Photos: Obama marched with New Black Panthers

Appeared with notorious racist group while campaigning in Selma,

Posted: October 03, 2011
5:37 pm Eastern

By Aaron

© 2011 WND



Obama with New Black Panther leader Malik Zulu Shabazz and a uniformed member of
the New Black Panther Party at a march in Selma, Ala., in 2007

Newly resurfaced
photographs show President Obama appearing and marching with members of the New
Black Panther Party as he campaigned for president in Selma, Ala., in March
posted the photographs
, reporting the images were captured from a Flickr
photo-sharing account before they were scrubbed.

The photos are reportedly featured in a book set to be released tomorrow by
J. Christian Adams, the Department of Justice whistleblower in the New Black
Panther Party, or NBPP, voter intimidation case.

The book is titled “Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama
Justice Department.”

Among the people visible in the pictures with Obama is NBPP Chairman Malik
Zulu Shabazz, a defendant in the voter intimidation case that Attorney General
Eric Holder dismissed in 2009.

it any wonder the White House wouldn’t prosecute the New Black Panthers? Read
the newest Whistleblower issue, OBAMA’S DEPARTMENT OF INJUSTICE, and discover
the depths of Washington corruption!

Also present was the Panthers’ “Minister of War,” Najee Muhammed.

(Story continues below)



While the photos present new evidence of a possible relationship between
Obama and the controversial black extremist group, WND was first to report in
March 2008 that Obama met Shabazz.


Obama speaks from same podium as New Black Panther leader Malik Shabazz during
campaign event in Selma, Ala., in 2007 (


Speaking to WND, Shabazz
boasted he met Obama when the politician attended the 42nd anniversary of the
voting rights marches in Selma in 2007.

“I have nothing but respect for Obama and for his pastor,” said Shabazz,
referring to Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s former pastor of nearly 20 years.

Shabazz said in 2008 that aside from promoting black rights, he also supports
Obama because he may take what he called a “less-biased” policy on the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

“I have hopes he will change the U.S. government’s position toward the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, because our position has been unwarranted bias.
Time and time again the U.S. vetoed resolutions in the U.N. Security Council
condemning [Israeli] human rights violation. … I hope he shifts policy,”
Shabazz said.

But the extremist added he doesn’t believe Obama could change America’s
policy regarding Israel very much, since, he said, “other, powerful lobbies”
control U.S. foreign policy.

The NBPP is a controversial black extremist party whose leaders are notorious
for their racist statements and for leading anti-white activism.

Shabazz himself has given scores of speeches condemning “white men” and Jews.

The NBPP’s official platform states “white man has kept us deaf, dumb and
blind,” refers to the “white racist government of America,” demands black people
be exempt from military service and uses the word Jew repeatedly in quotation

Shabazz has led racially divisive protests and conferences, such as the 1998
Million Youth March in which a few thousand Harlem youths reportedly were called
upon to scuffle with police officers and speakers demanded the extermination of
whites in South Africa.


Malik Zulu


The NBPP chairman was quoted at a May 2007 protest against the 400-year
celebration of the settlement of Jamestown, Va., stating, “When the white man
came here, you should have left him to die.”

He claimed Jews engaged in an “African holocaust,” and he has promoted the
anti-Semitic urban legend that 4,000 Israelis fled the World Trade Center just
prior to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

When Shabazz was denied entry to Canada in 2008 while trying to speak at a
black-activist event, he blamed Jewish groups and claimed Canada “is run from

Canadian officials justified the action stating he has an “anti-Semitic” and
“anti-police” record, but some reports pointed to what was termed a minor
criminal history for the decision to deny him entry.

He similarly blamed Jews for then-New York Mayor Rudi Giuliani’s initial
decision, later rescinded, against granting a permit for the Million Youth

The NBPP’s deceased chairman, Khallid Abdul Muhammad, a former Nation of
Islam leader who was once considered Louis Farrakhan’s most trusted adviser,
gave speeches referring to the “white man” as the “devil” and claiming that
“there is a little bit of Hitler in all white people.”

In a 1993 speech condemned by the U.S. Congress and Senate, Muhammad,
lionized on the NBPP site, referred to Jews as “bloodsuckers,” labeled the pope
a “no-good cracker” and advocated the murder of white South Africans who would
not leave the nation subsequent to a 24-hour warning.

All NBPP members must memorize the group’s rules, such as that no party
member “can have a weapon in his possession while drunk or loaded off narcotics
or weed,” and no member “will commit any crimes against other party members or
black people at all.”

