New Black Panther Party 10 Most Wanted List

On the heels of King Samir Shabazz’s recent video, the New Black Panther Party immediately circled the wagons and offered support for their vocal comrade. Malik Zulu (you guessed it) Shabazz has been very vocal in defending his gang of racists and their tactics. Today the group went a step further and released their Top 10 Most Wanted List.

#10 TRISCUIT (PLAIN)

Does anyone really like these anyway? Would anyone miss them if they were obliterated by the Shabazz family? I think not.

#9 SALTINE

Again, other than crumbling them in your soup once in a while, would they be missed? King Samir voiced his personal hatred toward the saltine, claiming his uncle once choked to death on a saltine when a white man wouldn’t give him any water. Samir claims the Saltine Devil has been oppressing the black man for decades.

#8 WHEAT THINS

Rumored to have gone into hiding after discovering they were on this list, Wheat Thins seem to have had success thus far posing as cardboard.

#7 CLUB CRACKERS

A large number of men with the last name Shabazz have openly cursed the Club Cracker. Claiming the name sounds like the cracker thinks it’s better than everyone else and is elitist in nature. The New Black Panther Party has identified the need to eradicate the cracker from the earth.

#6 CHICKEN IN A BISCUIT CRACKERS

The Chicken in a Biscuit Cracker has an up and down history with the organization. Having once been praised and accepted within the party, their relationship soured when party members found out there was no actual chicken in the biscuit. This caused a deep hatred to form within the organization toward the cracker they now claim was an “undercover cracker” planted in the organization by the white devils.

#5 ANIMAL CRACKERS

Nobody really knows why the Shabazz Militia has a death wish for animal crackers.

#4 OYSTER CRACKERS

Oyster Crackers obviously made the list. The organization claims that only white people eat Oyster Crackers, and therefore, they must be destroyed. Also, they look like little “cracker babies”

#3 RITZ CRACKERS

Nothing sounds more like rich, successful, white man than “Ritz”. Because of their obvious hatred towards and stance against people who hold down jobs for a living and actually work to afford the crackers they buy, the capitalist-sounding “Ritz” Cracker ranks high on their hit list.

#2 RITZ BITS

King Samir said it the best in his highly educational speech the other day, “you gonna have ta kill some crackas! You gonna have ta kill some a their babies!” Run Ritz Bits!!! Run!!!

#1 GRAHAM CRACKER

The ultimate hated cracker of the New Black Panther Party. Why, you ask? You don’t understand how such a wholesome cracker with a touch of sweetness could be so hated by this organization. It’s quite simple really. Graham Crackers make Smores. Smores give the world the message that marshmallow and chocolate can live together in harmony, even melt together and form a better flavor along with the Graham Cracker. This type of thought process cannot be tolerated or allowed to exist by the Super Smart Shabazz’s, or Triple S, as I sometimes refer to them. The Graham Cracker is the ultimate Anti-Shabazz, preaching the peaceful coexistence of all races. Beware, Honey Graham, Cinnamon Graham, Golden Graham, and even Teddy Graham. They are hunting you down.

The New Black Panther Party has recently been demonstrating they mean business in regards to this new list. It has been reported that for the last three days they have held vigil with their night sticks beneath the tree of the Keebler Elves, constantly taunting and intimidating them to prevent the creation of new crackers. Attorney General Eric Holder is declining to prosecute the case.

Cracka Killa For Hire...Contact King Samir Shabazz

QUALIFICATION SUMMARY:

A lifetime dedicated to racism toward crackers. Possesses the perfect amount of ignorance and hatred to take care of biznizz.

EDUCATION:

School of Racial Hatred

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE:

Employed by New Black Panther Party, specialize in voter intimidation and wielding of nightsticks. Also possess experience in racial threats

HARDWARE/SOFTWARE

Night Sticks

Bats

Clubs

What's all the fuss about. He seems like a clean-cut, upstanding gentleman to me. Hard to believe he would have a problem being successful in this country. I'm actually surprised he hasn't been nominated for a position in Obama's cabinet yet. He would fit right in with the other Marxists. Seriously, the only difference between this clown and Van Jones is a suit and some veiled tact.

Those Pesky Miranda Warnings

Miranda Rights warnings...they are all the news this week, as Attorney General Eric Holder stated on the weekend Obama administration propaganda shows that he is open to modifying when the warnings are required. The question seems to be centered around these questions: A) Should we give foreign terrorists a Miranda Warning? B) Should we give a U.S. citizen Miranda warnings if they have been deemed a "terrorist?" C) When should law enforcement officials be required to give Miranda Warnings?

Disturbingly, I have heard a lot of commentary from the conservative crowd that immediately provided a blanket answer to the debated questions. Their minds still fresh with the anger of the Obama administration ordering law enforcement officials to Mirandize captured terrorists last year, upon taking office. Allow me to explain my position on these questions and hopefully prevent some from thinking too much on an emotional level regarding these matters.

First a little background. I am a U.S. Marine, but I am also a law enforcement official in the U.S.M.C. so I have a bit of experience regarding Miranda rights, which differ slightly from the Article 31 rights that we use in the military; nonetheless, are in place for the same purpose.

Okay, let's begin with question "C"...I know, an organized person would have started with question "A" and gone in order...I gues you now know something more else about my personality. When do we read Miranda warnings? Without getting into a big legal discussion and boring the pants off of the 30 or so people (I don't know if you know this about me, but I'm kind of a big deal) who read my blog, I will briefly explain:

Miranda rights are required by law enforcement if they are going to ask incriminating questions of a person they suspect of committing a crime who also is in custody. If I wanted to go legal mumbo jumbo I could go on about the specific definitions of "incriminating" "suspect" and especially "custody" but I enjoy my 30 or so readers and wouldn't do that to you, so let's move on.

Many would ask why then, could authorities question our Times Square bombing suspect for multiple hours without advising him? There is a "public safety" clause which was added in 1984 (I think) that allowed for law enforcement officials to question suspects if there was an immediate danger and they could show that the immediate questioning was required for public safety; i.e., a bomb was found in a building and a suspect was identified. Law enforcement officials can question the suspect immediately regarding any other bombs that may be in the building and any other questions necessary to prevent harm to society without stopping and advising the suspect of their rights. So, for the ACLU and any other radical fringe leftist organization that wants to come to the aid of Faisal Shahzad and state that his rights were violated, you are wrong. Eric Holder is correct on his statements from Sunday.

Now to the other two questions, which; unfortunately, many conservatives are bleeding together and referring to as if they are the same. This can happen when people think emotionally instead of logically...we've all been there.

A) Should we give foreign terrorists a Miranda Warning?

HELL NO!!! Any questions??? Seriously, Miranda rights fall under the 5th amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. A foreign individual does not rate the rights of a document drafted by our nation if he/she is not a member of our nation. It's really not that difficult.

B) Should we give a U.S. citizen Miranda warnings if they have been deemed a "terrorist?"

Now here is where it gets interesting. Many are merely blanketing these questions with an overall, emotionally driven opinion that says HELL NO!!! Terrorists don't deserve Miranda rights!! The problem with that answer regarding this question is it is simply incorrect. Any U.S. citizen, whether they be charged with a terrorist act or not, has constitutional rights, which the government has no right to infringe upon. Liberals love when they can get the conservatives thinking on an emotional plane instead of a logical one. Liberals live on an emotional plane and every misguided regulation or bill they introduce is fueled by getting Americans to view it from emotional standpoint. You need look no further than the healthcare debacle from last year. They, rather than debate the logical issues and problems with the bill, attempted to cover them up with emotional stories about little Timmy who suffers from a rare form of some crazy disease, who lives his life in pain every day because his parents can't afford healthcare. The saddest part of that was they made up a large number of the stories. Back to the point.

If there is one thing conservatives must stick to, in order to be successful, they must stay strictly within the confines of the Constitution. By stating that you don't think any terrorist should be allowed their Miranda rights, you are (1) violating the Constitution, and (2) opening a very scary new door which would give the government even more power over your daily life.

I don't know very many people who trust the government with much of anything anymore. Why would we trust them on this one? Anything coming from this administration that sounds good on the surface needs to be examined in depth. It doesn't take much of an investigation of this to see a possible motive for it.

If we remove the requirement for the government to Mirandize a U.S. citizen suspected of terrorism, it may look like a good idea on the surface, but we have to dig a little deeper. Tell me this, who defines "terrorist" or "terrorism"? What is to prevent the administration from later passing an executive order to the effect that any protests or anti-administration rhetoric will be deemed "terrorism"? Now the Tea Party would be a terrorist organization. You don't think that's possible. Obama is already hinting at tightening the grip on free speech in this nation. He just spoke this weekend about the problem with too much information being available to people these days. This, at the same time as his administration is attempting to regulate the internet and talk radio. There are clues everywhere when we stop watching stupid TLC television shows that talk about strange addictions like girls who are addicted to tanning beds or eating chalk (thanks for the material on that one Sharon from The Liberal Heretic) , and get involved in where our nation is headed.

Yes, that's right...I am not lauding the administration today for allegedly moving more to the "right" on terrorists rights because I see their motive in this, and it is certainly not become more "moderate." Call me cynical.