Extremists laud Wright for 'black liberation theology'

Defense of Farrakhan a source of pride for New Black Panther Party

Posted: April 28, 2008

9:36 pm Eastern

By Aaron Klein

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

JERUSALEM – Rev. Jeremiah Wright demonstrated he is a "man of principle" by sticking to his teachings of "black liberation theology" during today's highly publicized session with the news media, Malik Zulu Shabazz, national chairman of the New Black Panther Party, told WND in an interview.

Shabazz, who was in the audience at Wright's National Press Club event in Washington, said he was particularly proud of Wright's defense of Nation of Islam head Louis Farrakhan.

He also labeled as "strong" Wright's accusation U.S. policy was to blame for the 9-11 attacks.

"I respect [Wright] for [defending Farrakhan,]" said Shabazz. "When I look for leadership I look for people of integrity who will stand up for what they believe in and not denounce somebody just because the heat is on... [Wright] stood up and continues to stand up on why he supports Farrakhan and he stands by him."

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

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

During a question and answer session at today's event, Wright praised Farrakhan as "one of the most important voices in the 20th and 21st century... that's what I think about him."

"Louis Farrakhan is not my enemy. He did not put me in chains, he did not put me in slavery, and he didn't make me this color," said Wright.

Wright quoted Farrakhan stating "Zionism, not Judaism, was a gutter religion. He was talking about the same thing United Nations resolutions say, the same thing now that President Carter's being vilified for and Bishop Tutu's being vilified for. And everybody wants to paint me as if I'm anti-Semitic because of what Louis Farrakhan said 20 years ago."

Wright accused the U.S. of carrying out terrorism and used Scripture to defend his claim 9-11 signified that "America's chickens are coming home to roost."

"Jesus said: 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.' You cannot do terrorism on other people and expect it never to come back on you. Those are biblical principles, not Jeremiah Wright bombastic divisive principles," he said.

Shabazz told WND he thought Wright's remarks about 9-11 were "strong... He didn't cut off his principles. He backed it up with Scripture."

Shabazz chalked up Sen. Barack Obama's recent statement distancing himself from some of Wright's positions as "pure politics."

"Because of the climate in which Wright has been raised to the point where it's the number one political liability against Obama... I believe the Wright you have seen the last few days is the Wright Obama met."

Wright himself today indicated Obama was not sincere in distancing himself from his spiritual adviser of nearly 20 years.

"He didn't distance himself. He had to distance himself, because he's a politician, from what the media was saying I had said, which was anti-American," Wright said.

Shabazz said pro-black groups should not change their tactics to ensure the election of Obama.

"Everybody in the black community can't all the sudden change the way and tactics of what they are doing just to please Obama...we love him and respect him and want him to win...but he is not some Messiah-like figure where every way he moves we have to move and we have to always carefully consider what we do and how it may impact him when it comes to the critical matters of the advancement and liberation of black figures."

Shabazz has given scores of speeches condemning "white men" and Jews.

His 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 marks.

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.

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 Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

When Shabazz was denied entry to Canada last May while trying to speak at a black action event, he blamed Jewish groups and claimed Canada "is run from Israel."

Canadian officials justified the action stating he has an "anti-Semitic" and "anti-police" record, but some reports blamed 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 March.

In a 1993 speech condemned by the U.S. Congress and Senate, late NBPP chairman 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."

WND previously broke the story when the NBPP endorsed Obama on its own page of the presidential candidate's official site that allows registered users to post their own blogs.

The group labels itself on Obama's site as representing "Freedom, Justice, and Peace for all of Mankind." It links to the official NBPP website, which contains what can be arguably regarded as hate material.

To interview Aaron Klein, contact M. Sliwa Public Relations by e-mail, or call 973-272-2861 or 212-202-4453.


There Is No New Black Panther Party: An Open Letter From the Dr. Huey P. Newton Foundation

In response from numerous requests from individual's seeking information on the "New Black Panthers," the Dr. Huey P. Newton Foundation issues this public statement to correct the distorted record being made in the media by a small band of African Americans calling themselves the New Black Panthers. As guardian of the true history of the Black Panther Party, the Foundation, which includes former leading members of the Party, denounces this group's exploitation of the Party's name and history. Failing to find its own legitimacy in the black community, this band would graft the Party's name upon itself, which we condemn.

Firstly, the people in the New Black Panthers were never members of the Black Panther Party and have no legitimate claim on the Party's name. On the contrary, they would steal the names and pretend to walk in the footsteps of the Party's true heroes, such as Black Panther founder Huey P. Newton, George Jackson and Jonathan Jackson, Bunchy Carter, John Huggins, Fred Hampton, Mark Cark, and so many others who gave their very lives to the black liberation struggle under the Party's banner.

Secondly, they denigrate the Party's name by promoting concepts absolutely counter to the revolutionary principles on which the Party was founded. Their alleged media assault on the Ku Klux Klan serves to incite hatred rather than resolve it. The Party's fundamental principle, as best articulated by the great revolutionary Ernesto "Che" Guevara, was: "A true revolutionary is guided by great feelings of love." The Black Panthers were never a group of angry young militants full of fury toward the "white establishment." The Party operated on love for black people, not hatred of white people.

Furthermore, this group claims it would "teach" the black community about armed self-defense. The arrogance of this claim is overwhelmed by its reactionary nature. Blacks, especially in the South, have been armed in self-defense for a very long time; indeed, the spiritual parent of the Party itself was the Louisiana-based Deacons for Defense. However, the Party understood that the gun was not necessarily revolutionary, for the police and all other oppressive forces had guns. It was the ideology behind the gun that determined its nature.

Because the Party believed that only the masses of people would make the revolution, the Party never presumed itself to be above the people. The Party considered itself a servant of the people and taught by example. Given massive black hunger, the Party provided free breakfast for children and other free food programs. In the absence of decent medical facilities in the black community, the Party operated free medical clinics. In the face of police brutality, the Party stood up and resisted. Considering the overwhelming number of blacks facing trials and long prison terms, the Party developed free legal aids and bussing-to-prison programs.

The question the Foundation raises, then, is who are these people laying claim to the Party's history and name? Are they reactionary provocateurs, who would instigate activities counterproductive to the people's interests, causing mayhem and death? Are they entertainers, who would posture themselves before the media, and, according to numerous sources, with empty guns, to spin gold for themselves? Are they, given the history of their late-leader Khalid Muhammad, a group of anti-Semites like the very Ku Klux Klan they allegedly oppose? What is their agenda?

Conditions for blacks in America today are worse than when the Black Panther Party was formed in 1966. Blacks in the main continue to live in poverty; disproportionate percentages of blacks die from AIDS and cancer, as the black infant mortality rate continues to be double that of whites. There is a desperate need for liberation agenda. The Black Panther Party unarguably set the example, espousing principles and a history that certainly should be embraced by all those still struggling for freedom. Rather than appropriating the Party's name, however, groups that purport to represent African Americans ought to follow the Party's true historical example. In the absence of such commitment, the Foundation denounces the usurpation of the Black Panther Party name by this questionable band of self-appointed leaders.

It must be pointed out that a person isn't defined by picking out a few people who support him or her relative to supporting others. Shabazz doesn't support Wright in total. He is supporting Wright to a point against those Shabazz supports even less.

The statement that the "white man" is the "devil" is wrong when it is not placed in the proper context. There is a place where the "white man" is the "devil." At the same time, there is a place where the "white man" isn't the "devil."

Who will talk long enough to get beyond the sound bites to make a point and to get at the whole truth? Aren't you tired of all the sound bites? Don't you yearn for real conversation? What happened to the art of conversation? Why is dialogue being reduced to everything but the search for truth?

"[T]here is a little bit of Hitler in all white people." This is a misunderstanding. Not all Whites have even a bit of Hitler in them. A statement such as this comes out from ignorance, just as statements lumping all Blacks together. Confusion is understandable, but an unwillingness to talk is unacceptable. The problem is with those who don't want the truth but rather want to continue on with their selfishness.

Perhaps were Khallid Abdul Muhammad alive and allowed to meet good Whites, he would repent of his statement. Perhaps Shabazz wouldn't be so angry if the whole planet were to turn to peace, love, and truth that Jesus taught and lived and for which he gave his life not as some naive or gullible person but rather as a person who saw the coming wrath.

It is always darkest before the dawn is the old saying. Things must be put into stark contrast. Even George W. Bush knows that. He said war has a way of clarifying things. Too bad he's on the wrong side. Too bad he's for it rather than against it.


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.