By
Chelsea Schilling
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
 Minister King Samir Shabazz, aka Maurice Heath (photo: Can't Stop the Bleeding blog) |
"You want freedom? You're
gonna have to kill some crackers! You're gonna have to kill some of
their babies!"
Those were the words of Minister King Samir Shabazz, also known
as Maurice Heath, the New Black Panther
Party's Philadelphia leader.
Shabazz is the same man the Obama administration
Department of Justice refused to
prosecute after he was filmed on Election Day 2008 with Jerry Jackson
wearing paramilitary uniforms, carrying a nightstick and blocking a
doorway to a polling location to intimidate voters.
The following YouTube video posted by Naked Emperor News shows
his statements during a National
Geographic special on the New Black Panthers:
"I hate white people – all of them! Every last iota of a cracker, I hate 'em," Shabazz shouts
into a megaphone on a crowded sidewalk. "Through South Street with
white, dirty, cracker whore [expletive] on our arms. And we call
ourselves black men with African garb on."
Then Shabazz spotted a black man embracing a white woman.
"What the hell is wrong with you, black man?" he shouted into his
megaphone. "You [inaudible] with a white girl on your damn arm!
"You want freedom? You're gonna have to kill some crackers!
You're gonna have to kill some of their babies!"
In a 2008 interview with the Philadelphia
Inquirer, Sabazz said, "I'm about the total destruction of white
people. I'm about the total liberation of black people. I hate white
people. I hate my enemy. …"
National Geographic describes the
New Black Panther Party as "a militant hate group headquartered in Washington, D.C., that seeks to
redefine the black struggle for equality and demand liberation from what
it sees as white supremacy."
The party has marched on Independence Day, dragging American
flags through the streets, trampling the flag on the ground and setting
it on fire. The following video shows members of a New York chapter
protesting celebration of Independence Day at an event called "4th of
U-lie" on July 5, 2008. Members say the day is not a celebration of
independence for blacks.
As WND reported,
one poll watcher called police on Nov. 4, 2008, after he reportedly saw
Shabazz brandishing a nightstick to threaten voters just 15 feet
outside a Philadelphia polling location. Shabazz stood in front of the
building with Jackson.
"As I walked up, they closed ranks, next to each other," the
witness told Fox News at the time. "So I walked directly in between
them, went inside and found the poll watchers. They said they'd been
here for about an hour. And they told us not to come outside because a
black man is going to win this election no matter what."
He said the man with a nightstick told him, "'We're tired of
white supremacy,' and he starts tapping the nightstick in his hand. At
which point I said, 'OK, we're not going to get in a fistfight right
here,' and I called the police."
According to various witnesses, the men also hurled racial
epithets such as "white devil" and "cracker" and told voters they should
prepare to be "ruled by the black man." One person said the men called a
Republican poll worker a "race traitor" and told him there would be "hell to pay."
The following is a YouTube video of the Election Day incident:
Career Department of Justice attorneys
headed by voting-section chief Chris Coates filed a case under Section
11(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 against four defendants, accused
the men of attempting to engage in, and engaging in, both voter
intimidation and intimidation of individuals aiding voters.
The original
Department of Justice complaint named Shabazz, Jackson and two
other defendants: the New Black Panther Party and its chairman, Malik
Zulu Shabazz, who planned deployment of 300 members on Election Day.
A federal judge ordered default judgments against the New Black
Panthers after party members refused to appear in court. The DOJ trial
team had won its case.
Even though DOJ lawyers had won, the Obama administration
suddenly ordered it dropped – against advice of prosecutors who brought
the case.
In April, the New Black Panther Party released a statement
blaming Republicans, "tea-party racists" and "right-wing circles" for
complaining and harassing the organization.
"Our only connection
to President Obama is the common color of our skin," it states. "The
same dog that bites President Obama bites us too. So I say, if you were
wise, you would leave Obama alone as well because he is your last chance
to save your country. You are mad because a black man has been elected
to the presidency, and that affronts your oversized ego."
Christian Adams, a former DOJ attorney who quit his job after over
the Obama administration's refusal to prosecute the Panthers, claims the
administration
has ordered the DOJ not to pursue voting-rights cases against black
people. He said the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which is
investigating the dismissal, subpoenaed him and Coates, but their DOJ
superiors ordered them not to testify – a violation of federal law.
"The case was dismissed on May 15, [2009]," Adams told Fox News.
"All the charges were dropped against three of the defendants and the
final order against one of the defendants was a timid restraint."
Only one of four defendants, Samir Shabazz, faced punishment: a
temporary injunction against appearing at Philadelphia polls with a
weapon. The department stopped at the injunction and didn't call for
criminal penalties, monetary damages or other civil penalties.
"We were ordered to dismiss the case," Adams said. "I mean, we
were told drop the charges against the New Black Panther Party."
The Department of Justice said it made a decision based on the
evidence that the case could not go forward.
As
WND reported, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has suggested it
is now expanding its review of claims that the DOJ implemented a ban on
prosecuting defendants who are black.
At a hearing in Washington this week, Adams testified that
staffers throughout the department have subscribed for years to the
notion that the DOJ's primary responsibility is to protect the voting
rights of minority voters, not whites. He added that recent Obama
administration DOJ appointees have reinforced this notion by making such
racial discrimination a formal departmental policy.
According to Adams, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie
Fernandez, an Obama appointee at the top of the department, announced at
a policy meeting that "the voting section will not bring any other
cases against blacks and other minorities."
Meanwhile, Pajamas
Media reports that three more former DOJ officials are stepping
forward to support Adams' testimony. According to the report, the former
employees have "expressed a willingness to go on record regarding
Adams' professionalism, excellent performance and outstanding record of
enforcing the law without bias."
Pajamas Media adds, "Additionally, they would like to corroborate
Adams' statements about the DOJ" and even offer their own accounts of purported DOJ hostility to
"race-neutral law enforcement."
Asheesh Agarwal, former deputy assistant attorney general in the
Civil Rights Division, worked with Adams on several cases. He called
Adams a "model attorney who vigorously enforced federal voting-rights
laws on behalf of all voters, without respect to race or ideology."
Mark Corallo, former DOJ director of public affairs, added: "I am
not surprised that the Department is attacking J. Christian Adams. The
Civil Rights Division attorneys have no interest in the rule of law as
written and passed by Congress – the New Black Panther case is glaring
proof that the Division has an agenda. If Congress was truly interested
in oversight, there would be hearings on this case and others."
Finally, Robert Driscoll, former deputy assistant attorney
general who knew Adams, told Pajamas Media:
If this is indeed the view of senior
career DOJ staff – that after reviewing the facts of the New
Black Panther case and the video, current laws against voter
intimidation provide no ability for the DOJ to properly bring an action
against the New Black Panther members shown on video and mentioned in
the lawsuit — then Congress needs to have a conversation with Attorney
General Holder about whether the problem lies with the Voting Rights Act
itself, or with those whose job it is to enforce it.