guests for dinner may be a little late.

 

Someone painted a picture and you walked into it and took up residence. You believed.

 

When you stop believing, you can go back into the hall and find your way out of the painting.

 

In this world of ours, exposing “a flow of the virtual Matrix” for what it is can create a domino effect. If the transmission of election results is a mere charade, then what does that imply? What other slices of Matrix flow are fabricated?

 

As you expose one segment of flow, you already sense there are others to expose. Many segments of flow are linked up.

 

If you tell people you’ve just exposed a segment of flow, they may become annoyed. They are comfortably ensconced in the whole continuum of flow, and they want to see the show. They don’t want interruptions.

 

They don’t tell you this, of course. Instead, they reach out for and grab the most convenient story and use it to reject your discovery. It doesn’t matter what that story is. They treat it as holy fact.

 

But basically, they reject what you’re telling them because you’re the Donald Duck in a bright pink suit holding a handful of cash, and they were trying to watch a wholly engrossing news anchor project the next president of the United States.

 

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 www.nomorefakenews.com

A call to hackers everywhere

 

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 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 www.nomorefakenews.com

Who are the “experts” promoting the loss of Prop 37?

 

WHO ARE THE “EXPERTS” PROMOTING THE LOSS OF PROP 37?

by Jon Rappoport

November 15, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

 

You want to go inside the Prop 37 campaign? I can take you there for a peek.

The foot soldiers on the ground are flat broke. They’re exhausted, played out, they’ve spent their own money and in many case they haven’t been reimbursed. Some of them are now without homes. They’ve given everything to the cause, and they’re tapped out—psychologically, physically, emotionally, and in every other way.

They went for it in a way few people can understand. Now they see the vote projections and numbers, and they throw up their hands. If they can even think straight, after a battle like this, it’s a miracle.

Well, this is what happens in a long campaign. It’s not pretty at the end.

Thanks should go out to these people, these grassroots people who ran straight at the wall because they believed in their cause, and then finally hit the wall.

They gave their all.

But far above them, within the ranks of Prop 37, there are others who controlled the action. They’re not sweating things too badly right now. They bankrolled the campaign, in some cases. They called the shots. Most importantly, they hired the pollsters many months ago who decided how the campaign would be run.

Now we’re getting to the heart of things. These big shots hired pollsters who told them, “There is one and only one way to win Prop 37. Focus on people’s right to know what’s in their food. That’s it. Don’t focus on anything else.”

That might sound right, on the surface, but there was one very serious problem. The foot soldiers, the people who made up most of the 37 campaign, had a different view. They wanted more.

They wanted to show people how genetically modified food could injure people’s health. They wanted to educate the people of California about the whole deal. They were right to want that.

Lots and lots of people don’t know why they need to know about GMOs.

So the YES ON 37 ground troops were alienated.

They waited out in the rain while the big shots decided how the 37 campaign would be done. And those big shots are now saying—because they’ve consulted with their pollsters and other pros—that the election is lost. The numbers are impossible to reverse. “Nothing to see here, move along.”

I’ve proven how wrong that is.

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

Right now, we’re dealing with a smokescreen that is being launched to make people believe Prop 37 is over, it’s lost, and there is no chance of it winning, as California counts the outstanding votes this month.

This smokescreen is filled with projections and numbers and percentages. “If YES ON 37 gets 62% of the remaining votes, but is trailing by 600,000 votes right now, there is no chance…”

Blah-blah.

My previous article, “Prop 37: The top 7 reasons not to believe the vote-count,” explains how this election could easily have been stolen, electronically, and why there was every reason to do it.

The “smokescreen articles” all share a common feature.

They take the votes that remain to be counted (2.3 million at my last count) and project what percentage of those votes would have to go to YES ON 37, in order to secure a victory.

Then they conclude: 66%, or 70%, or 75% of the uncounted votes would have to go YES, and they confidently say this will never happen.

They entirely miss the point. These people are entirely ignorant about electronic vote fraud.

