CNN dumps ORC polling corporation after 10 years

Source:  RT
August 21, 2017

CNN recently announced that after 10 years, it will no longer be working with ORC International, their polling firm. It stands for the Opinion Research Corporation.

Advertisements

Trump argument bolstered: Clinton received 800,000 votes from noncitizens, study finds

US spy agencies are saying Clinton's emails should have been 'top ...

Source: WashingtonTimes.com

January 27, 2017

Hillary Clinton garnered more than 800,000 votes from noncitizens on Nov. 8, an approximation far short of President Trump’s estimate of up to 5 million illegal voters but supportive of his charges of fraud.

Political scientist Jesse Richman of Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia, has worked with colleagues to produce groundbreaking research on noncitizen voting, and this week he posted a blog in response to Mr. Trump’s assertion.

Based on national polling by a consortium of universities, a report by Mr. Richman said 6.4 percent of the estimated 20 million adult noncitizens in the U.S. voted in November. He extrapolated that that percentage would have added 834,381 net votes for Mrs. Clinton

Continue Reading At: WashingtonTimes.com

This is a coup: the Homeland Security takeover of US elections

On a scale of importance from 1 to 10, with 10 being the most important, this breaking development is a 500.

athink
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
January 8, 2016

On Friday, the traditional day of the week for quietly releasing big news that will hopefully be ignored by the public—and also obscured by the Fort Lauderdale Airport shooting—the chief of Homeland Security announced that his office will be taking over US elections.

If you can’t see the coup in progress, you need to keep looking until the message comes through.

Read carefully—ABC News reports. My comments are in brackets:

“Citing increasingly sophisticated cyber bad actors and an election infrastructure that’s ‘vital to our national interests’, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson announced Friday that he’s designating U.S. election systems critical infrastructure…”

[Also known as: “we’re taking over.”]

“’Given the vital role elections play in this country, it is clear that certain systems and assets of election infrastructure meet the definition of critical infrastructure, in fact and in law’,” Johnson said in a statement. He added: ‘Particularly in these times, this designation is simply the right and obvious thing to do’.”

[Also known as: “we’re taking over.”]

“The determination came after months of review and despite opposition from many states worried that the designation would lead to increased federal regulation or oversight on the many decentralized and locally run voting systems across the country. It was announced on the same day a declassified U.S. intelligence report said Russian President Vladimir Putin ‘ordered’ an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election.”

[Also known as: “we needed an excuse, a fake cover story for our takeover, and Russia is it.”]

“Such a change [in who controls the US election process] does not require presidential action [or Congressional approval], and only requires the secretary [of DHS] to first consult with the assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism.”

[Also known as: “this is a coup by the White House.”]

“Johnson said election infrastructure included storage facilities, polling places and vote tabulation locations, plus technology involved in the process, including voter registration databases, voting machines and other systems used to manage the election process and report and display results.”

[Also known as: “We’re taking over every significant aspect of the national election process.”]

“The designation [of US elections as critical infrastructure] allows for information to be withheld from the public when state, local and private partners meet to discuss election infrastructure security — potentially injecting secrecy into an election process that’s traditionally and expressly a transparent process. U.S. officials say such closed door conversations allow for frank discussion that would prevent bad actors from learning about vulnerabilities. DHS would also be able to grant security clearances when appropriate and provide more detailed threat information to states.”

[Also known as: “we can intercede in the election process and determine its outcome without any need to pretend we’re being transparent; only people we approve will know the details of how we run elections; secrecy works.”]

“The Obama administration has proposed international cyber rules for peacetime that would expressly note that countries shouldn’t conduct online activity targeting critical [US] infrastructure, which will now also include election systems.”

[Also known as: “in case there is any doubt, elections systems in America will be property of the federal Executive Branch.”]

This is a coup.

This is equivalent to declaring a national state of emergency, including martial law: the DHS, if it deemed it necessary, could utilize armed agents to enforce the new directive and take over states’ offices that resist.

Election-processes belong to the states. But not anymore.

And of course, with this awesome new power, the DHS could intercede, behind the scenes, in the voting process and rig elections.

There is an additional aligned factor at work in this op: the proposed elimination of the Electoral College—yet another measure designed to “federalize” the election process.

Most people are entirely ignorant of the fact that the Constitution was a pact among states. With reluctance, the independent states agreed to relinquish certain specified powers to the newly created central government, while retaining all other powers.

The Electoral College was, therefore, a natural invention, because the states would maintain crucial influence in determining the outcome of presidential elections. State Electors would cast their presidential votes based on which candidate won in their state.

