Tuesday, April 15, 2014

Russian government refused to help with FBI requests for more information about Boston bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev until after he launched his deadly attack, claims reports.

Verne Strickland / USA DOT COM / April 15, 2014 



 Los Angeles Times / New York Times

The Russian government refused to help with FBI requests for more information about Boston bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev and only agreed to help after he launched his deadly attack, according to reports.
The New York Times cites an inspector general's report claiming that Russian officials had warned the FBI in 2011 that Tsarnaev  'was a follower of radical Islam and a strong believer' who had become more extreme in his behavior since 2010.

The Russians then blocked a number of requests from the FBI for additional information and only agreed to assist again after Tsarnaev's deadly attack at the finish line of the Boston marathon.
'They found that the Russians did not provide all the information that they had on him back then, and based on everything that was available the F.B.I. did all that it could,' a senior US official briefed on the new report told the Times.
Russia's unwillingness to hand over everything it knew about Tsarnaev's dangerous brand of Islam comes as it emerged he also tried to legally change his name to that of a well-known militant rebel.
Tsarnaev wanted to changed his name to 'Muaz,' a reference to Emir Muaz, who fought in Russian's Dagestan republic as well as a nickname rebels gave to Tsarnaev during a six-month visit to the region in 2012.
The Los Angeles Times reports his Jan. 23, 2013 application seeking a name change included an explanation that his decision was political.


Authorities said Tamerlan Tsarnaev's attempt to change his name reveals a more radicalized young man than previously suspected
Authorities said Tamerlan Tsarnaev's attempt to change his name reveals a more radicalized young man than previously suspected


'He said, 'The Russian people have been terrorizing my home country for all these years,'' an anonymous official told the Times. 'This is why he needed to come back to America and help.'

One year ago, Tsarnaev would set explosions in two backpacks that killed three people and injured more than 260 at the Boston Marathon.
The newly obtained name-changing request is one link in a growing chain of evidence portraying a more radical and organized Tsarnaev than once believed. 
Attorneys for younger brother, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, said that his older brother might have believed there was FBI pressure and attempts to recruit him as an informant, forcing his hand.
The FBI did meet once with him to discuss his trip to the Caucasus area, and agents interviewed him multiple times.

Tsarnaev was killed days after the bombing as U.S. agents attempted to bring him in.
Attorneys for his younger brother are expected to argue that Tamerlan was the mastermind behind the plot.
U.S. authorities believe he was likely radicalized during his visit to Dagestan in 2012.
They also claim he unsuccessfully attempted to join the rebels but was either directed to return home to carry out a terrorist attack or decided to do it himself.
'You've got to be pretty full into this to want to change your name and not be just a nobody named Tamerlan,' the Time's source said. 'Maybe he thought because he could not get accepted over there, maybe he could do something here.'
Attorneys may argue that Tsamaev was the mastermind behind the bombings and forced his younger brother to get involved


On his name-change application, Tamerlan printed his name onto a section advising him he would be required to take an oath of allegiance to the U.S., crossed his name out, then wrote down 'Muaz.'

A House Committee on Homeland Security report detailed how Tsarnaev returned to the U.S. in 2012 with a powerful desire to hurt the country and a habit of ranting in local mosques.
A YouTube account he maintained included Russian-language videos about Islam and a series of militant videos.


http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1711971.1394058378!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_1200/519048332.jpg


Dzhokhar Tsarnaev pled not guilty to using a weapon of mass destruction as well as a slew of federal charges. He faces a death sentence if convicted.
Attempting to prove to a jury that one only committed a crime because they were coerced can be a hard sell.
'In my view of the evidence in the Boston case, I find no indication that the younger man had a psychiatric disorder," said J. Reid Meloy, clinical professor of psychiatry at the UC San Diego School of Medicine.
However he noted: 'It now seems very clear that this may be the most viable and convenient defense for the younger Tsarnaev.'

Monday, April 14, 2014

Waco Siege vs Bundy Ranch: That Was Then, This Is Now!

Verne Strickland USA DOT COM

Waco Siege vs Bundy Ranch: That Was Then, This Is Now!

| April 14 2014
Rose LaFleur
Many of us are old enough to remember watching in horror as the US government, using US military equipment, surrounded a group of Americans in Waco, Texas, with SWAT teams, helicopters, armored vehicles, and even a tank. Then watching as that compound burned to the ground, knowing that there were innocent women and children losing their lives right before our eyes. Most of us desperately wanted to believe that their actions were justified, that there was some perfectly legitimate reason why those innocents died. Then the facts started to come out and the terrible truth was revealed.  That’s the day that so many of us came to the awful realization that these things can happen in America, and that our government is capable of such atrocities. And many vowed back then, Never Again. Never again would we sit back and do nothing while our own government surrounded and laid siege to American citizens.
Fast forward to the latest siege, this time the Bundy Ranch. Once again Americans were surrounded by their own government. Armed federal agents came pouring in to Nevada. But this time, their actions wouldn’t go unanswered. Americans responded by the hundreds, and traveled to Nevada to ensure the government force didn’t result in yet another government sanctioned massacre. The government did everything it could to keep the facts from getting out, even shutting down cell towers in the area, setting up an official “free speech” area, and attacking peaceful protestors.
And we won! Federal agents have left the area in defeat, surrendering to both the public outcry and the presence of fellow Americans standing watch over and recording their actions. UK’s Daily Mail Online has done amazing coverage of the entire siege, including many great photos of everyday Americans taking a stand. It will make you want to stand and cheer!
Take notice federal government! We’ve learned our lessons well. We’ve never forgotten the innocent blood that was needlessly shed in Waco, Texas. Now it’s time for you to learn your lesson.. Your days of unanswered armed aggression against US citizens are over.
0 comments
Livefyre
3 people listening
 

Tuesday, April 8, 2014

Liberal media didn't want you to see the real Kermit Gosnell story! So here it is.

Please watch this short video. This is why the Gosnell story must be told.

Everyone knows who Jodi Arias is and she only killed one person.

 No one knows who Kermit Gosnell is because the liberal media did everything they could to hide this story from the American people.
WATCH What Happens When the Media Censor a Story 

"
The media didn't want the truth to get out about the ugly underbelly of the abortion industry.

Help make sure this story is told by supporting this effort:
www.gosnellmovie.com

America needs to know what happened, so this kind of butchery never happens again.


Every dollar counts!
It’s the story the media tried to hide. Please help if you can.

Sincerely,

The MRC Action Team

Sunday, April 6, 2014

'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

http://media.wcnc.com/images/470*264/cannon_prepro.jpg

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. 


Thursday, April 3, 2014

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  

comparativestudy

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.
Bar-Graph-Yarden-fairness-updated(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.
Bar-Graph-Yarden-context-updated
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.


Sunday, March 30, 2014

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

Jim Harger | jharger@mlive.com 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

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


Monday, March 24, 2014

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.