I’ll say this for the hundredth time: the fraud isn’t simply about the votes that remain to be counted.

This is about the votes that have already been counted.

May I repeat that? Fraud is about the votes that have already been counted.

It’s about the votes that have already been counted, that are now being counted, that will be counted.

The fraud would be electronic. It’s computer fraud. It invents vote-counts. From the get-go, it invents votes and changes vote totals.

It’s virtual invented reality for the masses.

As I explained in my previous article, this kind of fraud was already an obvious possibility and, in fact, a reality in California elections. That’s why the secretary of state of CA, in 2007, ordered a “top-to-bottom” review of all electronic voting systems currently in use in the state.

And that’s why the review was done, and that’s why the review showed that four different electronic voting systems had fatal flaws.

So all this nonsense about “how many votes remain to be counted” in the Prop 37 election, and “what percentage of those votes would have to say YES ON 37”…all that is misguided and foolish and wrong-headed and irrelevant.

Of course, the people who are writing these “expert” articles and making these “expert” projections are quite sure they understand the voting game. They believe they are right on top of things.

They want to accept the premise that vote-counts and elections are on the up-and-up and honest. They are dedicated to that premise.

There are some very talented hackers out there who are laughing so hard they’re falling off their chairs.

The YES ON 37 leaders’ fatal flaw? They believed in the sanctity of the voting system. The experts who were advising them and are still advising them are guiding them in exactly the wrong direction.

When you walk into the mouth of the dragon holding a flashlight and a pint of water, to put out the fire in his mouth, there is something wrong with your premise.

The dragon is all the people and all the force that wants GMO food to reign supreme on planet Earth. Labeling food so people can know whether it’s genetically engineered could deal a powerful body blow to those forces.

Any sane person knows these forces would do anything to stop the tide of anti-GMO conviction spreading across the world. An election? Electronically rigging a vote? Of course. Just another day at the office.

Electronic vote fraud has absolutely nothing to do with conventional projections of how votes will turn out or percentages or predictions. All that is based on an honest system.

Face it, from the time the first crooked high priest lied to his sheep about his divine mandate; to the machine pol in New York buying votes and sending out goons to beat up opposition voters; all the way to the present computer takeover of the election process, the watchword has been: corruption.

If you can’t understand and accept that, you need a very serious reality check.

Let me say it plainly: the people who think of themselves as experts and are assuring you that the numbers rule out a victory for Prop 37…those people are dead wrong.

Remember Orwell’s 1984? At the end, we learn the whole objective of the leaders is to make rebels love the State. Not just accept it. Love it.

I detect this now. Love the election system. Don’t just assume it’s above board. Love it.

People have a hard time giving up something they think they love.

But they need to. They need to do it now.

But…but you see, with two million votes still uncounted, if we get 60% of the vote, we still lose. Even 65%…we still don’t make it. We lose. We have to heal and move on. We have to live to fight another day…even with 70%, let me check those numbers again…yes, we still lose…it’s…we have no chance…just let it go…”

Go ahead, drink the Kool-Aid if you want to.

But instead I invite you to wake up. If you can.

The YES ON 37 leaders are listening to their pros, their pollsters, their experts. Again, that’s their fatal error.

And they’re in danger of making the same mistake as they move on to the state of Washington, to mount a new campaign to label GMO food. Don’t think the election there can be electronically manipulated? You’re dreaming.

The kind of pre-election “vote-fraud” analysis you’ve been doing, to head off fraud at the pass? Useless. You’re using people who aren’t talented enough. You need to bring in the heavyweights, the people who can hack into anything.

Publicly, with FBI and other law-enforcement types present, and with the press there, you have to show that the election system can be hacked. Demonstrate it.

Come into the 21st century.

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 www.nomorefakenews.com

Prop 37: The top 7 reasons not to believe the vote-count

PROP 37: THE TOP 7 REASONS NOT TO BELIEVE THE VOTE COUNT

by Jon Rappoport

November 14, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

The verdict is in. You would be a fool to accept the vote-count in the California Prop 37 election. I’ll show you why.

Apparently, the CA secretary of state’s office has been getting hit by a lot of calls. People are asking them about the ongoing Prop 37 vote-count. As of last night (11/13/2012), there were still 2,304,250 votes uncounted.

Update: As of 11/14/2012, 5:00pm PT, the number of uncounted ballots stands at 1,891,719.

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/unprocessed-ballots-status/

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/2012-elections/nov-general/pdf/unprocessed-ballots-report.pdf

I received a call from Shannan Velayas, who works in media relations at the California Secretary of State’s office. She left a message, emphasizing several points.

Among them: The vote-count is open and transparent, and anyone from the public can observe it.

This fact has been used by reporters and “experts” to assure the public that an election can’t be stolen.

They’re absolutely wrong.

So the first reason you shouldn’t believe the Prop 37 vote? The means do, in fact, exist to steal an election.

Here is my challenge. Can I see how the touch-screen voting machines operate? Can I go inside them and check them for tampering, anywhere in the state of California?

Can I see exactly how information flows from each voting machine to successive computers? Can I check to make sure the flow of information is not being intercepted and changed?

Can I see how the tabulating machines absorb and tally vote-count information? Can I examine closely the software and the codes that allow these tabulating machines to do their work?

Can I get inside any of the main-frame computers that collect vote-numbers and examine their software, source-code, and working parts?

Of course, the answer to all these questions is no.

Therefore, I could hire an army of observers, and they would not be able to tell me that the vote-count was done correctly. The secretary of state couldn’t swear to it either.

Some brain-deficient people think these objections are over the top. They think I’m nitpicking.

If I remind them that a team of computer scientists from Michigan went to Washington DC and demonstrated that they could hack into the voting system and reverse the result of mayoral race there, these brain-deficient people would dismiss that as irrelevant, too.

I suggest watching the documentary Hacking Democracy, directed by Simon Ardizzone and Russell Michaels, starring Bev Harris. Then tell me elections can’t be hacked and reversed.

Remember Jonathan James, who at the age of 16 put a back-door into DOD’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency’s server, and stole software from NASA computers that set temperature and humidity at the International Space Station?

Recall Adrian Lamo, who hacked into security systems at B of A, Citigroup, and Cingular?

Keven Poulsen, who hacked into federal computers that record wiretaps?

Tsuromu Shimura, who used a simple cell phone to to hack into phone calls all over Capitol Hill?

The 18-year-old Greek boy, “n-splitter,” who was arrested for hacking into systems at Interpol, the Pentagon, the FBI, and the NSA?

I won’t even bother mentioning hackers who are hired by the NSA and other agencies.

But no, the 2012 California Prop 37 election couldn’t have been hacked. Of course not. Those computer systems are absolutely impregnable. They’re programmed by advanced ETs from the Rainbow Galaxy.

The media and secretaries of state throw out rhetoric aimed at assuring the public that elections are fair and square. That’s their job.

Pollsters and those hilarious clowns like Chuck Todd (NBC), John King (CNN), Michael Barone (The Examiner), Karl Rove, and Dick Morris are making a living from doing analysis and predictions of elections. They would defend, to the death, the honesty of elections. Of course they would, because if the opposite were shown to be true, they would be out of work.

The Associated Press feeds projections, although they deny it, to media outlets all over America on election night. They, too, would look ridiculous if it turned out that vote-counts had been hijacked.

Then we have professionals who work for candidates and ballot measures and offer their projections to their clients. They, of course, assume all elections are fair and square, because if that weren’t so, they would look like fools.

Worse than fools. Right now, professionals are telling the YES ON 37 people their cause is lost. If they’re wrong, if the election has been electronically stolen, they are giving their clients monumentally bad and destructive advice.

Oh but that’s right, elections can’t be stolen. It doesn’t happen.

Even though every single ballot, whether touch-screen or paper, is eventually turned into a digital record, nothing can go wrong.

I’m saving the best for last.

In 2007, the secretary of state of CA ordered a “Top-to-Bottom Review” of all electronic voting systems currently in use in California elections.

In other words, up to that time, these systems had been considered a very fine way to run the vote count. The systems obviously had been tested and re-tested and checked and approved. They were already being used in the state of California.

However, astoundingly, all the following systems were found to contain fatal flaws: Premier Election Solutions (formerly Diebold); Hart InterCivic; Sequoia Voting Systems; Election Systems and Software.

The first three systems were disqualified from further use…and then conditionally re-approved, presumably after fixes were done. The fourth system was rejected altogether on Aug. 3, 2007.

What, indeed, does that say about those elections in which these flawed systems had been used?

To suppose that, after this top-to-bottom review in 2007, everything was fixed and perfected is a leap only the foolish and unwary would take—particularly when we are talking about extremely talented hackers who could be employed to change election votes.

You can read the top-to-bottom review here.

http://www.sos.ca.gov/voting-systems/oversight/ttbr/individuals/individuals.pdf

Be sure to go through the comments section at the end. It contains some explosive remarks. For example, there is a discussion of vendors pretending to sell certain voting machines to the state of California…but actually selling other machines…machines that were not certified for use.

Another comment indicates that California lacked a method to ensure the source code for voting-machine software actually belonged to software certified by the state.

So: reason number one to doubt the vote-count on Prop 37? An election can be hacked. It most certainly can be hacked.

Reason Two: The networks made an early, premature, and highly suspect call of defeat for Prop 37 on election night. Roughly six million votes were outstanding at the time, and Prop 37 was coming back from a huge deficit, which had been created by the early vote-count. (Where exactly did those early votes come from?)

Reason Three: The enemy in the Prop 37 campaign was Monsanto and its allies. If Monsanto is ready, willing, and able to patent all foods on the planet and own the food supply, choke populations with its pesticides, and enable the sale of nutrient-deficient GMO food to billions of people, only a moron would refuse to believe it would corrupt an election.

Reason Four: The NO on 37 forces lied consistently in their ads running up to the election. They lied in the California Voter’s Guide, which is a felony. They used the seal of the FDA in those ads, which is another felony. Given the opportunity, what else would they have done?

http://www.appetiteforprofit.com/2012/11/07/lies-dirty-tricks-and-45-million-kill-gmo-labeling-in-california/

Reason Five: A few days before the election, YES ON 37 held a press conference, during which they were mercilessly attacked by mainstream reporters on an entirely irrelevant issue: did the FBI actually open an investigation of NO ON 37, or was it an inquiry or a mild expression of interest? YES ON 37, in the press conference, was exposing the particulars of NO ON 37’s lies and crimes, but the reporters didn’t care at all. In the next few days, their stories instead turned the tables on YES ON 37 for “erroneously” suggesting that DOJ was “investigating” NO ON 37. This had all the signs of a coordinated media torpedo. It made YES ON 37 look like a bunch of “sour grapes” losers.

Reason Six: NO ON 37 stealing the FDA seal in its ads? Surrendering its own responsibility, DOJ referred the matter of the stolen FDA seal to the FDA for adjudication. This is cause for investigating the DOJ itself. The FDA has nothing to do with deciding what action should be taken against NO ON 37. The FDA deals with food and drugs, not misappropriated federal-agency seals. The DOJ effectively shelved any action until after the election. The DOJ prevented a public outcry against NO ON 37.

Reason Seven: The DOJ operates under the authority of the president of the United States. Barack Obama is the most powerful supporter of Monsanto in America.

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2012/09/24/meet-monsantos-number-one-lobbyist-barack-obama/

For these reasons, the most careful scrutiny possible must be applied to the past, present, and future vote-count on Prop 37, including the now 2,304,250 outstanding votes.

Demands must be made to undertake a complete review—an independent review—of all electronic voting procedures in the state of California.

And then, in full view of the public and the press, the most talented hackers on the planet must be offered a chance to hack into the California vote and steal an election.

We lost” is not a credible comeback to that.

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 www.nomorefakenews.com