Read more: Photos: Obama marched
with New Black Panthers

Holder’s Black Panther Shame

Holder’s Black Panther Shame


Posted By Jamie Glazov On July 2, 2010 @ 12:20 am In FrontPage | 21 Comments

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Christian Adams, who served in the Voting Section of the U.S. Department of Justice for 5 years.  He was previously in private practice and also General Counsel to the South Carolina Secretary of State.  He has litigated election cases across the United States on a variety of issues, including voter intimidation and redistricting under the Voting Rights Act. He is a member of both the SC and VA bar.

FP: Christian Adams, welcome to Frontpage Interview. It is a pleasure and privilege to have you here with us.

I would like to talk to you today about your own personal experience in witnessing how Attorney General Eric Holder dropped a New Black Panther voter intimidation case for racial reasons.

But I would first like to start by asking you about the New Black Panthers in general. Describe them to us. How do they contrast with the Black Panthers of Huey Newton?

Adams: The New Black Panthers are a completely different, and more radical, organization.  They are a militant black separatist organization.  They are vehemently anti-Semitic.  While the old black panther party had relations with like minded members of the white community, the New Black Panthers want total racial separatism.  The old black panthers had an ostensible social welfare operation. The New Black Panthers have attempted to engage in some aspects of social welfare but these efforts have only commenced after a great deal of bad publicity in the last few months.

At their core, the New Black Panthers exist to advance a limited, militant and racial agenda.  They have harassed Korean grocers, they have made false allegations against Duke Lacrosse players, and wherever they go, they inject fiery racial rhetoric into their demonstrations.  They have brandished weapons on multiple occasions at these events.   And as hard at it is to believe, the New Black Panthers are so radical and militant, that the old black panthers of Huey Newton want nothing to do with them.  There was actually a trademark fight between the two over the use of the term “black panthers.”

FP: Tell us about the voting intimidation that the New Panthers have engaged in. What are the federal voting intimidation statutes and what has been done about the intimidation?

Adams: Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits intimidation, coercion and threats to voters or those aiding voters, such as poll watchers.  It also prohibits any attempt to do the same.  The Justice Department sued the New Black Panther Party, the national Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz, Jerry Jackson and King Samir Shabazz for violations of 11(b).  Jackson and King Samir Shabazz were posted outside the polling place on election day in 2008.

FP: What were Jackson and Shabazz doing while they were posted outside the polling place on that day? 

Adams: They were yelling racial slurs at whites – “you are about to be ruled by the black man Cracker!” and “White Devils” – and brandishing a weapon.  They attempted to block an individual from entering the polls and were menacing to others. 

FP: What are leftist views of voter intimidation (“suppression”) vs. historical sorts of intimidation?

Adams: Voter “suppression” theories are the next generation of voter intimidation prohibitions.  Voter suppression theories have less support in the law than voter intimidation protections.  Simply, they are more tenuous arguments and possibly bump up against the First Amendment.  In fact, there is really no civil federal law prohibiting “voter suppression.”  After all, every candidate wants to “suppress” the turnout of their opponent’s supporters.

When Barack Obama was a Senator, he introduced a bill that would make illegal any speech that would have the intent or effect of causing voters to be misled.  The Constitutional problems with this sort of regime are obvious.  Nevertheless, enactment of a “voter suppression” law is a priority of many academics and purported civil rights activists.  Voter intimidation laws, in contrast, ban the sort of mischief that has plagued democratic elections for hundreds of years.  Even in the 1700’s in Philadelphia, riots broke out between sailors and Quakers at the single polling place in downtown.  In the reconstruction South, armed white militias clashed with armed black militias around election time.  Indeed, Louisiana essentially had a number of mini-civil wars in the reconstruction period – with the white militias eventually winning and disarming the black militias through some of the first gun control laws in the nation.

The history of voter intimidation in the Jim Crow south was famous, and even affected the attempt to register to vote.  One thing that separates America from thug regimes around the world is how we treasure access to the polling place.  The German elections in 1933 were plagued by poll watchers with truncheons.  Around the world, voters still fear casting a ballot because of the threat of violence.  Protecting the sanctity of the polling place should be one of the top priorities of a free nation.

FP: In our democracy, one would think that there would be equal enforcement of civil rights laws (i.e. against all races of perpetrators) and on behalf of all races of victims.  But that’s not happening is it?

Adams: No, it’s not happening.  The Black Panther case was dismissed and the dismissal was motivated, I believe, by a lawless hostility toward equal enforcement of the law. Others still within the department share my assessment. The department abetted wrongdoers and abandoned law-abiding citizens victimized by the New Black Panthers.  America has been characterized and blessed with great leaders who understood how fragile this grand Constitutional experiment is.  The rule of law is not a mere abstraction.  Equal Protection isn’t just a noble aspiration.  It has real impacts on our lives.  It’s what ensures the farmer plants his fields, knowing a system exists to get the crop to market.  Confidence in law funds and builds homes.  Equal protection before law means we enjoy civil peace, enough peace to build great universities and great institutions.

Examples surround us.  Belief in equality before law is deeply embedded in our cultural and legal history.  Examples to the contrary are anathema to Americans.  That’s the good news – that Americans instinctively rebel against examples of inequality in law.  The bad news is that the constitutional system can only absorb so many blows.  Lawlessness undermines the structures that support civil society, that support this grand Constitutional experiment.  Most of your readers understand this.  The challenge is to ensure that the vast majority of Americans continue to understand it.

FP: What has the DOJ done? Has anything changed since 2009?

Adams: After January 2009, the Attorney General said that the civil rights division was being reopened.  This means a great deal, including the end to a race-neutral enforcement of the civil rights laws.

FP: How were you personally involved in the New Black Panther Case? Why did you quite your job?

Adams: I was one of the 5 attorneys who commenced the case.  Because of the corrupt nature of the dismissal of the case, statements falsely characterizing the case by officials in the Department and, most of all, indefensible orders for the career attorneys not to comply with lawful subpoenas investigating the dismissal, in June I resigned my position as a Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney.

FP: What has been the role of Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez?

Adams: Perez was not at the Department when the corrupt dismissal was ordered.  He was confirmed in the fall of 2009 and has defended it since.

FP: Some media outlets are reporting [1] that you are saying that Perez lied under oath.

Adams: It is not accurate to say that the facts and law did not support going forward with the case.  Tom Perez wasn’t in the Department when the dismissal happened and he didn’t have anything to do with the dismissal of the case.  He isn’t responsible for the corrupt decision to dismiss the case and shouldn’t be blamed for the dismissal.  I have never said Perez knowingly lied under oath.  I said that it is inaccurate and false that the facts and law did not support the case.   Lying under oath involves, as best as I know, more than being incorrect or inaccurate.  In this media age, stories get inflated to generate traffic and that is usually a bad thing.

FP: So what’s really happening here under the Obama administration? Is it “payback” time or what? Has a former oppressed minority now become an empowered majority with vengeance on its mind?

Adams: I don’t think the Obama administration is interested in payback.  But neither do I think it is interested in enforcing the law in a race neutral fashion.

FP: What was your experience in the U.S. vs. Ike Brown case in Mississippi? The Left was pretty enraged about it.

Adams: We won that case.  Ike Brown committed flagrant racial discrimination against whites – threw out their votes, stuffed the ballot box with his votes to dilute white votes, illegally imported ineligible candidates to run, and threatened white voters with a challenge if they sought to vote.  Chris Coates talked about the hostility he encountered when he brought this case.  There were many in the voting section that voiced opposition to it, refused to work on it, and treated him with hostility after he filed it.  It went against the Orthodoxy, to borrow a term.

FP: Who is dictating DOJ policy and what are the consequences?

Adams: The Civil Rights Division is now managed by and populated by folks who believe in leveraging the Division aggressively in only one direction in litigation.  These are not bad people, they are just wrong on many issues.  On many issues they are right, but their hostility to equal enforcement of the law is not one of them.

FP: What are the attitudes and backgrounds of DOJ political appointees?

Adams: This has been written about extensively in other places.  (See Hans Von Spakovsky in NRO).  All of the leadership of the civil rights division comes from what is called the “civil rights community.”  Simply, this means activist groups or causes.  Elections have consequences.

FP: What dangers does this dismissal of the New Black Panther Case pose for the future? What will it mean for the ballot box? And what will it mean for white victims in voting rights cases?

Adams: One of the things that makes America exceptional is how we believe the ballot box as sacred.  Thug regimes around the world and dangerous phases in world history got their start with men in uniforms holding weapons standing in front of polls.  In my mind, history shows that this is one of the characteristics when democracies start to devolve into totalitarian regimes.  I’m not implying America is on that path because, for starters, the widespread outrage to the Black Panther dismissal shows how little tolerance there is for this in America.  But we can never forget the warning signs history has told us, and we must be extra vigilant when they appear.  Ronald Reagan said we are always a mere generation away from losing freedom.  I don’t know whether that is true, but if it is, anytime you have thugs violating our most cherished rights, freedom loving citizens must rise up and give no quarter.

FP: What can be done about this problem?

Adams: The Department could refile the case tomorrow.  They would win the panther case if they did.  It’s tough to admit mistakes in government but this would be a good place to start because nearly everyone would support them.  The Department could also file cases in voting on behalf of white victims to reverse this bad policy.  There are no doubt cases that can be brought, but whether they bring them or not, we will have to see.

FP: Christian Adams, thank you for joining us at Frontpage Interview. We really appreciate you taking the time and energy to speak with us.

Adams: Thanks. You can follow my blogging about elections and the Justice Department at [2].