Eliminating the Electoral College now would add one more layer of federal control over the whole country, and take control from the states. More centralization.

Imagine it. Only the popular vote counts. The states are dumped. And on top of it all, the Dept. of Homeland Security has the power to run the election process as a piece of “critical infrastructure.”

Rigging the vote in New York and California, plus a few other populous states, would decide the election. And in time, no one would think about “New York” or “California” as separate entities—because they wouldn’t be. They would just be “more land and people” that are part of “wholly unified” America.

This is perfect for the “unity politicians” who spout empty rhetoric every chance they get—“we’re all in this together.” As I tirelessly point out, such slogans are nothing less than covert ops, and their goal is roping in as many dullards as possible under a messianic banner of A Better Life for All under a Beneficent Government.

Also known as: we the rulers decree, you the people submit; your survival depends on us; we give and take as we will, and that shall be the whole of the law.

Eventually, why have presidential elections at all? Just allow the DHS to determine which candidate will best serve the needs and desires of the controllers.

It’s cleaner, simpler, and more direct.

It’s a coup.

Will Trump cancel it?

Obama is basically challenging him to do it—which would create one more firestorm in the press directed at Trump.

“See, the new president just stopped the DHS from protecting our sacred free elections. Trump is exhibiting more treasonous cooperation with his Russian masters…he’s leaving the door wide open for their secret invasion against our liberties…”

The timeline is clear. One: Hillary will surely win the election. Two: Trump won the election. Three: Trump won because Russia “hacked the election” in his favor. Four: We must protect our national election process from foreign hacking. Five: Homeland Security must put itself in charge of national elections.

Stay tuned.

A coup just occurred.

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
________________________________________________________
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 emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

The Upcoming Italian Constitutional Referendum

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
December 1, 2016

As I’ve been urging for a few months, there’s two countries in Europe to watch right now: France, and Italy. I’ve already addressed some of my reasons for saying to watch the former country in blogs earlier this week, so now it;s time to turn to Italy, and this this article from Zero Hedge shared by Mr. V.T.:

Beppe Grillo: “The Amateurs Are Conquering The World Because The ‘Experts’ Destroyed It”

If you’ve been following the career of Italian opposition leader, Signor Beppe Grillo, it may seem at first glance that he is reflecting similar pro-sovereignty, pro-national culture sentiments that have been seen at work in the BREXIT referendum, the recent American political election/referendum, or the similar movements in France, the Netherlands, Germany, Austria, or Hungary. But Grillo is thinking along much broader, and deeper lines, and it’s worth taking a look at what he sees at stake not only in and for Italy, but for the world. Consider these statements:

Perhaps the most notable point brouth up by Grillo is his answer whether he would govern Italy if given the opportunity, after the failure of Renzi. This is what he said:

We want to govern, but we don’t want to simply change the power by replacing it with our own. We want a change within civilisation, a change of world vision. We’re talking about dematerialised industry, an end to working for money, the start of working for other payment, a universal citizens revenue. If our society is founded on work, what will happen if work disappears? What will we do with millions of people in flux? We have to organise and manage all that.

From our side, we want to give the tools to the citizens. We have an operating system called Rousseau, to which every Italian citizen can subscribe for free. There they can vote in regional and local elections and check what their local MPs are proposing. Absolutely any citizen can even suggest laws in their own name. This is something never before directly seen in democracy and neither Tsipras nor Podemos have done it.

If that is Grillo’s checklist of conditions he needs to take charge, he may find more appropriate career choices elsewhere, unless of course he merely wants to be constantly “in the running”, without actually ever winning.

Whatever the reason, we agree with the next point he makes, namely the overthrow of “experts” by amateurs.

euronews: “Do you think appealing to people’s emotions is enough to get elected? Is that a political project?”

Beppe Grillo: “This information never ceases to make the rounds: you don’t have a political project, you’re not capable, you’re imbeciles, amateurs… And yet, the amateurs are the ones conquering the world and I’m rejoicing in it because the professionals are the ones who have reduced the world to this state. Hillary Clinton, Obama and all the rest have destroyed democracy and their international policies. If that’s the case, it signifies that the experts, economists and intellectuals have completely misunderstood everything, especially if the situation is the way it is. If the EU is what we have today, it means the European dream has evaporated. Brexit and Trump are signs of a huge change. If we manage to understand that, we’ll also get to face it.”
(Bold emphasis in the original, italicized emphasis added)

What grabbed my attention here is something I’ve advocated from time to time, and which we saw reflected to a certain degree in the recent Trump campaign and its heavy reliance on social media to reach out directly to supporters, in conjunction with massive campaign rally personal appearances, namely, the use of the internet to bring back a measure of direct and immediate individual participation and monitoring of representative institutions, legislatures, and representatives themselves. Grillo is in effect advocating even that citizens can even propose laws. Notably, he is not proposing the abolition of representative legislatures, but rather a process working in tandem with them.

