1.6 Million Votes Remain Uncounted in California

NoMoreFakeNews
Jon Rappoport

DID PROP 37 REALLY LOSE OR WAS IT VOTE FRAUD?

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.

Edison and Mitofsky issued a later report explaining how the disparity could have occurred; they tried to validate their own exit-poll data and the vote-count, which was like explaining a sudden shift in ocean tides by saying clouds covered the moon. It made no sense.

So if NEP did the premature Prop 37 projections that handed 37 a resounding loss, there is little reason to accept their word.

We’re faced with a scandal here. An early unwarranted projection against Prop 37 was made, when so many votes were still uncounted.

Those votes are still uncounted.

Why should we believe anything that comes next?

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 AND CORPORATE LIES IN THE POST TRUTH ERA

RBN



As a historic vote with profound implications for the future of our food system nears, the question becomes whether a campaign with limitless resources and a disdain for the truth can defeat an overwhelmingly popular idea supported by a grassroots army, and over 3000 public interest organizations: the right to know what's in the food we eat and feed our families.

Poll after poll showed 90% of Americans (and Californians) favored labeling foods that have been genetically engineered (GMOs) and nearly a million signatures were gathered by California volunteers in just 10 weeks - easily qualifying Prop 37 for the ballot. And as of the first week of October, the Yes on 37 campaign enjoyed a 2 to 1 lead in the polls.

This broad statewide (and national) support - across party lines - made perfect sense. Prop 37 posits a simple question: Do we have the right to know what's in the food we eat and feed our children, or is that a decision better left to the pesticide and junk food companies bankrolling the opposition campaign?

Prop 37 isn't a referendum on genetically modified foods. It's not a ban, or a warning, it's a label.

The debate over the efficacy of genetically engineered foods should and will continue. In the meantime, Californians have a right to know, and for good reason.

A growing body of research links GMO foods to potential health risks, increased pesticide use, biodiversity loss, the emergence of super bugs and "super weeds" and the unintentional contamination of conventional crops.

Prop 37 simply adds a line of ink to a label -- as is currently required for 3,000 other ingredients -- so consumers know which products have been altered in a laboratory. 61 other countries have provided their citizens with this right, and choice, it's time we do the same.

Corporate Backlash Against Our Right to Know

In response to this growing outcry for food transparency a who's who of the world's most notorious corporate bad actors, with long histories of deceiving the public, polluting the environment, and endangering public health, converged on California to convince us we don't deserve this basic, human right. A right that nearly half the world's population already enjoys.

The No on 37 campaigns two largest contributors are pesticide giants Monsanto ($8.1 million) and Dupont ($5.4 million) - who for decades assured us Agent Orange, DDT, and Tobacco were safe. At the same time, Monsanto has actively advocated for labeling in Europe.

So how do companies like these go about persuading us that we don't deserve the right to know what they're doing to our food?

The Only Recourse: An Unprecedented Campaign of Deception

The campaign against the right to know has relied on three essential components: unlimited resources, a willingness to repeatedly lie, and a willingness to double and triple down on those lies-even when they are debunked by independent fact checkers.

Seriously, when was the last time giant, out-of-state pesticide and junk food companies spent $45 million to improve your health, protect the environment or save you money?

Spoiler Alert-they never have.

The No On 37 campaign knows that the less you know about your food, the more money they are likely to make. Their goal is literally that simple, even though their campaign of deception is far more elaborate.

They've set up phony AstroTurf groups, misrepresented spokespeople and embellished their credentials, and misrepresented leading science, government, professional and academic organizations-including (but not limited to) the National Academy of Sciences, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, US Food and Drug Administration and World Health Organization. They've bankrolled demonstrably phony "economic studies," made repeated false statements in advertisements, deceived voters with mailers sent by obvious front groups, and repeated one falsehood after another---hoping somehow that no one would ever notice.

CA Prop 37 Scorecard...Devils And Angels

Rense
Editor's Note: Vote with your dollars, folks.

YouTube Removes Undercover Video Showing Whole Foods GMO Misinformation

Natural Society
Anthony Gucciardi

Youtube has pulled an undercover ‘Organic Spies’ video questioning Whole Foods employees as to whether or not any of the products within Whole Foods contained GMO ingredients. Created to show how even the employees themselves are misinformed (or even dishonest) about the very real presence of Monsanto’s GMOs in a store like Whole Foods that is supposed to promote health and wellness, the Organic Spies video received over 100,000 views in a few short days.

The video has since been removed due to apparently ‘violating the Terms of Service’, according to the genetic Youtube message that appears in place of the original video. As Infowars.com’s Aaron Dykes explains, this could be due to a third party complaint (such as Whole Foods demanding it be taken down), but it is not known as YouTube no longer tells the user of the third party identity. In other words, videos like these can be taken down without a trace of who is responsible.

You can see a re-upload of the video below:

One thing is clear, however. Whole Foods definitely has its eye on the video, attempting to perform ‘damage’ control through PR statements. Whole Foods even responded to the video after it became viral on the internet, stating on their blog that they certainly do carry GMOs within their store and that their employees questioned in the video were misinformed:

“The YouTube video showing our store Team Members giving conflicting responses to a question about GMOs reminds us that while we try to keep all our 70,000 Team Members up-to-speed on the latest information, clearly we need to do more. Some products in our stores DO contain GMOs – just like any other food store in the country, due to the pervasiveness of GMOs…”

Whole Foods Should Abandon GMOs, Monsanto

Just to be clear, I do believe that Whole Foods offers consumers a pretty considerable selection of organic non-GMO options at their stores. Many items contain the Non-GMO Project verified sticker, and they are certainly multitudes more in touch with real food than the average grocer. That said, it is important that we always keep corporations in line when it comes to protecting the health of ourselves and our families.

Ever since the recent French GMO study found that Monsanto’s GMOs (and Roundup) were contributing to tumor growth and organ damage, the international alarm over GMOs has been louder than ever. This is the perfect time to spread the word over carriers like Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s who still carry GMOs within their ‘natural health’ stores. After all, GMOs are not natural by any stretch of the word.

The success of the Organic Spies video signifies a serious paradigm shift in the way the average individual looks at an average business. Whole Foods, like virtually all other corporations who focus on selling direct to customer, depends entirely on the purchases of the consumer. If consumers literally demand that Whole Foods removes tumor-linked GMOs from their stories, stopping a major flow of income to Monsanto and other biotech giants, then they will be forced to comply.

Which ‘Natural’ Food Companies Are Fighting the Effort to Label GMOs?

From the Trenches

Huffington Post  On Nov. 6, California voters will have the opportunity to vote on historic Proposition 37, which would mandate the labeling of genetically-engineered foods. At a time when it’s hard to get a large percentage of Americans to agree on almost anything, polls show that as many as 90 percent of us want genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) labeled. More than 40 other nations, including the entire European Union, already require disclosure. But Monsanto and its allies are dedicated to keeping consumers in the dark and are pouring tens of millions of dollars into a disinformation campaign intended to defeat Prop 37.

You might expect the biotech industry to try to block a measure that would require foods that contain GMOs to say so on their packages. After all, a growing body of scientific research is indicating that GMOs might be far more dangerous than was previously imagined. But Monsanto’s allies in the effort to defeat Prop 37 include some unexpected culprits. It can be shocking to realize that some of the most trusted names in the naturalfood world are in bed with Monsanto.

Naked Juice is owned by PepsiCo, which has donated $1.7 million to Monsanto’s efforts. Honest Tea, Odwalla and Simply Orange are owned by Coca-Cola, which has donated another million dollars. Alexia and Lightlife are owned by ConAgra, which has put in more than $1 million.

You won’t find this mentioned anywhere on the Kashi product packaging, but Kashi, as well as Gardenburger and Morningstar Farms, is owned by Kellogg, which has already coughed up more than $600,000 to defeat Prop 37.

Kashi has already been in plenty of trouble on the GMO front this year. A few months ago, a number of natural foods stores stopped carrying Kashi cereals when it came to their attention that the “soy used in most Kashi products is genetically modified, and that when the USDA tested the grains used there were found to be pesticides that are known carcinogens and hormone disruptors.”

In an attempt to defend itself, Kashi released a YouTube video that announced that:

“While it’s likely that some of our foods contain GMOs, the main reason for that is because in North America, well over 80 percent of many crops, including soybeans are grown using GMOs … Factors outside our control such as pollen drift from nearby crops

… have led to an environment where GMOs are not sufficiently controlled.”

This seemingly reasonable defense — that the only reason GMOs are found in Kashi products is because GMOs are widespread in the environment — might be valid if the problem was only trace GMOs, which lead to a product being less than 1 percent genetically engineered. But when theCornucopia Institute tested Kashi’s Go Lean cereal, which gets its protein from soy, they found that the soy was 100 percent genetically engineered.

There are other natural foods heroes whose profits are being used to try to keep us in the dark. Silk soy milk carries the “Non-GMO Project Verified” seal on its package. But Silk is owned by Dean Foods, which has donated more than a quarter million dollars to Monsanto’s efforts to defeat Prop 37.

The list of sell-outs who masquerade as bastions of organics is disappointingly long. R. W. Knudsen and Santa Cruz Organics are owned by Smucker, which has donated $388,000 to killing Prop 37. Cascadian Farm, Larabar and Muir Glen are owned by General Mills, which has put more than half a million dollars into the effort.

The good news is that even with large agribusiness companies purchasing natural and organic brands and then betraying consumers by funding the attack on GMO labeling, Prop 37 still stands an excellent chance of passing.

And not everyone has sold out, not by a long shot. There are still some authentic heroes in the natural food industry. Nature’s Path, Dr. Bronner’s, Nutiva and Lundberg Rice stand out among the companies that are contributing to the effort to pass Prop 37 and ensure your right to know what’s in your food. Organic Valley, Amy’s and Eden Foods are also standing up for your right to know. And the owner of a natural health website, Joseph Mercola (mercola.com), has donated nearly a million dollars to the good fight.

If you want to know more, the Cornucopia Institute has released a shopper’s guide to the companies that are donating on both sides of Prop 37.

At present, it’s not easy to know whether there are GMOs in your food. The Non-GMO Shopping Guide put out by the Institute for Responsible Technology is a great support. But the most important thing you can do is to help pass Proposition 37.

If Californians pass Prop 37 in November, it will have enormous implications to the food system throughout North America.

Ignorance, in some cases, may be bliss. But in the case of GMOs, the ignorance of not knowing what is in your food is not bliss, it’s subservience to Monsanto and its allies. And it could mean a lifetime of devastating health problems for you and your children.

It’s going to be a battle. Let’s win this one for ourselves, for the earth, and for all future generations.

GMO created foods may be used as a biological weapon

Examiner
 Kenneth Schortgen Jr.

Genetically modified organisms (GMO) which are used to create new food seeds and crops, are being tied to use as a potential biological weapon in creating infertility in places around the world.

A report published on May 28th tied together that the international organization Codex, which is seeking to regulate every food, mineral, and herb in the world used for consumption, does not consider GMO created products as food, and thus they are being placed in a separate sphere of attributes that can be used for alternative functions.
Including birth control and creating infertility in a nation or population.

There has been a concerted national effort by citizens to have the US government label GMOs.  Opposing it are government intent not only to keep them unlabeled in the US but efforts at the international level by the US government to remove all labeling of GMOs through Codex.  The problem is that Codex applies to food, and GMOs don't qualify.
The corn has been field tested in tests financed by the US Department of Agriculture along with a small California bio-tech company named Epicyte. Announcing his success at a 2001 press conference, the president of Epicyte, Mitch Hein, pointing to his GMO corn plants, announced, “We have a hothouse filled with corn plants that make anti-sperm antibodies.”

Hein claimed it was a possible solution to world “over-population. – Salem News

Besides the creation and use of GMO corn and other staples in places like South America, Mexico, and Africa, an interesting data point was discovered in the US shortly after GMO foods (BT-Corn) were approved in 1996.  Since that time, birth rates in the US have been falling, and accelerating in decline since 1999, just three years after the introduction of the GMO to the food supply.

Do you like this article?

Genetically modified organisms (GMO) which are used to create new food seeds and crops, are being tied to use as a potential biological weapon in creating infertility in places around the world.
A report published on May 28th tied together that the international organization Codex, which is seeking to regulate every food, mineral, and herb in the world used for consumption, does not consider GMO created products as food, and thus they are being placed in a separate sphere of attributes that can be used for alternative functions.

Including birth control and creating infertility in a nation or population.

There has been a concerted national effort by citizens to have the US government label GMOs.  Opposing it are government intent not only to keep them unlabeled in the US but efforts at the international level by the US government to remove all labeling of GMOs through Codex.  The problem is that Codex applies to food, and GMOs don't qualify.
The corn has been field tested in tests financed by the US Department of Agriculture along with a small California bio-tech company named Epicyte. Announcing his success at a 2001 press conference, the president of Epicyte, Mitch Hein, pointing to his GMO corn plants, announced, “We have a hothouse filled with corn plants that make anti-sperm antibodies.”

