'Big Media' try to protect deposed Charlotte mayor Patrick Cannon. But he can't be whitewashed.

By Verne Strickland / USA DOT COM / April 7, 2014



CANNON FIRED. PUN INTENDED. CHARLOTTE CAN'T GET IT RIGHT.

I was shocked beyond belief at the liberal Democrat "whitewash" in the media following Patrick Cannon's political collapse for scandalous acts that brought him down as Mayor of Charlotte. Many "major" news groups pointedly elected not to mention that Cannon is a Democrat.

This really lit me up, and I think I was the first to break this angle of the story. I say this because a couple of days later, the same liberal propaganda outfits that had buried the facts about Cannon's Democrat Party membership trumpeted the subject in headlines.

I don't think they came clean. I think they were spooked by some truths that they hoped would never come out. They are partisan shills working feverishly to cover up their tracks. Liberal media have become one with the Democrats -- one in radical bent, one in disregard for truth, one in Socialism creep, one in disregard for honor. No wonder we don't and can't trust them.

(*Excerpt From Charlotte Observer -- "Cannon resigned last Wednesday, the same day he was arrested on federal public corruption charges. When the council does appoint a replacement, that person will be the Queen City’s fourth mayor in less than a year. The replacement does not have to be an elected official, but they do have to be a registered Democrat.")

** VS: Why must the replacement be a registered Democrat? Because the man drummed out of office for corruption WAS a registered Democrat -- a fact that was not dealt with elsewhere in the story. Another example of obfuscation. The liberal press is running behind its own smokescreen, and this is nothing if not dishonest.

So it has all come down to this -- the liberal media in NC have separated from the once proud, honest and upstanding companies that gather, edit and dispense the news -- with honesty and integrity.

This new breed sees its role no longer as providing a genuine service to the public. They have morphed into propagandists with a mission -- to wrap biased ideas into slick packages, and deceive the unwary.

The Internet is the only legitimate challenger to this brand of false information. We are the idea purveyor which will rip the disguise off of these wolves in wolves' clothing. It's about time.

Question those who have proven they cannot be trusted. Desert them if you doubt. And if you do not doubt, know that you will be played the fool. 

How big liberal newspapers treat Israel in the news

Verne Strickland USA DOT COM

In-Depth Analysis: The New York Times, Washington Post & LA Times

March 26, 2014 15:58 by Yarden Frankl 



For many years, we have published in-depth analyses that show the consistent and pervasive anti-Israel bias of the New York Times. Check out the reports here, here, and here. We even awarded the NY Times our “Dishonest Reporter” award for the most biased reporting of 2013.
We have documented how the vast majority of articles and editorials in the NY Times depict Israel in an unfavorable and often erroneous way. Yet the NY Times might argue that its coverage is negative because Israel’s actions and policies warrant such coverage. In other words, it would claim to be simply reporting the news rather than presenting a biased viewpoint.

So we decided to compare the NY Times’ coverage to that of the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times. If coverage of Israel by all three papers was close, then perhaps the NY Times’ argument would have merit.
On the other hand, if the NY Times presented a different picture of Israel than the other papers, it would add to the evidence that it reports from a biased, anti-Israel perspective. How else could one explain that the NY Times covers Israel differently to other sources reporting on the same events?
So what did we find?
In every category we measured, the coverage of Israel by the New York Times was far worse than that of the LA Times and Washington Post. Again, this is analyzing coverage of the same events in the same time period (January-February 2014.) We looked at four categories of bias: Fairness, Context, Terminology, and Selection of Sources. Some of the bias is very subtle, but when readers absorb news that is written in a bias way, it can’t help but impact the way they understand events.
Just one example paints the picture. We looked at what we refer to as “fairness.” By that, we mean what percentage of the articles concerned subjects that reflected negatively on Israel.
While only one quarter of the Washington Post articles and one third of those in the LA Times reflected negatively on Israel, an overwhelming 67% of articles in the New York Times did so.
Other metrics we measured showed similar discrepancies.
Findings Explained:

Fairness:

