Media Bias Has Become Mental Illness

By: Cliff Kincaid | Accuracy in Media


Aware that their credibility is shot with the American people, the publisher and executive editor of The New York Times sent a “To our readers” note on Friday, saying, “we aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism.”

This was another way of saying, “Sorry, we blew it,” without being honest with readers.

Those familiar with the paper’s “journalism” understand this to be media bias. But Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. and Dean Baquet were suggesting something else—that something had gone wrong and they don’t quite know what happened, but don’t worry because the Times will get back to its mission of reporting truthfully.

Beating around the bush, they said Trump’s victory was “the biggest political story of the year,” which had “reached a dramatic and unexpected climax late Tuesday night…”

The word “unexpected” means that the paper’s predictions were wrong.

Then they said that the paper’s newsroom had covered the campaign “with agility and creativity,” which are terms for incompetence and bias. Some people cling to the old-fashioned idea that a paper should report events objectively.

Pretending to reflect on the poor coverage, they finally got to the problem without saying so directly. They asked, “Did Donald Trump’s sheer unconventionality lead us and other news outlets to underestimate his support among American voters?” and “What forces and strains in America drove this divisive election and outcome?”

In other words, Trump’s “sheer unconventionality” caused the paper to misreport what was happening. He had appealed to mysterious “forces and strains,” terms that apparently refer to the voters.

Sulzberger and Baquet insisted that the Times will “report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor, striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences in the stories that we bring to you.”

In other words, they blew it during the 2016 campaign and will try to do better next time. But nothing is really changing at the paper. Nobody is being fired. And nobody is being hired who has an understanding of the conservative electorate.

The paper, they said, will “hold power to account, impartially and unflinchingly.”

But who will hold The New York Times accountable?

In a real howler, they then claimed, “We believe we reported on both candidates fairly during the presidential campaign. You can rely on The New York Times to bring the same fairness, the same level of scrutiny, the same independence to our coverage of the new president and his team.”

This is another indication that the paper is hopelessly liberal, and that nothing will really change.

The business as usual attitude was reflected in the front-page headline in the Times after Trump won: “Democrats, Students and Foreign Allies Face the Reality of a Trump Presidency.”

As Accuracy in Media Chairman Don Irvine noted, the headline was even funny to various MSNBC personalities, because it focused on the disappointment of liberals at Trump’s victory, rather than the victory itself.

Mark Halperin commented, “If a Democratic candidate who was thought to have a 10 percent chance of winning by The New York Times that ended up winning, and winning red states as Trump won blue states, I don’t think that would have been the headline. And I’ll just say again, the responsibility of journalists is to not report on their biases. It’s to go out and understand the country through the prism of the election and say, ‘Why are people feeling the way they’re feeling?’”

Of course, the Times was not alone.

Consider the story in Politico headlined, “Insiders: Clinton would crush Trump in November.” It began, “In the swing states that matter most in the presidential race, Donald Trump doesn’t have a prayer against Hillary Clinton in the general election.”

In a story headlined, “The Democrat Media Complex Will Never Understand What Happened Tuesday Night,” Stephen Kruiser at PJ Media commented that the talking heads want desperately to avoid the topic of the “overwhelming lack of political and intellectual diversity in their ranks,” but that the problem of their liberalism is compounded by their laziness.

This is a fact, as reflected in my analysis of Post “journalist” Dana Milbank, who got caught asking Democratic Party officials for help on an anti-Trump column.

For his part, Milbank crafted another anti-Trump column after the Trump victory, in the form of a letter to his daughter. “This is a sad day for our country,” he told her. “I want you to know that I did everything I could to prevent this from happening. My efforts and those of many others came up short.”

Those “many others” were in the media and the Democratic Party, for whom Milbank worked. Perhaps Post owner Jeff Bezos ought to ask the Democrats to pay Milbank’s salary.

Milbank told his daughter, “You are going to be okay.”

That’s more than what we can say about Milbank. He is not okay. He is more than just a lazy liberal who gets the Democratic Party to help write his columns. He is completely out of touch with the America he claims to be writing about.

Like those at the Times, Milbank and others at the Post will never change. They are elitists whose hatred for their fellow Americans borders on mental illness.

Like other liberals, they claim to be on a crusade for “the children,” in his case his daughter. It’s frankly despicable that he would use his kid as a political prop. She needs our prayers.

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.


Where are the Mass Media Firings and Resignations?

By: Cliff Kincaid | Accuracy in Media


I missed a few losers in my column on the big media losers of the 2016 campaign. One person told me, “Bret Stephens of The Wall Street Journal has totally lost all credibility with his anti-Trump rants in his weekly column right up to the very end. We used to be ardent fans of his, but no more!!!”

I agree that Stephens is a big loser. His attacks on Trump were relentless and he declared that he wanted to build a new political party to compete with Trump. Sounding like The Huffington Post, Stephens used his November 8 column to find Trump guilty of “unrelenting and apparently irrepressible bigotry, misogyny, bullying and conspiracy-mongering…”

After the election, his readers responded with comments like:

  • Deep breaths Bret. You’ll be ok.
  • MSNBC has several openings on their Jobs page, Bret.
  • Stephens, you have climbed out on a limb and sawed it off.
  • Best way to handle Stephens is to NOT read his columns anymore. That’s my solution to George Will also. Eventually, they will be fired.

Speaking of The Huffington Post, consider these post-election headlines from the online publication: “Why HuffPost’s Presidential Forecast Didn’t See A Donald Trump Win Coming. Here’s how we blew it and what we’re doing to prevent a repeat.”

But no resignations or firings were announced, and Stephens will also apparently keep his job.

Journalists and columnists should not be fired for their opinions, but for their lack of objectivity. It’s fine to have anti-Trump opinions, but that should not have interfered with an analysis of why Trump was striking a chord with the American people.

My own views of Trump changed as I saw how the people were responding to him. One good source was Right Side Broadcasting, which aired live coverage of Trump rallies. Their broadcasts captured the size of the crowds. I saw Trump’s appearance in the heavily-Democratic city of Toledo, Ohio, where he was greeted by enthusiasm. I also took trips to states like Pennsylvania and saw the dozens of “Trump for President” signs. My July 29 column, “Democrats Abandon Workers to Trump,” looked at how the Democratic Party had abandoned the working class. My column on the eve of the election examined how “people power” could guarantee a Trump victory.

These Trump supporters were not serial liars, rampant xenophobes, racists, misogynists, etc. They were ordinary people who were sick and tired of the liberal establishment.

By contrast, the elitist Bret Stephens wrote about the Trump rallies, “The fervor of his crowds recalls Nasser’s Egypt.” Stephens had nothing but contempt for the average American.

The problem with people like Stephens and publications like The Huffington Post is that they let their anti-Trump orientation interfere with the need for a professional analysis of what was actually happening in America’s cities and towns.

One Huffington Post writer with egg on his face is Ryan Grim, who was promoting the bogus story that Trump had raped a 13-year-old girl. Regarding the rape story, Grim informed his readers on November 2 that “a woman who says Trump raped her as a 13-year-old in the 1990s is planning a press conference at 6:00 EST today. I coincidentally was working on a piece  explaining why this case has gotten so little coverage.”

It got little coverage because it was false.

The woman, who had a history of drug abuse, pulled out of the news conference. She was identified by name and dropped the lawsuit. The allegations were obviously fabricated.

Grim also promoted the publication’s inaccurate predictions, saying on November 8, “Our final forecast is that she’ll [Hillary will] win 323 electoral votes, far more than the 270 she needs to win. According to our model, she’ll win Florida, North Carolina and New Hampshire, and that’ll be that. Early night.”

The story by Natalie Jackson of The Huffington Post about how the publication totally botched coverage of the campaign admits the magnitude of the mistake: “Our model predicted that Democrat Hillary Clinton had a 98 percent chance of being elected. That was more pro-Clinton than most other forecast models (although all of them predicted a Clinton win). Our model said five Senate seats would shift from Republican to Democratic, giving Democrats a likely majority.”

But nobody in the media loses their jobs for getting the facts wrong and doing their work in an unprofessional manner.

What’s more, we see the same left-wing pundits and reporters on networks like CNN coming back for more, giving viewers more slanted coverage and commentary disguised as news. Consider “former” communist Van Jones using CNN to accuse Trump supporters of being white racists. The same old liberal talking heads are currently trying to dictate the make-up of Trump’s cabinet and staff by warning against certain people deemed too conservative or “controversial.”

James O’Keefe of Project Veritas comments that millions overcame “the firewall that existed within the media.” That partly occurred because of his undercover videos that led to resignations by Democratic operatives. In a post-election video, he explained that the most stunning admission of election night was “the power shift in this country,” as citizens exercised their power, “despite the overwhelming forces working them against them.”

We can see that, as a result of the media’s failure to clean house, those who opposed Trump will not give up their power. Since they have shown that they have no professional standards, the only answer is to further drain the media elite of viewers and readers, and build up the power of alternative sources of news and information.

Any ordinary business that got things so wrong and performed so incompetently would go out of business. Let’s help the liberal media bite the dust.

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.


“People Power” Versus Manipulation of the Masses

By: Cliff Kincaid | Accuracy in Media


On November 8, the election will come down to Donald J. Trump’s “people power,” a largely spontaneous uprising of the “silent majority,” against Hillary Clinton’s scientific manipulation of the electorate, using personal data to identify and provoke people to go to the polls. In this effort, Mrs. Clinton has the support of the giant company Google and the president of its parent company, Eric Schmidt. Experts say the effort resembles how the Communist Chinese dictatorship monitors people and modifies their behavior through media manipulation and censorship of the Web.

As Trump suggests, the election process seems “rigged,” and the evidence has come in the form of another John Podesta email.

One of the internal Clinton campaign emails disclosed by WikiLeaks shows that Schmidt, chairman of the Google parent company, offered a detailed campaign plan for the Clinton campaign. The April 15, 2014, message, addressed to Clinton aide Cheryl Mills, said, “I have put together my thoughts on the campaign ideas and I have scheduled some meetings in the next few weeks for veterans of the campaign to tell me how to make these ideas better.” The details included “Size, Structure and Timing” and a campaign budget of $1.5 billion, with more than “5000 paid employees and million(s) of volunteers.” The Schmidt email was sent along to several key Clinton people, including campaign chairman John Podesta.

The plan examines how information is received and reviewed by voters, and what provokes them. Indeed, in a section titled “The Voter,” Schmidt says, “Key is the development of a single record for a voter that aggregates all that is known about them. In 2016 smart phones will be used to identify, meet, and update profiles on the voter.” Schmidt goes on to say, “For each voter, a score is computed ranking probability of the right vote. Analytics can model demographics, social factors and many other attributes of the needed voters.”

Patrick Wood, editor of Technocracy News, comments that Schmidt’s scoring idea “is just like China’s social scoring of citizens to see who is for them and who is against them.”

On one level, this means that search engine results are manipulated. In his evaluation of the Schmidt email, Michael Cantrell comments, “For some time now, people have wondered if Google, the world’s largest search engine, might be a tad bit slanted when it comes to politics, favoring left-wing candidates over conservatives in how search results are displayed. Well, it seems those suspicions may not be so far-fetched after all.”

Earlier this year, in a column carried by Accuracy in Media, Seton Motley documented how Google was designing its search engine to maneuver people away from the issue of Hillary Clinton’s health problems.

It’s a fact of life that in this era of access to many different sources of information, some people go to the Google search engine and rely on the first item that pops up. That’s how I got banned (temporarily) from the campus of the State University of New York at New Paltz. A feminist professor used Google to search my name and passed around derogatory information from the first source on the search engine page—the Southern Poverty Law Center. She then passed around the information, creating a stink that caused the campus administration to cancel the debate I was scheduled to participate in.

A new book, Islamic Jihad, Cultural Marxism and the Transformation of the West, examines the role of Google as a new media “gatekeeper” that determines how people see the reality of the world. The author, William Mayer of PipeLineNews.org, examines how Google produces search engine results on the subject of Islamic terrorism that play down criminal activities of leading Jihadists. Mayer says the results can be confusing unless the search terms are assembled with scrupulous precision, “a difficult task when one isn’t exactly sure in advance the extent of the associations being pursued.”

In his excellent book, Mayer documents in detail the “leftist/Obama/Media merger” that played a significant role in Obama’s 2012 victory and figures prominently in Hillary Clinton’s plan for victory on Tuesday.

Mayer comments, “…if we think of the Internet as the largest depository of information ever to be created, it assumes in many sense the role of the book of common wisdom. When the universal storehouse of information obfuscates and hides knowledge it becomes censorious, preventing or at least stifling access to non-ideologically approved ideas and information.”

When Barack Obama campaigns against Trump by citing the KKK, you can rest assured this has been determined by analysts in the Hillary campaign to be at least somewhat effective in scaring blacks. Getting blacks to vote against Trump is a part of what they hope will be their winning strategy. Similarly, when Hillary Clinton campaigns with a profane rapper named Jay Z, the calculation has been made by some brain in the campaign structure that using such a spectacle will inspire other blacks to turn out for the former secretary of state on Election Day. Hillary hopes that the rapper’s popularity will somehow rub off on her.

These two campaign events are more evidence of how truly “scientific” the progressive movement has become. People are perceived by the Clinton campaign as subjects to be manipulated.

Even with the use of these scientific techniques, victory is not assured for the “progressive” forces. That is why reports of vote fraud are mounting as Obama sounds the alarm about the KKK. For Trump to win, the “silent majority” will have to be a real majority with millions of votes to spare, surpassing the artificially created “progressive” bloc bolstered by fraudulent votes and created by an emerging technocratic dictatorship of access to information.

The “media monopoly” that the left used to rail against is now controlled by them.

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.


IMAP: Four letters that spell potential doom for Hillary and Huma

Doug Ross @ Journal

I’ll bet you’re growing tired of the ongoing cancer that is the Hillary Clinton campaign of corruption, cover-ups and criminality.

Fear not. I’ve got something you may not have heard before. I hadn’t heard of it until an hour or so ago. It’s a technical acronym, related to Internet email, that most lay people wouldn’t quite grok.

The inimitable Karl Denninger offers us the single, critical tidbit of data that makes all the difference. It relates to a statement that tech billionaire Mark Cuban made on CNBC:

This “newly discovered” laptop is very likely to be literal nuclear waste for Hillary and everyone around her, including the Clinton Foundation and all of Hillary’s “advisers” such as Podesta.

Mark Cuban said that Huma used Outlook and IMAP (for Yahoo and similar). True.

But then he said this was unlikely to lead to “new” evidence in the form of the emails.

That’s a lie.

It’s a lie because Cuban knows he’s full of crap; he knows enough about the technologies involved to be fully aware that he was peddling nonsense.

The term IMAP is key. It represents an Internet email protocol — a messaging language — that copies data from a server to a client. In English, IMAP would copy messages from Hillary Clinton’s illegal, bathroom email server to a single PC running Outlook. Like the PC Huma shared with Carlos Danger Anthony Weinis Weiner.

And that means all messages on Hillary’s server that were addressed to Huma Abedin may have been replicated to the Weiner machine.

Well, Doug, what does all of this mean? Consider the following:

  1. It’s likely that Huma Abedin committed perjury: Under oath, Hillary’s key aide asserted that she had turned all over all emails related to her work with the Clinton State Department. Problem is, who else but Abedin would have bothered to configure Outlook to read Clinton’s emails?
  2. Those ‘deleted’ 33,000 emails? Maybe not so much: Any email addressed to Abedin, whether “To:”, “From:”, “CC:”, or “BCC:”, would have been copied to Abedin’s Weiner PC. Those 33,000 emails that Clinton attempted to delete with BleachBit, hammers, and magnets? They are very likely to have survived Hillary’s purge.
  3. The Clinton Foundation’s secrets exposed: The reason that Clinton nuked the infamous 33,000 emails almost certainly relate to the intersection of the Clinton Foundation, the State Department, and Teneo Corporation (that’s the super, happy, fun “company” that ties all of the Clinton syndicates togather, RICO-style). Weiner Foundation, anyone?
  4. FBI Director James Comey’s hand was forced: When faced with these revelations — the replication of emails from the Clinton bathroom server to the Weiner-puter — Comey realized he was in a major jam. Which led to the latest Hillary debacle.

