“Houston Chronicle Shills for NAACP”

 Breitbart has more.

“Even more alarming was the Houston Chronicle’s Mike Morris using a local official’s defense of the NAACP’s violations as a first person/eye witness account — even though the quoted official appeared not to witness the event. . . . Of course Ray didn’t witness any such thing; he wasn’t there. Eyewitnesses say they never saw Ray present and the polling station simply wasn’t set up in a way where he could’ve been missed. Of course, it is possible Ray showed up on the scene after the conflict occurred. Even so, the Houston Chronicle described him as an eyewitness giving the impression he actually was there and giving an eye-witness account.”

“Houston Chronicle Shills for NAACP”

 Breitbart has more.

“Even more alarming was the Houston Chronicle’s Mike Morris using a local official’s defense of the NAACP’s violations as a first person/eye witness account — even though the quoted official appeared not to witness the event. . . . Of course Ray didn’t witness any such thing; he wasn’t there. Eyewitnesses say they never saw Ray present and the polling station simply wasn’t set up in a way where he could’ve been missed. Of course, it is possible Ray showed up on the scene after the conflict occurred. Even so, the Houston Chronicle described him as an eyewitness giving the impression he actually was there and giving an eye-witness account.”

It was all part of the plan, from 2004

Tony Lee has the story of an old plan to smear, employed.

“The DNC’s 2004 election manual — on page 54 — encourages liberal activists to work with the mainstream media to preemptively intimidate groups that may expose their Election Day shenanigans.


And that is exactly what has occurred in the past week.


The guide encourages Democrats to brief the press about the “background and history of GOP minority voter
intimidation, with emphasis on past activity in your state or district” and “emphasizing a message of outrage” that is also “designed to appeal to the broader community.”


The manual also suggests Democrats “use minority intimidation as an organizing tool” and “link this fight to the historical fights to enfranchise minorities, going back to the civil rights struggle.”


If there are no signs of intimidation, then the guide urges Democrats to launch a “pre-emptive strike” by:



  • Issuing a press release;

  • Reviewing Republican tactic used in the past in your area or state;

  • Quoting party/minority/civil rights leadership as denouncing tactics that discourage people from voting

  • Placing stories in which minority leadership expresses concern about the threat
    of intimidation tactics;

  • Priming minority leadership to discuss the issue in the media;

  • Providing groups talking points;

  • Warning local newspapers not to accept advertising that is not properly disclaimed or that contains false warnings about voting requirements and/or about what will happen at the polls
“

It was all part of the plan, from 2004

Tony Lee has the story of an old plan to smear, employed.

“The DNC’s 2004 election manual — on page 54 — encourages liberal activists to work with the mainstream media to preemptively intimidate groups that may expose their Election Day shenanigans.


And that is exactly what has occurred in the past week.


The guide encourages Democrats to brief the press about the “background and history of GOP minority voter
intimidation, with emphasis on past activity in your state or district” and “emphasizing a message of outrage” that is also “designed to appeal to the broader community.”


The manual also suggests Democrats “use minority intimidation as an organizing tool” and “link this fight to the historical fights to enfranchise minorities, going back to the civil rights struggle.”


If there are no signs of intimidation, then the guide urges Democrats to launch a “pre-emptive strike” by:



  • Issuing a press release;

  • Reviewing Republican tactic used in the past in your area or state;

  • Quoting party/minority/civil rights leadership as denouncing tactics that discourage people from voting

  • Placing stories in which minority leadership expresses concern about the threat
    of intimidation tactics;

  • Priming minority leadership to discuss the issue in the media;

  • Providing groups talking points;

  • Warning local newspapers not to accept advertising that is not properly disclaimed or that contains false warnings about voting requirements and/or about what will happen at the polls
“

FVAP accused of breaking the bank on email voting and skirting the implementation of laws

McClatchy reports on more controversy between the Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP) and the Congress. This time on the expenditure of tens of millions of dollars on a program many were skeptical of and simultaneously refusing to expend the money necessary to fully implement the priorities of the Congress – the establishment of installation voting assistance offices and the expedited and timely return of paper ballots. 

The controversy over the Federal Voting Assistance Program’s role
largely surrounds allegations that it ran an end run around Congress.

In passing the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act in
2009 to address continuing obstacles to voting by those groups, Congress
directed states to offer blank, electronic ballots to troops and
foreign-based civilians 45 days before Election Day. In the three years
since, the Pentagon program has paid out more than $27 million to help
states and counties comply. The law only authorized electronic voting in pilot projects, but
it could not preclude states from approving email or fax transmission
over private email accounts or wires not funded by the Federal Voting
Assistance Program.

A congressional aide familiar with the matter but not authorized
to speak for the record said it’s obvious that Congress’ intent was to
discourage widespread electronic voting until security improves.

…The Federal Voting Assistance Program’s machinations have caught the
attention of at least one senior member of the Senate Armed Services
Committee. Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas told McClatchy that
“federal agencies skirting the implementation of laws is always a
concern for taxpayers, which is why Congress must be vigilant in its
oversight duties.”

FVAP accused of breaking the bank on email voting and skirting the implementation of laws

McClatchy reports on more controversy between the Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP) and the Congress. This time on the expenditure of tens of millions of dollars on a program many were skeptical of and simultaneously refusing to expend the money necessary to fully implement the priorities of the Congress – the establishment of installation voting assistance offices and the expedited and timely return of paper ballots. 

The controversy over the Federal Voting Assistance Program’s role
largely surrounds allegations that it ran an end run around Congress.

In passing the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act in
2009 to address continuing obstacles to voting by those groups, Congress
directed states to offer blank, electronic ballots to troops and
foreign-based civilians 45 days before Election Day. In the three years
since, the Pentagon program has paid out more than $27 million to help
states and counties comply. The law only authorized electronic voting in pilot projects, but
it could not preclude states from approving email or fax transmission
over private email accounts or wires not funded by the Federal Voting
Assistance Program.

A congressional aide familiar with the matter but not authorized
to speak for the record said it’s obvious that Congress’ intent was to
discourage widespread electronic voting until security improves.

…The Federal Voting Assistance Program’s machinations have caught the
attention of at least one senior member of the Senate Armed Services
Committee. Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas told McClatchy that
“federal agencies skirting the implementation of laws is always a
concern for taxpayers, which is why Congress must be vigilant in its
oversight duties.”