Hein claimed it was a possible solution to world “over-population. – Salem News

Besides the creation and use of GMO corn and other staples in places like South America, Mexico, and Africa, an interesting data point was discovered in the US shortly after GMO foods (BT-Corn) were approved in 1996.  Since that time, birth rates in the US have been falling, and accelerating in decline since 1999, just three years after the introduction of the GMO to the food supply.

Since GMO food is not considered a natural commodity for consumption by the UN's regulatory body (Codex), and scientists have purposefully introduced spermacidal modifications into corn for the purpose of controlling world populations, then unequivocally, one of the many purposes of GMO created foods is for the use as a biological weapon.

Many global foundations have been pushing for the expansion of GMO foods, especially corn, soybeans, and rice to help end hunger and poverty around the world, and primarily in third world countries.  The Gates Foundation, the Rockfeller Foundation, and former UN Chief Kofi Annan's Agra organization are just three powerful entities supplying funds and promotions to expand GMO use in many countries.

There is also an ongoing battle between citizens and the FDA to demand labelling of GMO based food products, but to this point, the government agency has been able to keep the public in the dark on what is in their food.  Since GMO based products are not considered food under UN regulations, many questions still remain as to the reasons why the FDA allows them in consumable foods at all.

Creating a food source or seed meant to be eaten by man as a dietary staple which has been modified to bring sterility or outright birth control is in essence, creating and distributing a biological weapon for the sole purpose of lowering birth rates and populations in one or more locations.  Since GMO based products are not considered food according to the UN Codex, but are being allowed into the world's diet as a consumable, creates many questions as to the real purpose of expanding GMO use into the food supply.

Help Us Transmit This Story

  Add to Your Blogger Account
  Put it On Facebook
  Tweet this post
  Print it from your printer
  Email and a collection of other outlets
  Try even more services

Judge Invalidates Human Gene Patent

New York Times

A federal judge on Monday struck down patents on two genes linked to breast and ovarian cancer. The decision, if upheld, could throw into doubt the patents covering thousands of human genes and reshape the law of intellectual property.

United States District Court Judge Robert W. Sweet issued the 152-page decision, which invalidated seven patents related to the genes BRCA1 and BRCA2, whose mutations have been associated with cancer.

The American Civil Liberties Union and the Public Patent Foundation at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York joined with individual patients and medical organizations to challenge the patents last May: they argued that genes, products of nature, fall outside of the realm of things that can be patented. The patents, they argued, stifle research and innovation and limit testing options.

Myriad Genetics, the company that holds the patents with the University of Utah Research Foundation, asked the court to dismiss the case, claiming that the work of isolating the DNA from the body transforms it and makes it patentable. Such patents, it said, have been granted for decades; the Supreme Court upheld patents on living organisms in 1980. In fact, many in the patent field had predicted the courts would throw out the suit.

Judge Sweet, however, ruled that the patents were “improperly granted” because they involved a “law of nature.” He said that many critics of gene patents considered the idea that isolating a gene made it patentable “a ‘lawyer’s trick’ that circumvents the prohibition on the direct patenting of the DNA in our bodies but which, in practice, reaches the same result.”

The case could have far-reaching implications. About 20 percent of human genes have been patented, and multibillion-dollar industries have been built atop the intellectual property rights that the patents grant.

Full Article

Biotech crops cause big jump in pesticide use: report

KANSAS CITY (Reuters) - The rapid adoption by U.S. farmers of genetically engineered corn, soybeans and cotton has promoted increased use of pesticides, an epidemic of herbicide-resistant weeds and more chemical residues in foods, according to a report issued Tuesday by health and environmental protection groups.

The groups said research showed that herbicide use grew by 383 million pounds from 1996 to 2008, with 46 percent of the total increase occurring in 2007 and 2008.

The report was released by nonprofits The Organic Center (TOC), the Union for Concerned Scientists (UCS) and the Center for Food Safety (CFS). Full Article

AP INVESTIGATION: Monsanto seed biz role revealed

ST. LOUIS — Confidential contracts detailing Monsanto Co.'s business practices reveal how the world's biggest seed developer is squeezing competitors, controlling smaller seed companies and protecting its dominance over the multibillion-dollar market for genetically altered crops, an Associated Press investigation has found. Full Article