Archive for July 8th, 2010

Obama DOJ Refused to Prosecute New Black Panther

Thursday, July 8th, 2010

“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.

“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.”

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.”

Original Link.

“Open-Borders DOJ vs. America” by Michelle Malkin

Thursday, July 8th, 2010

The Obama administration’s lawsuit against Arizona, officially unveiled on Tuesday, is an affront to all law-abiding Americans. It is a threatening salvo aimed at all local, county or state governments that dare to take control of the immigration chaos in their own backyards. And it is being driven by open-borders extremists who have dedicated their political careers to subverting homeland security policies in the name of compassion and diversity.

The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, headed by Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez, took the lead in prepping the legal brief against Arizona. The son of immigrants from the Dominican Republic, Perez is a far-left lawyer and activist who worked for the late mass illegal alien amnesty champion Ted Kennedy and served in the Clinton administration DOJ. While holding down a key government position there in which he was entrusted to abide by the rule of law, Perez volunteered for CASA de Maryland — a notorious illegal alien advocacy group funded through a combination of taxpayer-subsidized grants and radical liberal philanthropy, including billionaire George Soros’ Open Society Institute (not to mention more than $1 million showered on the group by Venezuelan thug Hugo Chavez’s regime-owned oil company, CITGO).

Perez rose from CASA de Maryland volunteer to president of the group’s board of directors. Under the guise of enhancing the “multicultural” experience, he crusaded for an ever-expanding set of illegal alien benefits ranging from in-state tuition discounts for illegal alien students to driver’s licenses. CASA de Maryland opposes enforcement of deportation orders, has protested post-9/11 coordination of local, state and national criminal databases, and produced a “know your rights” propaganda pamphlet for illegal aliens depicting federal immigration agents as armed bullies making babies cry.

In 2006, CASA de Maryland threatened to protest at the schools of children whose parents belonged to the pro-immigration enforcement group Minuteman Project — and then headed into the Montgomery County, Md., public schools to recruit junior amnesty protesters who were offered school credits for traveling with CASA de Maryland to march on Washington.

Read the complete article here.

“Enemies of The Cross” by Jack Kinsella

Thursday, July 8th, 2010

In 1897 Irish novelist Bram Stoker published his most famous work, “Dracula” about an aristocratic Transylvanian vampire that stalked the night (and the nightmares) of Victorian England.

Although the novel, Dracula enjoyed great literary reviews, it wasn’t until Hollywood turned it into a movie script that the vampire legend became part of popular Western culture.

Stoker chose the name “Dracula” primarily because the name means “dragon” or “devil” in Romanian. Stoker’s vampire hunter, Dr. Van Helsing, explains why his crucifix would protect him from the count:

“There are things that so afflict him that he has no power … as for sacred things, as this symbol, my crucifix … to them he is nothing, but in their presence he take his place far off and silent with respect.”

In the classic film version, Bela Lugosi would hiss and snarl and back away from a crucifix; in later movies, any cross would do, including two crossed sticks.

In Richard Matheson’s I Am Legend (1954), the protagonist, Robert Neville, notices that only some vampires fear crosses. He eventually concludes that these vampires were Christian in life. They fear crosses because they believe that they ought to. Neville explains,

“As far as a cross goes—well, neither a Jew nor a Hindu nor a Mohammedan nor an atheist, for that matter, would fear the cross.”

This interpretation appears again in Roman Polanski’s The Fearless Vampire Killers (1967). Here, a woman presents a cross to an undead Jew who merely laughs and states, “You’ve got the wrong vampire.”

What made Dracula such a hit in Victorian England and early 20th century America was the contrast between absolute evil, represented by Dracula (dracul – the ‘devil’ Dracula – ‘son of the devil) and absolute good, represented by the Cross of Christ.

The absolute evil of Dracula was utterly powerless when confronted by the symbol of the Cross of Christ. When facing it, even the immortal undead Count Dracula had no choice but to bow his head and back away.

That is what thrilled the audiences of yesteryear. Not the power of the undead. The Power of the Cross.

As society secularized, movie vampires became increasingly immune to either crosses or holy water. In the modern Twilight series, one vampire actually keeps a large wooden cross in his study.

Modern audiences are more impressed with the power of evil to triumph over good.

Last year, the vicar of a church in England’s West Sussex ordered a large sculpture of a crucifix removed from outside the church because “it was scaring young children.”

The sculpture once located at the side of St John’s Church in Broadbridge Heath, has now been given to Horsham Museum. The Reverend Ewen Souter told the BBC;

“Children have commented on how scary they find it and how off-putting they find it as a symbol outside the church.”

I can sympathize and even agree with the principle that the empty cross symbolizing a risen Christ is more powerful, but removing a crucifix because it scares little children hollows any theological justification.

It is the job of the Church to teach Christ crucified in order to explain the purpose of the miracle of His Resurrection.

That same week, the vicar of another English church, this one in Cheshire, permitted the British TV show Coronation Street to film a wedding scene at the altar of St Mary’s Church.

Reverend James Milne later called the decision by the producers to hide the cross displayed on the altar so as to avoid offending viewers ‘a disgrace.’

In Spring Lake, Illinois, Reverend Ian Lawton, pastor of the Christ Community Church ordered their cross removed from the steeple after changing the name of the organization to the C3Exchange.

Lawton said the changes were designed to reflect the church’s growing diversity and the open-mindedness of the church members. One of the problems with being too open-minded is that if you’re not careful, your brains might fall out. That seems to be the case with C3Exchange.

“Our community has been a really open-minded community for some years now. . . We’ve had a number of Muslim people, Jewish people, Buddhists, atheists. … We’re catching up (to) ourselves.”

Lawton said the church decided to change its name about a year ago and began taking ideas from members. He said the new name was chosen because the church is on Exchange Street, and “our community is a place where people can come to exchange ideas.”

He said the church is considering painting a heart, a globe and the word “exchange” on its exterior wall on the side where the cross stood, to symbolize “one love” for “all people.”

“The cross,” Reverend Lawton said, “has become a negative symbol for a lot of people.”

Lawton outlined his plan for ‘dechurching’ the former Christ Community Church building’s interior over the next year, replacing Christian-themed banners and rearranging the building’s layout.

“We want to make the whole experience from the moment people walk in the church … to match our inclusive identity,” he said. “We’re not trying to change anyone, because we say, ‘Come as you are.’”

Which begs the question, ‘Why bother?’

“Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” (1st Corinthians 2:8)

Ephesians 2:8-9 says that salvation is a gift of grace through faith and not of works, lest any man should boast. One doesn’t need to be a theologian to be saved. One needn’t ever attend a church of any description to be saved.

But apart from the Cross, there is no salvation. The Scriptures say that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God and that even one sin is too many to have fellowship with God.

Sin is punishable by death. Jesus lived a sinless life and paid our sin debt on the Cross.

“For He is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in His flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in Himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that He might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:” (Ephesians 2:14-16)

The oldest lie in the Book is the one used to tempt Eve; “Ye shall be as gods.” We want to believe we play a role in our salvation, which would give us God-like power.

“But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by Whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.” (Galatians 6:14-15)

The Cross is the symbol of God’s power. The Cross symbolizes the reality that God does all the work. It robs the enemy of his most effective tool. The enemy hates it. So the world hates it.

“And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient . . .” (Romans 1:29)

As the crosses come down, the minarets keep going up. It’s irrational, but that is the nature of the supernatural. The evidence is all around us.

“For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.” (Phillipians 3:18-19)

The enemies of the Cross aren’t winning. They are separating themselves from the Cross in preparation for the coming judgment.

“And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie, that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but took pleasure in unrighteousness.” (2nd Thessalonians 2:7)

These are the last days. They are supposed to be ‘perilous times.’

Original Link.