Planning Vote Fraud to “Elect” Hillary

By: Cliff Kincaid | Accuracy in Media


The liberal media insist that requiring a photo ID to vote is a racist plot by Republicans. Yet students have to go through a rigorous procedure to take the college admission test known as the SAT. Is that racist, too?

My son took the SAT recently and had to print out and take two pages of identification and requirements for test-taking. One page had a photo head shot and listings for birth date, sex, high school, registration number and location for the test center. When checking in, he had to produce another photo ID and the person checking him in had to compare the photo ID to the print-out and what he actually looked like checking in. The purpose is to make sure there is no cheating.

The “progressives” do not think it is necessary to check ID in this manner when free, fair and honest elections are at stake.

In a “Myth versus Fact” hand-out, the AFL-CIO, one of the “progressive” groups backing Hillary Clinton for president, says it is a “myth” that since “Photo IDs already are required for everything from boarding a plane to getting a library card,” that “It makes sense to require a picture ID for voting.” The giant labor federation counters: “FACT: Unlike boarding a plane or obtaining a library card, voting is a fundamental right, not a privilege. Over the course of history, groups on the margins of society have fought and sometimes died to protect the right to vote. Voting is crucial to our democracy.”

Think about the bizarre logic of this claim. Although voting is more important than getting a library card (or taking the SAT test), the AFL-CIO is saying that it is not as important to make sure the process is honest and fair. Hence, people should not have to prove who they are when voting. This odd view taken by the AFL-CIO doesn’t make any sense. Since people died to give us the right to vote, we should do everything possible to make sure the right is reserved for American citizens.

The AFL-CIO position can only be construed as an effort to weaken requirements for voting so that fraud can take place.

But why would the liberal-left have an incentive to commit fraud?

On the night of the vice-presidential debate, Robert Reich, who was secretary of labor under then-President Bill Clinton, sent a “Dear fellow MoveOn member” message to the left-wing group citing “some jaw-dropping statistics that you and I have to turn around.” He said, “Only 65% of Democrats say they’re sure they’ll vote this year—which is lower than it’s been in decades. And it’s eleven points lower than the 76% of Republicans who say they’re certain to vote.” He added, “With Hillary Clinton ahead by an average of just 3.7 points in the most recent polls, this gap in who plans to vote is more than large enough to cost Clinton the election.”

Since Hillary is not an inspiring candidate, the Democrats are clearly worried. Reich said “the hard reality is that this race could go either way depending on voter turnout. That’s why MoveOn’s massive voter turnout operation is so vital.”

The obvious way to commit fraud is to get non-citizens and others supporting the Clinton-Kaine ticket to vote in states which don’t require a photo ID.

The National Conference of State Legislatures says that only 34 states have laws requesting or requiring voters to show some form of identification at the polls, and that 32 of these voter identification laws are in force in 2016.

Of the states requiring some form of identification, only seven require a photo I.D.

Conservative writer Cherylyn Harley LeBon notes that the SAT process went to the use of photo IDs and other requirements after an SAT cheating scandal in 2011 left students in Great Neck, New York facing criminal prosecution. Test-takers accepted money to impersonate other students. The imposters used fake IDs to gain entrance on exam day.

The ID Checklist for the SAT is now very specific. It says ID documents must meet all of these requirements:

  • Be a valid (unexpired) photo ID that is government-issued or issued by the school that you currently attend. School IDs from the prior school year are valid through December of the current calendar year. (For example, school IDs from 2015-16 can be used through December 31, 2016.)
  • Be an original document (not photocopied)
  • Bear your full, legal name exactly as it appears on your Admission Ticket, including the order of the names.
  • Bear a recent recognizable photograph that clearly matches both your appearance on test day and the photo on your Admission Ticket.
  • Be in good condition, with clearly legible English language text and a clearly visible photograph.

Comparing taking the SAT to voting, LeBon notes that the College Board, which administers the SAT, “quickly set up strong ID verification standards when their credibility was challenged. One would expect governments to be more willing to protect the integrity of every vote cast.”

Republicans have tried to meet this challenge. But the progressives and their allies have fought verification, integrity, honesty and fairness every step of the way. This is a story that should be told. Unfortunately, it is twisted by the media to make it seem like requiring an ID is racist. This phony charge is evidence that the progressives intend to manipulate the system and commit vote fraud. There is no other explanation.

Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at [email protected]. View the complete archives from Cliff Kincaid.


Media Judgment Corrupted by Desire to Defeat Trump

By: Roger Aronoff | Accuracy in Media


The mainstream media are delighted to saturate the news cycle with a story that potentially injures Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, with many news organizations making a big deal about Trump’s 1995 tax returns which could have, they argue, allowed Trump to skip paying his fair share of taxes for 18 years. Some reporters argue that this is the sort of story that will turn the average worker, who pays his share of taxes, against the elitist Trump.

“The fact that Trump, a self-proclaimed billionaire, could have paid nothing in taxes for nearly 20 years, should offend the many working-class folks he counts among his supporters: After all, they’re paying their taxes and struggling to get by while he’s raked in fortunes and quite likely paid nothing,” writes Adam Chodorow for Slate Magazine.

Of course, how much Trump actually paid in taxes over the last two decades will remain a mystery unless he releases his tax returns in full—or someone else releases them in part—as just happened. But that hasn’t kept the mainstream media from speculating.

“If Trump were truly smart—and wanted to lead by example—he would have disclosed his tax returns, showed the loopholes he used, and vowed to close them,” argues Allan Sloan for The Washington Post.

The American Thinker website has an excellent piece putting this tax issue into perspective. The article, titled, “What Hillary, Kaine, and the New York Times do not understand about taxes,” argues that “It is clear from the attacks on Trump about his deduction of legitimate losses that the media, Hillary, and Tim Kaine, need a lesson on the difference between proper, sensible, necessary loss deductions and tax loopholes.”

The New York Times, which broke the story, calls the issue of the tax returns a “central issue in the campaign.” But it turns out that the Times took advantage of the tax laws too, and turned one year, 2014—in which they made a pre-tax profit of $29.9 million—into a year in which they paid no income taxes, and even got a $3.5 million tax refund. The point is, the Times is being hypocritical for attacking Trump. Most everyone, and especially every company, pays as little in taxes as they are legally required to. If this issue receives heightened scrutiny, it is because a biased and corrupt news media prefer Trump controversies to ones that might weaken Hillary Clinton’s candidacy.

Consider, for example, the current tensions between Russia and the United States. Under Secretary of State Clinton there was supposed to be a reset of relations between America and Russia. The reset failed, miserably. Now ABC News is reporting that the Obama administration has “suspended direct contacts with Russia on halting the war in Syria.” Going forward, Secretary of State John Kerry has agreed to multilateral talks on this issue, but refuses bilateral ones, according to ABC News. Kerry revealed a rift in the Obama administration when he was caught on tape last week saying that he had pushed for the use of military force to back up his diplomatic efforts in Syria, but that he had lost that argument.

“In exchange for saving [Bashar] Assad’s neck and enabling Iran and Hezbollah to control Syria, Russia has received the capacity to successfully challenge U.S. power,” writes Caroline Glick for The Jerusalem Post. A recent agreement between the Syrian government and Russia, she writes, “permits—indeed invites—Russia to set up a permanent air base in Khmeimim [Syria], outside the civilian airport in Latakia.”

“Russian politicians, media and security experts have boasted” this base will be able to challenge both the U.S. Navy and NATO, Glick writes.

President Obama’s foreign policy incompetence and appeasement has once again weakened American power abroad. The media should be asking whether Mrs. Clinton would as president be able to improve relations with Russia given her former failures.

The Syrian government is currently bombarding Aleppo to get rid of rebel forces. Glick argues for The Jerusalem Post that Bashar Assad’s goal is to “defeat the rebel forces by destroying the sheltering civilian populations.” Nancy Youssef reports for The Daily Beast that the assault in Aleppo by Assad and his ally Russia will leave only the terrorists standing. Part of the problem today is figuring out who are the so-called moderate rebels, in a complex battlefield that includes civilians, ISIS, al Qaeda and other supposedly more “moderate” opposition groups. If we don’t know who to bomb, why are we bombing there, with our make-believe coalition of 62 countries that was organized to degrade and defeat ISIS?

Compared to the nearly half-million deaths, and millions suffering, displaced, or who have fled from Syria because of this conflict, focusing on Trump’s tax returns seems like trivial nonsense. The morass in Syria is part of President Obama’s legacy of ineptitude, or worse, appeasing Iran to achieve a phony nuclear deal. Yet Mrs. Clinton promises her legacy would be one of regime change. The UK Telegraph reported this July that the “first key task” of a Hillary Clinton presidency would be to work toward regime change in Syria.

Americans have heard this line before—most notably on Libya, where Clinton played a key role in ousting Muammar Qaddafi. Libya, without Qaddafi, is now a conflict ridden, haven state for terrorists.

This demonstrates how the media are dwelling on tax returns, and a line about PTSD taken out of context, to defeat Trump while the disastrous Obama and Clinton legacies foster danger and insecurity abroad. The media should be asking key questions of Mrs. Clinton, including about her support for the disastrous, unsigned Iran deal. Not only did the Obama administration pay Iran $1.7 billion in cash as a ransom payment for four American prisoners that Iran was holding, but recent reporting has revealed that the Obama administration supported the UN lifting sanctions on the regime’s Bank Sepah and Bank Sepah International on January 17.

“Lifting the sanctions on Sepah was part of the package,” an unnamed senior U.S. official told The Wall Street Journal. “The timing of all this isn’t coincidental. Everything was linked to some degree.”

“The secret agreement to lift sanctions against the Iranian banks also violated U.N. Security Council Resolution 2231, passed in July 2015 which endorsed the JCPOA,” writes Fred Fleitz of the Center for Security Policy. “This resolution stipulated that U.N. missile-related sanctions against Iran would remain in place for eight years. In addition, lifting sanctions against the two banks broke promises to Congress by Obama officials that the nuclear deal would only lift nuclear-related sanctions against Iran and that U.N. missile sanctions would remain in place for eight years.” This story got virtually no coverage on any of the weekend news shows.

Despite concession after concession made by the U.S. to please Iran, this totalitarian regime has “has conducted up to 10 ballistic missile tests since the forging of the nuclear agreement,” reports the Journal.

We have reported time and again that, despite media reporting to the contrary, the Iran deal remains an unsigned agreement based only on political commitments. It seems that the only thing that became a signed document were these side deals with Iran.

“As secretary of state, Clinton helped facilitate the talks that eventually led to the nuclear deal, dispatching a top adviser to participate in the secret meetings with Iran through the sultan of Oman that started the international negotiations,” reported CBS News. Where, now, is the reporting on how disastrous this deal has been and Mrs. Clinton’s role in forging it?

If the mainstream media consider only domestic scandals worthy of coverage, then recent revelations about the FBI’s shoddy investigation of Hillary Clinton should make front page news. Fox News reports that the FBI agreed to destroy Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills’ and Clinton aide Heather Samuelson’s laptops after searching them for evidence. “Judiciary Committee aides told FoxNews.com that the destruction of the laptops is particularly troubling as it means that the computers could not be used as evidence in future legal proceedings, should new information or circumstances arise,” reports Fox News.

That the mainstream media are not covering these many pressing stories in detail, and instead limit themselves to observations about a candidate’s tax returns, makes a mockery of investigative journalism. Journalists also have a duty to cover stories that reflect poorly on the Obama/Clinton agenda. But they view that as self-defeating, since their mission is to defeat and destroy Trump, not prioritize and report the biggest news stories of the day.

Roger Aronoff is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and a member of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi. He can be contacted at [email protected]. View the complete archives from Roger Aronoff.


“…Billionaire Soros Funds….”

By: Jim Coppens

Billionaire Soros is an example of Democracy gone awry. A New York billionaire is spending $623,000 to manipulate Orange-Osceola elections!

The Biggest Threat to our Way of Life and Democracy is not Communism, Socialism, ISIS, or Terrorism. It is the Supreme Court decision handed down on January 21, 2010 in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case. The decision essentially allows special interests unlimited contributions to election campaigns without public disclosure.

Although spending by individual candidates is regulated and limited, political spending by Political Action Committees is unregulated and unlimited. Unregulated and unlimited spending by third parties is a threat to our democratic process, and greatly increases the influence of special interest groups at the expense of voters.

What elected official would vote against the special interests that financed his election?

There is a proposed constitutional amendment to reverse the Citizens United case: