Breaking: This Huge Development In The Trayvon Martin Shooting May Just Close The Case

Images Credit: Orlando Sentinel

After a lengthy investigation extending almost to the third anniversary of the fatal shooting of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin, the U.S. Justice Department is bringing its civil rights probe to an end.

ABC News reports that Attorney General Eric Holder and his legal team at Justice will not file civil rights charges against George Zimmerman, the man who killed the teen during a confrontation in 2012.

“Federal prosecutors concluded there is not sufficient evidence to prove Zimmerman, a neighborhood watchman in Sanford, Fla., intentionally violated Martin’s civil rights, sources told ABC News.”

You’ll recall that the state of Florida prosecuted the neighborhood watch volunteer, trying to convict him for murder and manslaughter. After a highly emotional trial that drew international attention, a jury acquitted Zimmerman in the summer of 2013.

In protests surrounding the racially charged trial, Al Sharpton played a major role in supposedly speaking for the Martin family. In a separate post, Western Journalism this morning reported on a new investigative video from conservative activist James O’Keefe, dealing with the anti-Sharpton sentiment expressed by some people involved in the controversial Martin case.

As ABC notes of the just-announced decision at Justice:

“Privately and publicly, Justice Department officials have been telegraphing all along that they were unlikely to file charges against Zimmerman.

And in November 2013, Holder said the case against Zimmerman “in substantial part was resolved” with his acquittal months earlier.”

In April 2013, as the Orlando Sentinel reported, Trayvon Martin’s parents settled a wrongful death lawsuit against the homeowners’ association of the subdivision where Zimmerman was on patrol when he shot the 17-year-old. The amount of that settlement was said to have been more than $1 million.

With its findings in the Trayvon Martin case now a matter of public record, the Justice Department is continuing its investigation into possible civil rights violations in connection with the Michael Brown police-involved shooting in Ferguson, Missouri.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Scandals Revealed: Neil Cavuto Admits It’s All Fox News’ Fault

Neil Cavuto

Fox News host Neil Cavuto, on his show Your World, jumped on the Obama Administration for their fondness of only criticizing Fox News. According to Cavuto, Obama’s administration ritually despises Fox News and makes a point to say so to the media.

He then launched into a sarcastic tirade on the administration’s claim that Fox would have nothing to talk about if they weren’t perpetuating potentially damning information.

“Pick a crisis, any crisis, you name it. Fox News is behind it,” Cavuto said. “Worse yet, Fox News created it. And I’m here to admit the White House ain’t telling you the half of it. How clever we are, how devious we are. If only I had known that you had known.”

Cavuto spilled the beans on everything and cited Fox News as the culprit “every time.” He joked that the cold weather, the measles outbreak, natural disasters, and even the JFK assassination was Fox News’ fault.

He even blamed the sinking of the Titanic on his employer because the captain of the ship resembles Rupert Murdoch.

Fox News

Fox News

“So Rupert Murdoch with a beard, don’t you think?” Cavuto joked.

h/t: Newsbusters

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Why Can’t Obama Say “Islamic Extremism?”

Facebook/Barack Obama

Why is it so hard for this administration to call Islamic extremists what they are? Instead, they parse and mince their appellations in every conceivable way to avoid identifying them as such. For that matter, how can the president maintain any semblance of credibility when he illogically avers that the Islamic State is not Islamic? By refusing to acknowledge, at least publicly, the enemy that has unleashed its destructive tactics against humanity, the administration appears incompetent, indecisive, and impotent against those who have declared jihad against America and the west.

It’s critical to make a distinction between the faith of Islam and Islamic extremism. Islam, as a religion, is faith-based, while the sectarian-defined extremism of the Wahhabist movement, or Salafi, is more of an Islamo-Fascist political movement. Even though it has its theological roots in Islam the religion, they are more of a politically ideological sect within Islam that goes far beyond what is reasonable in their interpretations of key scriptures in the Koran and the Hadith or sayings of Mohammed.

