By Jon Rappoport
November 8, 2012
www.nomorefakenews.com

Read Full Article
 
Hold your horses.
 
On election night, not long after the polls closed in California, the announcement came out: Prop 37 was losing. A little while later, it was all over. 37 had gone down to defeat.
 
But is that the whole story? No.
 
As of 2:30PM today, Thursday, November 8th, two days after the election, many votes in California remain uncounted.
 
I tried to find out how many.
 
It turns out that the Secretary of State of CA, responsible for elections in the state, doesn’t know.
 
I was told all counties in California have been asked, not ordered, to report in with those figures. It’s voluntary.
 
So I picked out a few of the biggest counties and called their voter registrar offices. Here are the boggling results:
 
Santa Clara County: 180,000 votes remain uncounted.
 
Orange County: 241,336 votes remain uncounted.
 
San Diego County: 475,000 votes remain uncounted.
 
LA County: 782,658 votes remain uncounted.
 
In just those four counties, 1.6 million votes remain uncounted.
 
The California Secretary of State’s website indicates that Prop 37 is behind by 559,776 votes.
 
So in the four counties I looked into, there are roughly three times as many uncounted votes as the margin of Prop 37?s defeat.
 
And as I say, I checked the numbers in only four counties. There are 54 other counties in the state. Who knows how many votes they still need to process?
 
So why is anyone saying Prop 37 lost?
 
People will say, “Well, it’s all about projections. There are experts. They know what they’re doing. They made a prediction…”
 
Really? Who are those experts? I have yet to find them.
 
For big elections, the television networks rely on a private consortium called the National Election Pool (NEP). NEP does projections and predictions. Did NEP make the premature call on Prop 37? So far I see no evidence one way or the other.
 
NEP makes some calls for the television networks, but NEP is composed of CBS, CNN, FOX, NBC, ABC, and AP. It could hardly be called an independent source of information for those networks.
 
NEP has AP (Associated Press) do the actual vote tabulating, and NEP also contracts work out to Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International to do exit polls and projections based on those polls.
 
Edison Media Research did the exit polls in the state of Washington for this election. How? They surveyed 1493 people by phone. Based on that, I assume they made all the projections for elections in that state, even though there is no in-person voting in Washington, and voters can submit their ballots by mail, postmarked no later than election Tuesday. So how could Edison know anything worth knowing or projecting on election night?
 
Both Edison Research and Mitofsky were involved in the 2004 election scandal (Kerry-Bush), in which their exit polls confounded network news anchors, because the poll results were so far off from the incoming vote-counts.

READ FULL ARTICLE HERE – Food companies Monsanto, Dupont, Pepsico and Nestle spend $45 million to defeat California GM label bill Prop 37

The contentious measure would require labels on GM food sold in supermarkets, but would not cover restaurants

Monsanto and other agribusiness and food companies have spent more than $45m (£28m) to defeat a California ballot measure that would require labelling of some GM foods.

The measure, proposition 37, is one of the most contentious initiatives on California’s election ballot on Tuesday.

If it passes, it would require labels on GM food sold in supermarkets, but would not cover restaurants. It also has a number of gaping loopholes. For example, the law would not require labels on meat from animals that were fed GM corn.

Even with those caveats, the agribusiness and food companies have outspent the yes side by about five to one trying to kill the bill. Monsanto alone has spent more than $8m.

“I think it’s a David and Goliath story with the companies that manufacture or benefit from genetically engineered food being the Goliath,” said David Newman, president of Maplight, which tracks the influence of money in politics.

“When you see this lopsided spending it indicates that the measure is popular with voters and opponents think they need to spend a lot to defeat it. There is a lot at stake here not just in California but how it will trend in the rest of the country.”

California’s ballot initiatives often take on huge importance. Often they are seen as laboratories for new ideas, that are adopted later in the rest of the country.

The bill is mainly supported by organic food companies, although the actor Gwyneth Paltrow also contributed $15,000, according to campaigners.

by Jon Rappoport
November 5, 2012
www.nomorefakenews.com

Full Article
 
You can go into a market and pick out organic vegetables and fruit. This isn’t something you do through magic or secret divination with a special wand. There are labels that tell you the food is organic.
 
“Experts” claim organic food is no better or safer than food drenched with pesticides. But still, you can choose organic.
 
You have a right to know. And then, knowing, you have a right to make your choice.
 
You can go into a market, pick out a food product, and read a list of its ingredients as long as your arm. But you’ll find no mention of whether someone shot insect genes into it.
 
For some reason, you have no right to know about that.
 
It’s no accident. The powers-that-be want it that way.
 
On Tuesday, the voters of California will cast the die on Prop 37. Yes on 37 means GMO food will henceforth be labeled.
 
The idea behind 37 is simple. If you’re eating food, you have a right to know what’s in it and what’s been done to it. Government scientists and corporate scientists can claim GMO food is “the same in all aspects” as non-GMO, but you still have a right to know.
 
Monsanto and it allies claim that you knowing is unfair, because you might be swayed, by your own prejudice, to leave that GMO food on the market shelf, when in fact there is no reason to leave it there.
 
They are telling you the companies who are selling you food are more important than your own judgment about what to put in your body.
 
You would be impeding commerce if you believe GMO food is bad for you, and in order to protect GMO companies and the economy, you must go into a market blind, to keep things “honest.”
 
That’s what they think of you: you’re an idiot. You can’t make reasonable judgments. Therefore, you need to be blind.
 
Let me draw an exact parallel. Let’s suppose you were part of a group that was rallying for a particular political cause, and the government had planted an FBI agent in your midst.
 
Now, if exposed and questioned, this FBI plant would say, “I wasn’t there to disrupt or influence the group in any way. I was merely trying to protect good Americans. I was there to observe, nothing more.”
 
Would you nevertheless have the right to know he was there? Would you have the right to decide whether you wanted him there? Or are you too stupid to know that he should be there because America is in danger and we need people like him to spy on us without our knowing, to keep us safe?
 
It’s the same situation. They tell you the genes planted in your food are neutral in every sense. They affect nothing. They’re good genes and they do good work. But because you might not think so, because you’re too stupid to know the truth, you have to be blind about what’s in your food when you choose it and buy it and eat it.
 
That’s the argument.
 
YES ON 37=you have a right to know.
 
NO ON 37=you need to be protected against your own stupidity.
 
According to this logic, the NO ON 37 people have a right, even a moral duty, to lie to you, to say whatever they need to, in order to move you in the direction of giving up your right to know. They should lie, they have to lie, since their “truth” wasn’t doing the job.
 
And they have lied.
 
http://www.carighttoknow.org/documented_deceptions

A Dangerous Global Nutritional Experiment?

read full article

Published by Roshi Fugai
on Sep 2, 2012

The fact is, there has never been a single study on the human safety of these products. Any implication to the contrary is a pure fabrication. Make the corporate apologists produce a single study, and they can not.

The important point is this. Among scientists, the scientific community is deeply divided as to whether these foods are safe or not, so the burden of proof is on industry. And so far, the corporations have failed to demonstrate the safety of these foods on humans through a single study.

In the last thirty years global demand for food has doubled. In a race to feed the planet, scientists have discovered how to manipulate DNA, the blueprint of life, and produce what they claim are stronger, more disease-resistant crops.

However, fears that Genetically Modified Food may not be safe for humans or the environment has sparked violent protest. Are we participating in a dangerous global nutritional experiment? This informative film helps the viewer decide if the production of genetically modified food is a panacea for world hunger or a global poison.

snip…

READ FULL ARTICLE HERE – DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE LYING TO DEFEAT PROP 37

By Jon Rappoport

November 4, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

The vote is two days away. In California, Prop 37 is on the ballot. It states that all GMO food should be labeled as such, so the consumer can decide whether to buy it and eat it.

The NO ON 37 forces have been caught in a deception. They used the official seal of the FDA in a mailer, and above that seal they attributed a quote to the FDA which was never made by that agency.

The quote was: “The US Food and Drug Administration says a labeling policy like Prop 37 would be ‘inherently misleading.’”

The FDA told KPBS they “never made such statements with respect to Prop 37.”

Here’s the capper. After receiving a complaint about all this, the US Attorney in Sacramento, who works for the US Dept. of Justice, said he would refer the whole matter to the FDA.

What?

snip…