The implications of IMAP on the Abedin-Hillary-Weiner-puter scandal cannot be overstated. It means, simply, that the hammer of Thor is about to come down on the Clinton RICO syndicate, whether before the election or after.

Hat tip: BadBlue Real-Time News.


Just In Case: Preparing for the Evening and Day After Election 2016

By: James Rawles | SurvivalBlog.com

Hat Tip: BB


There is a substantial risk that Hillary “Hitlery” Clinton will become our next President. She is notoriously anti-gun, and has made many promises to her gun-grabbing campaign donors to give “gun control” (read: civilian disarmament) her top priority.

Consider the guidance in this article just a contingency. You can simply ignore it, if Donald Trump is elected. (Since he is outspokenly pro-gun.) But if Clinton is indeed elected, then gun, ammunition, and magazine prices will surely start to rise immediately. And by the time she actually takes office, prices might well have already doubled or tripled, and shortages of some item–particularly standard military caliber ammunition and many 11+ round magazines–will be widespread.

To be ready for the possible Hill-ection, I recommend that you take the following steps:

Get Ready…

  • Withdraw some substantial cash (but not more that $9,700), and keep it well-hidden, at home.
  • Pay off your credit card balances, so that you will have your full purchase credit limit available.
  • Consult gun show calendars, and make plans to attend local shows.  Note that many gun shows are now run as three-day shows, open Friday through Sunday. Check the advertised hours closely, and call to confirm days and show hours with the gun show management, before traveling. You will want to be there on Friday, to avoid the Saturday mob scene. Expend a vacation day from your work, if need be.

Get Set…

  • Make prioritized shopping lists
  • Set bookmarks in your browser for ordering the particular items that you have in mind to purchase.
  • Make detailed comparison price lists (or an electronic spreadsheet, if you are so inclined),in descending order of prices so you that won’t pay too much for what you buy.  This research takes time, but that translates into saving money, so it is time well spent.


The Morning After

  • Set your alarm clock, and start making calls to the mailorder vendors that don’ttake Internet orders, starting right at 8 AM, Eastern Time.
  • Be outside the door of your local gun shop before it opens. Bring lots of cash.

In The Weeks Following

  • Attend guns shows in your state.  If it is possible under your state and local laws, buy used private party guns, with no paper trail. If that is not an option in your state, then buy a pre-1899 antique cartridge rifle, such as a 7mm Model 1895 Chilean Mauser.  These are exempt from paperwork, in most states.)
  • Watch auction sites such as GunBroker.com and GunAuction.com closely, for guns that are on your purchase list.  Concentrate on “Buy It Now” items, since the multi-day auctions will probably be bid up to stratospheric heights, in the panic period following election day.

What To Buy

Start with your own needs, then with your children’s needs, and then with barter in mind, as follows:

  • First Priority:  Magazines and ammunition for your primary battle rifles
  • Second Priority: Magazines and ammunition for your primary carry pistols
  • Third Priority:  Stripped AR-15 and AR-10 receivers (for later assembly)
  • Fourth Priority: Secondary firearms, plus magazines and ammunition, to match
  • Fifth Priority: Magazines and ammunition for planned acquisitions that will expand your battery of guns–including guns for children and grandchildren
  • Sixth Priority: Magazines and ammunition for barter or re-sale.

Note: Be sure to buy only either original military contract or original factory-made full capacity magazines–don’t buy aftermarket junk!

Any extra magazines that are intended for barter should be of the types that will be in the highest demand. Examples include: AR-15/M16, M14, Mini-14, AR-10, FAL, Glock, S&W M&P, Beretta, and SIG.  In particular, I predict that 33-round Glock magazines, 30-round Beretta Model 92 magazines, 100-round Beta C-MAGs, and 40-round Mag-Pul AR-15 PMAGs will all be in particularly high demand.)

Potential Resistance

In some families, a spouse might object to you making such purchases.  Sit down and dispassionately show them the history of other “scare” and “ban”periods, and point out how much prices rose. (For example: stripped AR-15 lower receivers jumped from $60 each to $300 each, during the last big scare.)  Tell them: “This is the equivalent of having the foreknowledge of what Dow Jones stocks will double or triple in price. It is wise to buy low and sell high.”  If need be, promise your spouse that you will sell off halfof what you plan to buy, after prices have doubled. That will leave the purchase cost of what you then retain, effectively at zero.

In Closing

Don’t panic, but recognize that Hitlery Clinton will probably act swiftly to restrict privately-owned firearms and accessories, using Executive Orders. Her transition team might even prepare them before she takes office. Most likely would be an import ban on magazines that can hold more than 10 cartridges, for civilians.  Another likelihood is an import ban on military style firearms and/or parts sets. Another possibility is reclassifying 80% complete receivers. She might also direct the BATFE to expand the definition of “Destructive Devices” to include semi-automatic shotguns with detachable magazines. (Such as the Saiga-12, which is already import banned.) Plan accordingly.

And regardless of the outcome of the upcoming election, you should have already spread out your guns, ammo, optics, and field gear between hidden places in several houses owned by members of your family, and in underground caches.  DO NOT keep all your eggs in one basket! – JWR


WARNING: The socialists who won their primaries (by state)

By: Renee Nal | New Zeal


Hillary Clinton with Bernie Sanders

Former presidential candidate Bernie Sanders supporters have regrouped and will mostly support Hillary Clinton for president.

The strategy is two-fold and incredibly organized:

  1. Elect Bernie Sanders-endorsers on the down-ballot. Many of these socialists posing as democrats have already won their primaries.
  2. Groom socialists to take over the federal government for 2018 and beyond.

There are two organizations focused on this effort: Brand New Congress and Our Revolution.

There are many additional organizations obsessed with getting radical left socialists into the federal government. Well-funded groups such as the Victory Fund (Spawned from the vile Human Rights Campaign, which provides support to gay and lesbian political candidates), the Council for a Livable World (which provides support to candidates who want to dismantle the military), and EMILY’s List (which provides support to candidates who are pro-abortion) are just three that come to mind.

Read more here…


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.


Fact Checking in Journalism

By: Sridhar “Sri” Rangaswamy

If anyone is going to do some fact checking – they need to check both ways.

Fact finding in journalism needs to be done for both candidates. You should not be able to be a moderator if you don’t – period.

In journalism, the ultimate goal is to follow the Constitution, as well as have high levels of ethics, honesty and integrity. They talk like they do so, but in reality they do not follow the Constitution. I hope you are aware of who I am talking about … This is about Lester Holt, who did not do a fair job last night. He did not follow the U.S. Constitution and laws … He did not do solid work.

He kept intervening every time Donald Trump would speak. It showed he had made up in his mind as to what team he represented. Instead of doing a fair, ethical job, he tried to upset Trump. He should not be working if he keeps doing this.

Why do we like to have a moderator in the first place? Because they stand by truth, honesty, integrity and have high ethics.

This country was founded by fathers who believed in high morals, to quote Abraham Lincoln and a few others in the past. It is built on conservative principles…

If I was Lester Holt, I would step down as moderator and apologize to GOP Presidential Nominee Donald J. Trump. He did not ask Hillary anything about Clinton’s Foundation. He did not ask anything about the email leak, which is costing the entire country a great deal. He did not talk about the immoral values of Bill Clinton and how they manipulated things. He did not talk about the money squandered from Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia does not even support women driving cars! How does this make her look? Let her practice what she preaches. She is not a great example of this.

He ignored all of these questions and keeps insisting on the Birther issue for Obama. President Obama’s middle name is Hussein … so there is little doubt about his origins and he has like-minded people surrounding him.