There’s something else that Grillo said, however, and this really grabbed my attention, and I hope it does yours as well, for Grillo gets that we need to start thinking, and start thinking now and in a deep way, about the nature of the relationship between finance, our current financial “work-for-pay” system, and politics, for as we all know, technology is now progressing to the point that the normal “create jobs” solution to economic woes simply has to start thinking outside the box. Here’s what Grillo said:

Beppe Grillo
“We want to govern, but we don’t want to simply change the power by replacing it with our own. We want a change within civilisation, a change of world vision.

We’re talking about dematerialised industry, an end to working for money, the start of working for other payment, a universal citizens revenue. If our society is founded on work, what will happen if work disappears? What will we do with millions of people in flux? We have to organise and manage all that.” (Italicized, and italicized-boldface emphases added)

One might be tempted to view his remarks are being all too capable of being perverted into the typical “centralized and organized management” sorts of socialist solutions, and in Italian politics, there’s always that very real danger. What catches the eye, however, is the phrase “the start of working for other payment,” which implies a redefinition both of payment and media of exchange, as well as the nature of work itself; if autos are being made, assembled, and perhaps even transported by driverless trucks and lorries that are effedtively nothing but transportation robots, then what happens to human…

Continue Reading At: GizaDeathStar.com
_____________________________________________________________

Profile photo of Joseph P. Farrell

About Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

Europe, Trump & Election Implications

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
November 16, 2016

Watching the geopolitical fallout from the American referendum has been almost impossible, for in these past few days I’ve received a veritable tsunami of emails containing articles that people have noticed and passed long, and I’m still sorting through them! But this one caught my eye for it clearly indicates that some of that fallout will be strongest in Europe. I’ve been of the opinion that President-elect Trump’s victory will have geopolitical consequences, first and foremost in Europe. On the one hand, I’ve been of the opinion that his victory will give support and strengthen the anti-globalist movement in Europe, particularly in nations such as Austria, the Netherlands, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain, that have been crushed by a flood of refugees from the Islamic world. There’s no reason to rehearse what the effects of this has been, for we have seen the stories. In Great Britain, of course, we had the BREXIT referendum, and the ongoing attempts in that country of the globaloneyists and corporatists to undo it by stonewalling and attempting to dilute it.

But to sum all this up, in general, this now world-wide movement appears to have a major though underlying theme or conceptual core, and that is “anti-centralism.” The larger and more centralized the “governmental and bureaucratic solution” is, the more inept, clumsy, and removed from local-on-the-ground reality it becomes. Indeed, Mr. Globaloney has been engaged on an experiment for the past few decades – really the past century or more, but certainly ramped up since the administration of US President G.H.W. Bush in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and proceeding apace under Clinton, Bush II, and Obama – an experiment precisely in such massive centralization. The reason is simple: the more such political and bureaucratic power is consolidated and centralized, the less say “ordinary people” have. In other words, if you think your big federal governments in Berlin or Paris or Rome or Madrid or Washington (i.e., fill in your favorite globaloneyist-occupied capital here) are tyrannical and unresponsive, just wait until you see the same thing on a truly planetary basis! It’s merely a way for the corrupt global corporate mafias to secure their own power.

The trouble is, this experiment has no precedent in human history: in other words, there’s not a shred of evidence that such a scheme can actually work, unless of course one wants to go back to some ancient texts, and there the outcome is always the same: the attempt didn’t work, usually because “someone else” stepped in and put a stop to it. In my secret space program talks and in my book Covert Wars and Breakaway Civilizations, I’ve called this the “Tower of Babel Moment,” that uneasy period of transition to a genuinely global society, during which the powers that be must play their card game very carefully so as to avoid any such “repeat.” Notably, in those ancient stories, the goal was centralization, and that could be taken to be at least in part the cause and motivation for the “intervention.”

The bottom line here in Europe’s case is that President-elect Trump’s victory can, and I think will, fuel that anti-centralizing impulse we see emerging on the political scene in Europe.

But it can also fuel the centralizing impulse of the Euro-technocrats themselves, as this important article, shared by Mr. J.C., also points out:

Europe needs own army, can’t rely on US forever – EU Commission President

As noted, the European commission president Mr. Juncker – and don’t you just love the fact that the president of the European Commission’s surname recalls those Prussian Junckers of yesteryear? (And where’s your Pickelhaube, Herr Juncker? You seem oddly out of uniform, and I’ll be you have one!) – anyway, to get back to the main point here. The European Commission President Mr. Juncker is now calling for a trans-European army:

Europe should build its own army and not rely on security guarantees from Washington, the European Commission president said following the election of Donald Trump. At the same time, Jean-Claude Juncker called for the preservation of the transatlantic partnership.

Speaking in Berlin about the future of Europe sometime around 2050, Juncker had to ad lib, admitting that his speech had been written with the assumption that Hillary Clinton would be the victor of the US presidential race. But reflecting on the unexpected outcome of Trump’s presidency, Juncker said that “regardless” of who is the US president, the EU and the US must work together. (Emphasis added)

Notably, Mr. Juncker composed his speech thinking Mrs. Clinton would emerge victorious. And that’s a strong indicator that the European army project was all business-as-usual for Mr. Globaloney, and part and parcel of the policies that Darth Hillary would have been on board with.

But I submit that Mr. Trump’s own campaign rhetoric gives even more oxygen to this centralizing fire, for his insistence on US allies doing more for their own self-defense, and for his willingness to re-examine NATO. So on the one hand, his victory aids and strengthens the anti-centralizing tendency at the popular level, and on the other…

Continue Reading at GizaDeathStar.com:
_________________________________________________

Profile photo of Joseph P. Farrell

About Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

 

Veteran Reporter Exposes The New York Times’ Arrogant, Disconnected, Agenda Driven Perspective

screen-shot-2016-11-11-at-2-37-27-pm
Source: LibertyBlitzkrieg.com
Michael Krieger
November 11, 2016

Yesterday, Michael Cieply, a 12-year veteran of the New York Times who left this past July, wrote a phenomenal article at Deadline Hollywood titled, Stunned By Trump, The New York Times Finds Time For Some Soul-Searching. Before highlighting some key excerpts, let’s set the stage.

The New York Times’ coverage of the 2016 Presidential election was an abysmal disgrace. I first became aware of the extent of the paper’s shady and compromised reporting, when the editorial board endorsed Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary over Bernie Sanders without making an intelligible or coherent argument to justify the stance. This outraged me to such an extent, I wrote a post titled, A Detailed Look at The New York Times’ Embarrassing, Deceitful and Illogical Endorsement of Hillary Clinton, which you should reread in full.

Here’s how I began the piece:

The New York Times’ endorsement of Hillary Clinton against Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary consists of an unreadable, illogical piece of fiction. In this post, I will critique the paper’s position in detail, but first I want to take a step back and explain to people what I think is going on in the bigger picture.

In its endorsement of Hillary, the New York Times editorial board did such a sloppy job I can’t help but think it may have done permanent damage to its brand. Upon reading it, my initial conclusion was that the editorial board was either suffering from Stockholm syndrome or merely concerned about losing advertising revenues should they endorse Sanders. Then I thought some more and I realized my initial conclusions were wrong. Something else is going on here, something far more subtle, subconscious and illuminating. The New York Times is defending the establishment candidate simply because the New York Times is the establishment.

One of the biggest trends of the post financial crisis period has been a plunge in the American public’s perception of the country’s powerful institutions. The establishment often admits this reality with a mixture of bewilderment and erroneous conclusions, ultimately settling on the idea people are upset because “Washington can’t get anything done.” However, nothing could be further from the truth. When it comes to corruption and serving big monied interests, both Congress and the President are very, very good at getting things done. Yes it’s true Congress doesn’t get anything done on behalf of the people, but this is no accident. The government doesn’t work for the people.

With its dishonest and shifty endorsement of Hillary Clinton, I believe the New York Times has finally come out of the closet as an unabashed gatekeeper of the status quo. I suppose this makes sense since the paper has become the ultimate status quo journalistic publication. The sad truth is the publication has been living on borrowed time and a borrowed reputation for a long time. Long on prestige, it remains very short on substance when it comes to fighting difficult battles in the public interest. Content with its position of power and influence within the current paradigm, the paper doesn’t want to rock the boat. What the New York Times is actually telling its readers with the Hillary Clinton endorsement is that it likes things just the way they are, and will fight hard to keep them that way. It is as much a part of the American establishment as any government institution.

After the paper successfully helped to dispose of Senator Sanders, it continued to commit egregious errors as a result of its blinded, fanatical support of Hillary Clinton. I highlighted an example of this behavior in the August post: New York Times Fails to Disclose Op-Ed Writer’s Ties to Hillary Clinton’s ‘Principal Gatekeeper’.

Fast forward to just one week before the election, when I discovered a tweet in my stream from the paper with such an absurd forecast I immediately flagged it with the following tweet:

screen-shot-2016-10-31-at-12-11-04-pm

I didn’t find the Times’  tweet absurd because I was some ardent Trump supporter (I wasn’t). Rather, I was able to recognize it as absurd because it was absurd. So why was I, a nobody blogger, able to see the ridiculousness of this forecast so clearly when the New York Times couldn’t? Because The New York Times had a predetermined agenda, and this agenda blinded it to reality.

With that out of the way, let’s dig into how things work at The New York Times according to…

Continue Reading At: LibertyBlizkrieg.com

Fakery: major media preparing to steal election-night outcome?

TruthLies
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
October 17, 2016

Note: this article is about the early projections media outlets make on election night—when they call the winner.

Here it is in a nutshell: major media consider the election a media event.

Therefore, they control it.

Therefore, when they project the election-outcome the night of the vote, even though that call is unofficial, they want compliance from the candidates. THEY WANT A FAST CONCESSION SPEECH from the loser. Well, a concession from Trump, because the networks and their allies in print newspapers are already painting a picture of a Hillary victory (for example, see this WaPo article). The picture is: Trump’s campaign is falling apart, Hillary is leading in battleground states, and she may even expand her reach into states Trump was previously thought to have wrapped up.

On Meet the Press Sunday, Mike Pence was asked point blank: if you lose on election night, will you and Donald concede? And Pence said yes.

The media-concocted story line: if Trump loses and he refuses to concede, because he believes the count was rigged, he’ll be inciting violence and endangering the country.

Of course, the networks calling the election victory is unofficial. It’s all happening in a bubble.

The networks are terrified that Trump will refuse to concede if they say he lost. Instead, he will say: “My team and I have definite knowledge of widespread vote fraud in many states. As I speak, we are filing suits. We not only want an accurate recount, we want criminal charges brought against the vote riggers. We know who they are. Some of the culprits are media networks. You can say I’m a sore loser but I’m not. I’m for fairness, and we don’t have that. We’re going all the way with our accusations and our facts. All along I’ve been saying the system is corrupt. Now we’re going to prove that…”

The media could then be accused of direct complicity in stealing the election.

So…how do the networks decide who wins an election? Buckle up. Here is a concise description from Wikipedia. Notice that the media are basically getting their vote-info from…themselves:

“The National Election Pool (NEP) is a consortium of American news organizations formed in 2003 to provide ‘information on Election Night about the vote count, election analysis and election projections.’ Member companies consist of ABC News, the Associated Press, CBS News, CNN, Fox News and NBC News. The organization relies on the Associated Press to perform vote tabulations and contracted with Edison Research and Mitofsky International to ‘make projections and provide exit poll analysis.’ Edison Research has provided this data since 2004.

“The precursor was Voter News Service, which was disbanded in 2003, after controversies over the 2000 and 2002 election results. The NEP plan is largely the suggestion of CNN, which used Edison/Mitofsky as consultants in the past. Mitofsky headed the original pool that preceded VNS.

“The organizers of the pool insist that the purpose of their quick collection of exit poll data is not to determine if an election is flawed, but rather to project winners of races. Despite past problems, they note that none of their members has incorrectly called a winner since the current system was put in place. However, to avoid the premature leaking of data, collection is now done in a ‘Quarantine Room’ at an undisclosed location in New York. All participants are stripped of outside communications devices until it is time for information to be released officially.”

Doesn’t that warm the cockles of your heart and give you great confidence?

Back in 2012, I wrote this about Edison Research and Mitofsky:

“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.”

But wait. Even though media giants are getting their election-night info from themselves, they must be basing that info on actual vote counts in the 50 states, as reported by the secretaries of states. Right? Read the last two paragraphs again. The exit polls differed greatly from the vote counts.

And remember, if widespread electronic vote fraud occurs on election night (read my previous piece on the crooked GEMS vote-tabulating system used across the US in 25% of the vote), the early media projections of a Presidential winner will serve to cut off any doubt about, or investigation into, the veracity of the GEMS system.

Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
______________________________________________________________

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 emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.