Abdallah Al Obeid, the former dean of the Islamic University of Medina and member of the Saudi Consultative Council, confirms that this is politically ideological, rather than sectarian. He calls this extremism a “political trend” within Islam that “has been adopted for power-sharing purposes.” He says it cannot be called a sect because “It has no special practices, nor special rites, and no special interpretation of religion that differ from the main body of Sunni Islam.”

Lt. General Thomas McInerney, who serves on the Iran Policy Committee, said a few years ago in an interview, “Islamic extremism is an ideology just like Fascism and Communism, and it must be fought in much the same way. The West has not acknowledged this and consequently we have not educated our population that it is an ideology rather than a religion. This is confusing people because of our tolerance for the diversity of religion.”

The rest of the world seems to have divested itself of the ineffable “Islamic extremism” label. After the horrendous murders of a dozen employees of the Charlie Hebdo paper in Paris last month, more than a million people, including 40 presidents and prime ministers, showed up for a solidarity rally against Islamic extremism. It was, as the New York Times reported, “the most striking show of solidarity in the West against the threat of Islamic extremism since the Sept. 11 attacks.”

No one from the Obama administration attended, even though Attorney General (AG) Eric Holder was in Paris at the time. The New York Daily News ran a Front Page headline, sending President Obama a message in type large enough he could have seen it 220 miles away in Washington, “You let the world down.” The (UK) Daily Mail headline read, “America snubs historic Paris rally.”

Isn’t it interesting that the AG that has called us a “nation of cowards” for not having a discussion on race would capitulate to the political correctness of not having a discussion (or demonstration) against Islamic extremism? It appears downright cowardly. But it is his Dept. of Justice that still classifies the 2009 Fort Hood shooting as “workplace violence,” even though the shooter, Nidal Hasan, describes himself as a “Soldier of Allah” and has petitioned to be classified as a citizen of the Islamic State. But Holder was undoubtedly just following the directives of his boss, who declared a couple years ago at the United Nations that “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet.”

Even in denouncing the Islamic State burning to death a Jordanian pilot this past week, the president revealed the great lengths he will go to maintain ambiguity in identifying our enemies. In a taped comment in the White House, Obama said, “It also indicates the degree to which whatever ideology they are operating off of, it’s bankrupt.” Really, Mr. President? “Whatever ideology they are operating off of?” Are you the only one on the planet who doesn’t know where the jihadist ideology originates?

The matter became only more convoluted by White House press secretaries this past week. ABC News’ Jonathan Karl asked Deputy Press Secretary Eric Schultz what the distinction was between terrorists and the Taliban. Karl asked, “You say the United States government does not give in to demands [and] does not pay ransom. But how is what the Jordanians are talking about doing any different than what the United States did to get the release of [Bowe] Bergdahl — the releasing prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay to the Taliban, which is clearly a terrorist organization?”

Shultz stammered in his obfuscating response, “As you know, this was highly discussed at the time. And prisoner swaps are a traditional, end-of-conflict interaction that happens. As the war in Afghanistan wound down, we felt like it was the appropriate thing to do…I’d also point out that the Taliban is an armed insurgency; ISIL is a terrorist group. So we don’t make concessions to terrorist groups.”

So the Taliban is an “armed insurgency” and not a terrorist group. What a relief it is to finally learn that the organization that harbored and protected Osama bin Ladin was not a terrorist group! I really thought they were, especially after their massacre of 130 school children in Pakistan last month! Maybe they’re just not “JV” enough to be considered outright “terrorists.”

I’m not sure that we could expect anything different from a cadre of ideological academics who had no real-world experience prior to running the sole remaining world superpower. For as Dr. Lyle Rossiter explained in his book “The Liberal Mind,” the single greatest symptom of the liberal mindset is detachment from reality. And the proof that this administration is severely afflicted with it is most clearly exemplified by their inability to identify our enemies as Islamic extremists.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

WATCH: Ferguson Protesters Claim Obama, Holder Support Their Pro-Palestine, Anti-Israel Campaign

Vimeo | Dream Defenders

They call themselves “freedom fighters,” this group of top Ferguson activists joined together under the #BlackLivesMatter banner that has become a prominent, as well as highly controversial, protest slogan.