Percentage of articles that expressed criticism of Israel or depicted Israeli actions in a negative light.
(Note: The Washington Post also published stories from the Associated Press that tend to provide a more negative view of Israel. They are not included in this study. We used only articles from the Post’s own reporters.)
In any media outlet’s reports on Israel, there will be some negative and critical stories. That’s to be expected since Israel, like all Western countries, is not perfect. However, there is no reason why negative stories should overwhelm all other coverage. They don’t in the LA Times or the Washington Post. Yet reporting on the same facts and the same events, the New York Times finds a way to report negatively on Israel two-thirds of the time.
For example, on January 10, the New York Times published “In Blow to Peace Efforts, Israel Publishes Plans for New Housing in Settlements.” Not only is the Israeli announcement labeled a “Blow to Peace Efforts” in the headline, but the article opens by referring to “a move the chief Palestinian negotiator condemned as a “slap” to Secretary of State John Kerry’s intense push for a Middle East peace deal.” Before the reader can actually get to the details, the Israeli announcement has been qualified in both the headline and the first paragraph.
The same day, the LA Times published an article on the same issue with the headline simply stating that “Israel announces more settlement construction.” The article opens and describes how the move drew criticism but was expected. The Washington Post had a similarly neutral headline. The Post did mention the “slap” reference, but only in the fifth paragraph. It is only the New York Times that elevates the quotation by Saeb Erekat to the first description of the Israeli policy. The way the NY Times reported on the Israeli announcement was far from an objective survey of the facts – it condemned Israel by using an opinion on settlements as a factual analysis.
Then there is the issue of opinion pieces. In the New York Times, 88% of the op-eds were critical of Israel. Most of the opinion pieces in the LA Times and Washington Post were either neutral or positive. Examples of opinion pieces critical of Israel or Israeli actions or leaders include “Israel Needs to Learn Some Manners,” “How Israel is Losing the Propaganda War,” and “The Third Intifada” (justifying the boycott movement.) The NY Times employs regular columnists like Tom Friedman who has shown a history of one-sided criticism of Israel and support for the Palestinian Authority.

Context:

Percentage of stories lacking important context that can explain Israeli actions.

The situation in the Middle East is complicated. When important context is left out, readers can get a biased view of what’s happening and what Israel is doing. In an article that mentions Jerusalem, stating “which Israel conquered in 1967″ is not enough. This neglects to mention the city’s thousands of years of Jewish history or any context to the 1967 war – a war of defense that ended with Israel in control of Jerusalem. Implying that Israel is a “conqueror” lacks such context.
Settlements should not simply be labeled as “illegal under international law” without the acknowledgement that there is a wide range of opinion on this issue.
Likewise, in reporting on the Palestinian education system, to neglect to mention the specific, documented cases of anti-Israel incitement and glorification of terrorists in Palestinian schools would be to leave out critical context. Some Palestinian schools are even named after terrorists and there are murals honoring terror that Palestinian children are exposed to every day.
Yet, in “For Arabs in Israel, Curriculum Choice is Politically Charged,” the NY Times glosses over this information and instead uses quotations from Arabs stating how important it is to them that the Palestinian “narrative” be taught in school. They turn the story of Israeli funding for schools to use a standard curriculum into a conspiracy. One person interviewed says:
“I don’t want my son to be afraid to say he’s Palestinian.”
Another Palestinian says:
“The Israeli authorities “don’t only want to occupy the land, they want to occupy the minds of the people — like a brainwashing.”
There is no way that readers will be able to understand the curriculum debate when presented only with these types of opinion without reference to the history of anti-Israel incitement in Palestinian schools.
In “Abbas, Talking to Israeli Students About Peace, Finds a Receptive Audience,” Mahmoud Abbas is treated as a moderate leader willing to make serious compromises in the name of peace. While it has been well documented that Abbas has made fiery speeches in Arabic that contradict the image the NY Times paints, the article simply notes:

Batting away accusations by some Israelis that he says one thing in Arabic and another in English, Mr. Abbas said, “I speak the same language with everyone.” (Mr. Abbas addressed the students in Arabic; simultaneous translations in Hebrew and English were provided.)

But that statement has been proven to be false time and again. Why should the NY Times allow it to stand unchallenged?

Click here to continue to Page 2 of this article to read about Terminology, Sources and our conclusions.

Erik Prince is back with book defending Blackwater's role in war on on terror

Verne Strickland / March 30, 2014

Erik Prince is back with book defending Blackwater's role in war on terror

By Jim Harger | jharger@mlive.com
Follow on Twitter
on November 19, 2013 at 12:05 PM, updated November 19, 2013 at 2:44 PM

Reddit

 
Erik Prince has authored a new book defending Blackwater, the private security firm he created in 1997.Courtesy image 

GRAND RAPIDS, MI – After being vilified as the mercenary founder of Blackwater, Holland native Erik Prince is telling his side of the story in a new book titled, “Civilian Warriors: The Inside Story of Blackwater and the Unsung Heroes of the War on Terror.”
“For years my company’s work was misconstrued and misrepresented,” the 44-year-old former Navy SEAL wrote in the introduction to the book. “So now I’m done keeping quiet.
“What’s been said before is only half the story—and I won’t sit idly by while the bureaucrats go after me so that everyone else can just go back to business as usual,” wrote Prince, the son of philanthropist Elsa Prince Broekhuizen and brother of conservative West Michigan political activist Betsy DeVos.
“The true history of Blackwater is exhilarating, rewarding, exasperating, and tragic,” wrote Prince, who has published his book through Penguin Canada Books, Inc. three years after selling Blackwater Worldwide.
In an interview with ABC New’s “Sunday Spotlight,” Prince blamed his company’s image problems on the “anti-war left” who opposed the Vietnam War.
“This time they went after the contractors. Blackwater was a very easy whipping boy for them,” Prince told ABC’s Martha Raddatz in an interview “This Week.”
Acknowledging that civilians may have been killed by Blackwater’s security forces in Iraq, Prince told Raddatz “my greatest regret was going to work for the State Department.”
In an interview with “The Daily Beast” published Monday, Nov. 19, Prince said he is focusing his business on expanding markets in Africa and said he will never work for the U.S. government again.
Prince launched Blackwater in North Carolina in 1997 and was awarded no-bid security contracts from the U.S. government at the beginning of the Iraq War.
Blackwater became the focus of international scrutiny and ongoing legal action when guards were involved in a series of high-profile shootings in Iraq.
The company is now called Xe Services LLC after a group of investors bought the company from Prince in 2010.
Last year, the security firm agreed to pay a $7.5 million fine to resolve allegations that it smuggled arms, among other crimes.
Click here to read an excerpt from Prince's book.

RELATED: Blackwater founder Erik Prince writes memoir to counter security firm's controversial image

UNCW assistant professor goes through atheism to discover his faith in God

 Verne Strickland / USA DOT COM / March 24, 2014 

God parts the Red Sea, and liberal theologians at UNCW are livid. Bless their hearts. 

At the University of North Carolina Wilmington, Dr. Mike Adams teaches crime -- but he never dreamed he'd be the victim of one. Unfortunately for the assistant professor, that all changed when his ideology did. When he was hired as a criminology expert 21 years ago, Adams was an avowed and outspoken atheist -- a worldview that was shaken to the core when Mike went to visit a prisoner on death row in 2000. The convict, a mentally handicapped man, had read the entire Bible -- something Adams had never done. He resolved then and there to change that -- and when he did, Mike was completely transformed.
The once-vocal liberal became a passionate follower of Christ, a conversion that ultimately bled over into his political beliefs. Over time, he started writing columns and doing media appearances from a conservative perspective -- infuriating UNCW's forces of political correctness in the process. Like most universities, the faculty was a fraternity of liberals, who insist on diversity but practice anything but. After a slew of awards and accolades for his work, Mike applied for a full professorship in 2006.
Despite a glowing record, the University turned down his application. Apparently, the only promotion UNCW is interested in is the promotion of the liberal agenda. As his lead attorney, David French, writes in NRO, administrators engaged in the fiercest kind of viewpoint discrimination. It was "a process where they applied a made-up promotion standard that contradicted the faculty handbook, passed along false information about his academic record, deceptively edited documents to influence the faculty vote, explicitly discussed his constitutionally protected viewpoint, and allowed a faculty member with an obvious and outrageous conflict of interest to cast a vote against him." At one point, the University even launched an underground investigation (at the request of a transgender group) to determine if the professor was "transphobic."
Stunned, Adams sued, insisting the school had infringed on his free speech rights. After hearing the details, our friends at Alliance Defending Freedom agreed to represent Mike, and together they embarked on a seven year journey to right the University's wrong. Last week, after winding through the appeals process, Mike Adams finally got the news he was waiting for. Although UNCW officials denied that they were retaliating against Adams for his faith -- the court disagreed. After seeing the evidence, a federal jury agreed that Adams's speech was a "substantial or motivating factor" in denying him a full professorship. When pressed, UNCW officials couldn't prove that they would have made the same decision in the absence of his conservative beliefs. Although the case isn't over (the court hasn't decided what form of "relief" to grant -- nor has the school decided whether to appeal), the victory is a major one.

Governor Holshouser spearheads 1973 NC trade mission to Ukraine

EXCLUSIVE REPORT:     UKRAINE SAGA



     45 years ago, USSR agricultural breadbasket
   

Today: Chip in global chess game with USSR 
 

COMING SOON

                               By Verne Strickland / USA DOT COM  

Air Force: Christians' Religious Speech Not Legally Protected Right

Verne Strickland via USA Dot Com:
Remember 'Coming in on a Wing and a Prayer' -- the popular inspirational song about U.S. airmen putting their trust in God as they crash-landed their bomber during World War II? Well, our all-seeing, all-pervasive U.S. government aims to clip the wings of faith that our U.S. Air Force heroes have depended on for so long. Our God is surely offended deeply by such a power grab. Our government has exceeded its bounds. It must be put in its place.

Government gutting all reference to God in air force pronouncements

 

---

 

Christians in the U.S. military are being told they must forfeit their First Amendment rights. Bible verses are being erased from cadets’ personal dorm-room white boards, and military lawyers claim that legal protections for religion only pertain to matters such as clothing and growing beards but do not extend to any religious expression such as talking about one's faith or posting a Bible verse. Last year Breitbart News broke the story of a campaign by anti-Christian extremists to suppress traditional Christian expression within the U.S. military. There were conflicting stories regarding the possible court martial of service members who share the gospel of Jesus Christ and confirmed reports of military chaplains being officially censored, as well as Bibles temporarily banned from the Walter Reed military hospital.
After these stories went viral on the Internet, Republicans in Congress launched an investigation, then introduced legislation to specify that religious expression is a protected right for men and women serving in uniform. Although President Obama originally threatened to veto the legislation, those protections were signed into law in December 2013.
Now these new protections are being put to their first test. Military officers at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs are saying that the Obama-Hagel Pentagon does not regard these new protections as encompassing religious speech or writing. As such, cadets are not allowed to post Bible verses on their personal white boards in their dorm rooms.
This latest incident occurred when a cadet (whose identity we are not disclosing) posted Galatians 2:20 on his personal whiteboard, posted outside his living quarters in a residential dormitory. That verse reads, “I have been crucified with Christ, and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.”
According to media reports, several people at the academy contacted Mikey Weinstein and the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, the radical anti-Christian group that had been in communication with the Defense Department under President Obama regarding adopting new policies for religious expression in the military. Weinstein claimed that he called the Air Force Academy to complain about the Bible verse and further claims that two hours and nine minutes later, the verse was gone.
Sources quote Weinstein as saying that having this verse on the outside of the dorm room “clearly elevated one religious faith over all others at an already virulently hyper-fundamentalist Christian institution.” He is quoted as adding, “It massively poured fundamentalist Christian gasoline on an already raging out-of-control conflagration of fundamentalist Christian tyranny…”
Contrary to existing reports, Academy personnel did not erase the Bible verse or order the cadet to remove it.
Breitbart News spoke with Mike Berry, an attorney who is director of military affairs with Liberty Institute. Berry traveled to the Academy last week and met with cadets of different religions. These cadets say these personal messages are traditionally allowed on cadets’ whiteboards. A message might ask to meet for a basketball game or root for a favorite sports team. They claim it is a meaningful exercise in which many cadets include spiritual or inspirational quotes, whether Bible verses, a verse from the Quran, or from football legend Vince Lombardi.
Berry exclusively tells Breitbart News:

We met with Col. Paul Barzler, the Air Force Academy Staff Judge Advocate, to find out what really happened and to ask about the Academy’s policy on religious exercise. It turns out that, contrary to Mikey Weinstein’s claims, the cadet may have voluntarily removed the Bible verse from his white board. But I was stunned to find out that, had the cadet not removed the verse, Academy officials would have ordered him to do so. I asked why, and Col. Barzler explained that, because the cadet held a leadership position, it could create the perception that he was forcing his religious beliefs on subordinates. I pointed out that under the Constitution, federal law, and military regulations, cadets have the right to religious exercise. I was shocked when he responded that Air Force policy, from the Pentagon, is that the term "religious exercise" does not include written or verbal speech. [emphasis added]

Berry then reminded the colonel regarding the specific legal protections service members have, from the Constitution itself, to Acts of Congress, to military regulations. He says of the colonel’s response:

He went on to state that the Air Force interprets [Department of Defense] Instruction 1300.07 to only apply to religious grooming and apparel matters, but not writing a [Bible] verse on a white board or even verbally sharing a verse. This means that, under Air Force policy, cadets and airmen are not free to express their religious beliefs through words or writing. This policy appears to come from a March 2013 Air Force JAG memo that interpreted federal law in that way. 

Last week, on Mar. 14, 2014, the Air Force Academy issued a press release regarding this situation. It says, “While we swear an oath to Support and Defend the Constitution of the United States, Airmen are also bound by [military policy].” It references Air Force Instruction 1-1, which was adopted several years ago once President Obama took office and is frequently used to suppress religious speech, especially by Christians. The press release then adds that “sometimes we must put the good of the entire unit before the good of any single individual.”

This press release only makes the situation more alarming to a legal analyst. An Air Force policy instruction carries some force of law, but it is trumped by a Defense Department regulation. Those regulations, in turn, are subordinate to federal statutes adopted by Congress, which for over three months now has expressly provided that religious expression is a protected right. All of those must follow the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, where the First Amendment makes both free speech and free exercise of religion fundamental rights for all Americans.

As Berry summarized, “This is a stunning development because it is now clear that the Air Force is interpreting federal law and military regulations in an unlawful way. And it is absolutely shameful because the brave men and women of the U.S. Air Force who make huge sacrifices for our religious freedom are having theirs stripped away.” Hinting at legal action that could be forthcoming, Berry concluded, “This is not only morally wrong, it’s illegal.”

Ken Klukowski is senior legal analyst for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter @kenklukowski.

US Senate candidate Brannon had unpaid property tax bill

@NCCapitol

@NCCapitol

US Senate candidate had unpaid property tax bill

By Verne Strickland / Blogmaster / Feb 18 2014

More on this

• GOP Senate candidate's trial to conclude next week
• Senate candidate Brannon defends himself against allegations he misled investors
• Senate campaign takes shape early

Raleigh, N.C. — One of the announced candidates candidates for this year's U.S. Senate campaign had an unpaid property tax bill until it was brought to his attention by WRAL News Tuesday morning.
Dr. Greg Brannon, a Cary obstetrician, and his wife owed $8,779.19 on the home they live in in Cary, according to the Wake County tax records.
Brannon is one of five Republicans who have announced or filed to run against Democratic U.S. Sen. Kay Hagan.
A check of the county tax department systems in their home counties shows that Hagan and Republicans state House Speaker Thom Tillis, Rev. Mark Harris, nurse Heath Grant and former Shelby Mayor William Alexander are current on their property tax bills.
In general, North Carolina property tax bills are due at the end of September. However, interest and penalties don't begin to accrue until the first week of January.
Wake County property tax records put the value of Brannon's house at $968,278.
Brannon, who was in Wake County court Tuesday waiting for a verdict in an unrelated civil trial, said he did not know he had an unpaid property tax bill and said his wife usually handles family business items such as that.
"Wow, thank you. I've got to make sure of that," he said when asked about the bill.
Shortly after he was asked about the bill, property tax records showed that he had paid the back taxes in full.
Looking for comments?

Tags:

• U.S. Senate Campaign,
• Greg Brannon