And now — proudly proclaiming they have the firm support of Barack Obama, Eric Holder, and Al Sharpton — a number of the self-described leaders of the movement have traveled to Nazareth, known as the Arab capital of Israel, to rally in solidarity with Palestinians in their fight against the Israelis.

Details of the #BlackLivesMatter demonstration are available on the Hands Up United website, where 2015 is declared a “year of resistance” against police brutality and societal oppression that supposedly keeps minorities in America “in chains.”

“2015: The Year of Resistance with a firm dedication to the liberation of Black, Brown and oppressed communities, along with dismantling the New Jim Crow, we would like to honor our sisters and brothers who paved the way in our nation and around the world!”

According to the Ferguson protest leaders who went to Israel to “rail” against that country’s policies, among the “oppressed communities” of the world are the Palestinians in Gaza, who they compared to black residents of racially torn Ferguson, Missouri.

And in proclaiming their commitment to agitate on behalf of the Palestinians, the #BlackLivesMatter protesters boast that they have powerful and prominent people on their side, including the President of the United States.

From the statement on their website: “The Ferguson and Eric Garner protests, staunchly supported by President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder and informal adviser Al Sharpton, have well-documented strains of anti-Israel sentiment running through them.”

By clicking on the video above, you can watch an account of the trip to Israel produced and published by the Ferguson protest group, which included university professor and racial activist Marc Lamont Hill, often seen as a commentator on CNN and MSNBC.

It’s interesting to note that this Ferguson protest group has been agitating in Israel as relations between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Obama have been publicly deteriorating.

Western Journalism has also reported on the apparent attempt by Obama campaign cronies, as well as John Kerry’s State Department, to actively influence the outcome of the upcoming Israeli elections — reportedly working on the ground, in Israel, against the re-election of Netanyahu.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

The Price Of Speaking Truth To Power: $80 Million

Holder Obama

Leftists love using the phrase “speaking truth to power.” But when Standard and Poor’s, the respected credit ratings service, told the truth about the federal government’s out-of-control spending, power came crashing down on its head.

In August 2011, S&P lowered America’s credit rating below AAA because it found that the government’s ability to manage its finances had become “less stable, less effective and less predictable.” This set off a firestorm within the White House. The Treasury Department publicly attacked the report, and then-Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner called the CEO of the company and threatened them. According to reports of the conversation, Geithner promised that the company would be “looked at very carefully” and would “be held accountable for that.” Harold McGraw III, the CEO of S&P’s parent company, said in a sworn deposition that Geithner said: “Such behavior could not occur without a response from the government.” The response came; and it was swift, harsh, and costly.

The Obama Administration unleashed Attorney General Eric Holder on the company. In August 2013, the Department of Justice sued the company for fraud in their ratings of mortgage-backed securities in the years leading up to the financial crisis of 2008. According to the DOJ’s theory, S&P ratings of the securities were tied to relationships they had with the investment firms. The government was threating the company with $5 billion worth of fines. There was no mention of the fact that other credit rating services also rated the same securities as safe. The New York Times noted that “S&P, one of three major agencies offering advice to investors about the quality of debt investments and the only one to face a Justice Department lawsuit, stood out as the rare company to actually follow through and fight the government.” It is clear that the actions of the DOJ were in response to the company’s decision to warn Americans about the coming debt crisis.

S&P decided to fight back by making motions in court demanding documents, emails, and other information connecting the White House, the Treasury Department, and the Department of Justice, in an effort to connect the dots between the credit downgrade and the actions of the DOJ. Not surprisingly, DOJ opposed those motions in court, castigating the effort as a “fishing expedition.” Turning the screws, the DOJ, again in the words of the New York Times, “invoked an obscure federal law passed a quarter-century ago after the savings and loan scandals. The law, the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989, or Firrea, requires a lower burden of proof than criminal charges and empowers prosecutors to demand unusually large penalties: up to $1.1 million per violation.”

Faced with the threat to the future stability of the company, S&P was forced to settle to get the Obama Administration off their backs. This week, we discovered that the cost of speaking “truth to power” is about $80 million — the amount of money S&P will be forced to fork over to the government for speaking the truth about the country’s financial mess.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom