Tuesday, May 19, 2009

The Low Art Of Political Seduction

Rush Limbaugh discusses Barack Obama's commencement speech at Notre Dame on his show yesterday. He pointed out that Barack Obama is a master at the "Low Art of Political Seduction" Mark Levin describes Obama as a charismatic demagogue. They are right....



Rush goes on to say:

"This is not about abortion. This is about the low art of political seduction. This is about Newspeak. This is about turning what is immoral into the moral. This is about Barack Obama persuading the people of this country to vote against their own very interests all the time. This abortion discussion today is just an illustration, is just an example of it. It's the most recent one since it happened yesterday. We're not debating abortion. Now, you might think so because I'm asking some questions about what Obama said. If there's nothing wrong with it, then why all this confusion, if there's nothing wrong with abortion, why all this stress, why all this tension? And where do you compromise here? I don't know where the moderate, middle ground is on life and death. I just don't know where it is. I don't know where you compromise on victory and defeat. I don't know where you compromise on good and bad, good and evil, I don't know where you compromise on it. But see, we're supposed to compromise on everything, and for that to happen, notice Obama is not changing his position. We have to change ours, because of his successful practice of the low art of political seduction."

I think it is simply amazing that we are witnessing 1984, and Animal Farm. Was George Orwell some sort of prophet or what? But the ideology of the left is exactly as Rush contends that which is moral is immoral because it isn't politically correct to offend. The positively astonishing part about this in my humble opinion is how easily Christians have accepted this "Orwellian morality" and just like Obama they cherry pick the message of Jesus Christ to accommodate anything and everyone. In fact, why isn't the left up in arms? He invoked Jesus Christ in his speech. He invoked the name of Christ. Where's separation of church and state? The president of the United States at a commencement speech went out and talked about Jesus Christ and detailed how he was delivered to Christ(ahem, really?). Now, you let George Bush or somebody go to Notre Dame and make this speech, I guarantee you that's what they're going to be focusing on, how the Republican president should not enforce and impose his religious views on people. What did we get but Obama imposing his religious views, or attempting to have us justify or accept his? It's the low art of political seduction.

Rush goes on to say: (I couldn't get all of this in the video clip I'm new to movie maker):

"I'm illustrating the low art of political seduction practiced by President Obama, how he just made a speech advocating a point of view or suggesting that we peacefully co-exist here, but he didn't detail his position here. I want you to know what his position is in his own words. This is in the Illinois state Senate, April of 2002." (Then he plays an audio clip of Barack Obama from 2002:)

OBAMA: And that essentially adding an additional doctor, who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.

RUSH: Now, here he is talking about the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act and why he was going to vote against it. And he voted against it three times, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, because it would be a burden to bring in another doctor, okay, the abortion doctor botches it, so you gotta bring in a third doctor to save the baby. That's a burden on the first doctor. It's a burden on the second doctor; it's a burden on the mother, who intended to abort. Here's Obama, August 16, 2008. This is Lake Forest, California, after the Saddleback Civil Forum with Rick Warren, the Christian Broadcasting Network's David Brody talked to Obama, said, "Real quick, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, they're basically saying they felt like you misrepresented your position on that bill."

OBAMA: Here is a situation where folks are lying. I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely and fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported, which was to say that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born, even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level. What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe v. Wade. By the way, we also had a bill -- a law already in place in Illinois that ensured lifesaving treatment was given to infants. So for people to suggest that I and the Illinois Medical Society, so Illinois' doctors, were somehow in favor of withholding lifesaving support from an infant born alive is ridiculous.

RUSH: Well, play number nine real quick again. He says ridiculous? Well, let's listen to number nine again. (He played the soundbyte below)

OBAMA: And that essentially adding an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.

RUSH: Now, if he's going to start calling people liars, we're going to have to ignore what he said on three different occasions in order not to call him[self] one.

Amazing....utterly amazing.

75 comments:

DJ Black Adam said...

@ALL CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIANS:

" Mark Levin describes Obama as a charismatic demagogue. They are right...."

Boy, I hope the actually Anti-0Christ doesn't show up, you all are wayyyyy too distracted....

MuscleDaddy said...

DJBA,

So acknowledging that Obama is a charismatic "leader who obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace",

...is going to distract people from the 'actual antichrist'?

Tell me, were you thinking that when the Antichrist comes, he's going to be in the form of some foaming, face-biting Charles Manson?

Or do you think that it's rather more likely that he'll slide up sideways with clean hands, a nice smile, smooth voice, a good suit - and seeming to say everything that everyone wants to hear all at once?

In order for the Antichrist to do what he needs to do, he's first going to have to convince everyone that it's okay to forsake God, and buy into what he's selling as though it were the right thing to do.

Do you have anything to say regarding Obama's (latest) snake-oil doublespeak?

- MD

DJ Black Adam said...

@Muscle Daddy:

You write: "So acknowledging that Obama is a charismatic "leader who obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace",
...is going to distract people from the 'actual antichrist'?"

Well, since I don't think most people, even those professing to be Christians, will know the anti-Christ when he or they show up, I think obsessing about Barack with veiled Hitler comparisons won't help and obscures their view.

You write: "Tell me, were you thinking that when the Antichrist comes, he's going to be in the form of some foaming, face-biting Charles Manson?"

Nope.

You wrote: "Or do you think that it's rather more likely that he'll slide up sideways with clean hands, a nice smile, smooth voice, a good suit - and seeming to say everything that everyone wants to hear all at once?"

I think if it is one individual, he and his herald will both be very smooth criminals.

You wrote: "In order for the Antichrist to do what he needs to do, he's first going to have to convince everyone that it's okay to forsake God, and buy into what he's selling as though it were the right thing to do."

Sorry, I am unfamiliar with the eschatological view that the anti-Christ or his herald will try to influence people to "forsake" God (at least not how liberals do with atheism), I believe this individual or group will claim to BE God and / or His Messiah, which Barack clearly has not done.

My whole point in my writing, is that Obama ois no MORE or LESS "antiChrist" than any other president, these "oh he's so charismatic" attacks are tired and old.

Katrina said...

Why do the uninformed always make assumptions?

I don't believe Obama is the anti-Christ for a second. He is much too sloppy in his work. He is nothing but a typical liberal and the only people fooled by him are liberals.

DJ Black Adam said...

@Katrina:

"Why do the uninformed always make assumptions?"

Perhaps you should ask yourself that question. If my statement does not apply to you, then why reply?

Fact is the MANY of the conservatives who comment here and even our host CBW have made those statements about Barack, and the whenever right wingers invocke that "charismatic" stuff about Barack, it is ususally framed in "messianic" references.

Anonymous said...

LOL Katrina, my thoughts exactly. Here is something I read at another blog and because I found it both insightful and hilarious(well,maybe not so much), I thought it was worth sharing: "WOW! We've come a long ways, baby! Is that sulfur I smell? Darn tootin', cuz hell is just around the next corner! Please return your seats to their upright position and prepare yourself for some good 'ol teeth knashing! The democratic party has become home to all that is reprehensible and despicable, which should come as little or no surprise when you take into account that insignificant things like morals, scruples, ethics, consciences, God, etc., have been permanently banned from the party, much to the pleasure of your obama's, pelosi's, reid's and soro's of the world. If hitler were alive today, the first words out of his mouth would be, "WE WON?!?" (end of quote)

DJ Black Adam said...

@Anonymous:

You have made my point for me.

Jay said...

Great Article! You remind me a a Thomas Sowell with a female's perspective! Revolution is at hand!

JMK said...

Both Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh are taking issue with what they view as the Obama administration's disastrous policies.

Neither of them spoke in any "Messianic" terms, nor likened President Obama to the anti-Christ.

Moreover, their basic point is correct, regardless of how polarizing either of these two may be.

We just had eight years of a break FROM Reagan/Gingrich Supply Side policies under G W Bush.

Bush Jr. was as Keynesian as was Richard ("We are all Keynesians now") Nixon and his father George HW Bush, who turned back FROM Reagan's Supply Side policies (which reduced the Misery Index EVERY year Reagan was in office UNTIL it reached single digits, where it stayed until the end of his second term) back toward a more Keynesian approach, which resulted in four years of double digit Misery Indexes (a 10.2 average annual Misery Index, second only to Jimmy Carter's 16.8).

One of the major problems we face today is that Keynesianism is being touted as a SOLUTION to problems that were caused by Keynesianism.

At the end of Barack Obama's 100 days, we saw the stabilizing of the stock market, interest rates remaining low and a return of consumer confidence....what economists have called a "recovery" from the credit crisis of 2008.

Many economists and the CBO believe that this recovery will be short-lived BECAUSE of the policies of the current administration - quadrupling the deficit in the first 100 days, a spending pace that would double the National Debt in a year!

The interest on the national Debt has grown FROM 5% of GDP at the endo fo 2008 TO nearly 16% today and economists fear it could skyrocket to over 50% by 2012!

The pressure from that debt level is already leading toward inflation, which will only accelerate as the reckless spending continues. High inflation will bring on higher interest rates and with so many U.S. companies continuing to lay off workers to cut costs, we could easily see STAGFLATION (double digit inflation, interest and unemployment rates) by 2010.

The only thing that can be said is that there was NO Supply Side choice in 2008.

McCain was indeed a Republican poised to happily continue the Bush Keynesian policies and Barack Obama promised even MORE Keynesianism than Bush and McCain offered.

Just as LBJ's and Nixon's reckless Keynesianism imploded under the even more Keynesian Carter, G W Bush's Keynesianism seems poised to implode under the current administration.

On that score, the likes of Limbaugh and Levin are right. They may, in fact, be hyper-partisans, but on the issue of the failures inherent in Keynesian policies, they're almost certainly correct.

IDSC For Life said...

I am not sure what he is up to, but this is an interesting article. Stop on over at IDSC For Life to see our take on his speech.
http://idscforlife.wordpress.com/

DJ Black Adam said...

@JMK:

"Neither of them spoke in any "Messianic" terms, nor likened President Obama to the anti-Christ."

That is a matter of perception.

JMK said...

"@JMK:"Neither of them spoke in any "Messianic" terms, nor likened President Obama to the anti-Christ."That is a matter of perception. (DJBA)
<
<
Not really.

Levin's objections have never come close to religious, they are purely political....same for Limbaugh.

The problem that the Left has is HISTORY, not religion.

History shows that Keynesianism has ALWAYS failed and ALWAYS led to less prosperity and less opportunity (See Jimmy Carter's STAGFLATION), as opposed to Supply Side policies, which ALWAYS lead to MORE prosperity for MORE people and MORE opportunities (Reagan cleaned up Carter's mess, dropping the Misery Index EVERY year until it reached SINGLE DIGITS and Gingrich, the first Congress to preside over significant federal budget cuts in recent years, also brought on the best economy in the last 40 years, but a number of budget surpluses).

Yeah, history is THE problem for the Left.

Anonymous said...

Conservative black woman-- I was wondering what happened to you! Caught your blog talk radio show once before this disastrous election, but couldn't find you again. Delighted to see you're still around. --johninca

Lisa Graas said...

As a faithful Catholic, can I add my take on this with Obama and Notre Dame? Rush is right that it's not about abortion. Obama knows that the greatest enemy of socialism has always been the Catholic Church and he will use every opportunity he can to drive a wedge between the bishops and the ones we call "cafeteria Catholics". That's what this was about. He doesn't care about getting the honor. He doesn't care about the graduates or about reaching consensus on abortion. The only thing Obama is about is Obama and his own power. His biggest "moral" issue is "economic justice". Translation? Socialism -- which, again, has the Catholic Church as its greatest enemy. If he didn't want to be divisive, he could have politely bowed out and spared the university the trouble, but no, his agenda is to send the opposition into turmoil. He made Notre Dame students choose between him and their God and they chose Obama. So, they don't care about how badly his agenda is against the teaching of the Church. They will support him, and he is eating that up like so much gravy.

afrocity said...

CBW,

I love it when Rush parses Obama's speeches. I truly believe that he knows Obama better than anyone else.
I also did not appreciate Obama taking the opportunity to discuss abortion during a graduation. Graduation speeches should be about the students and their future. Not a political platform. It may backfire and he will find that fewer schools invite him to speak for fear of media backlash.

uptownsteve said...

"I don't believe Obama is the anti-Christ for a second. He is much too sloppy in his work. He is nothing but a typical liberal and the only people fooled by him are liberals."

Which would equate to a majority of the electorate.

Obama's polls are at 68% approval.

And black folks like you are riding Rush Limbaugh's jock.

And YOU think WE are the blind ones.

ROTFLMBAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

uptownsteve said...

"Both Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh are taking issue with what they view as the Obama administration's disastrous policies."

Meanwhile both seem oblivious to the disastrous policies of the last 8 years which destroyed a robust economony and squandered a record budget surplus.

And who was in charge?

Conservative Black Woman said...

UTS~You write"Meanwhile both seem oblivious to the disastrous policies of the last 8 years which destroyed a robust economony and squandered a record budget surplus.

And who was in charge?"
Actually what you imbacilic Obama acolytes refuse to acknowledge either because of ignorance or denial is that a democrat congress were in control since 2006. Secondly, Obama outspent Bush's eight years of wreckless spending by his THIRD WEEK in office.

The collective stupidity of you Obama supporters is mind-boggling. Ya'll need to find a dog that will hunt because that tired azz "8 years of Bush" tract is idiotic, especially in lieu of the fact that the housing bubble expanded in the first place because the democrats thought it was "racist" to impose regulations....I have the video in the "Audacity of Hope-o-crisy" post. I have several friends who weren't complaining about "financial oppression" under Bush in the last 8years as they mortgaged their houses to the hilt, pulled out cash and spend it like monopoly money and are now crying that it's Bush's fault. Of course, the housing bubble burst because people who couldn't afford 500K houses (in PG county) purchased them anyway and now it's time to pay the piper. Except they aren't paying the piper but individuals who had enough common sense not to over extend themselves must pay for them. It's the same story with the credit card industry. Those individuals who pay their credit cards off at the end of the month and are RESPONSIBLE will now be penalized by doing so because of Barack Obama's intervention. Sorry UTS if you are too narrow in your scope of reason to think beyond commonly held opinion then continue to RYBAOTFL and we'll see how funny it is in 8 years when your net worth has dwindled because the government confiscates more of your money to pay for the stupid decisions of Barack Obama and his den of corrupt cronies. Even if your income taxes don't increase (but they will), and your available tax deductions and credits don't decrease (but they will), Barack & company will get you on by levying add'l taxes on your utilities, your cell phone, at the gas pumps -- hell their will be a "sin" tax attached to twinkies, and soda. Why, because these leftist kooks are going to enforce their belief system down the throats of Americans one way or the other. If you don't see the soft tyranny inherit in that perhaps you should read more history...there is more to history than slavery, segregation and Jim crow laws. Wise up..UTS.

BTW, I have never said that Barack Obama is the Anti-Christ it would be much too obvious. No he is just a power hungry, America hating, radical extremist.

Conservative Black Woman said...

I should have said...I have never said that Barack Obama is the Anti-Christ it would be much too obvious. No he is just a power hungry, America hating, radical extremist..WHO HAS MASTERED THE LOW ART OF POLITICAL SEDUCTION!Which would explain his 68% approval rating.

DJ Black Adam said...

@CBW:

Well you kinda hinted at it here:
http://conservativeblkwoman.blogspot.com/2009/04/jesus-name-above-every-nameexcept.html

and in any case, it is basic rhetoric for you Conservative types or has been for the last year:

Obama is the anti-Christ

Obama is the false prophet to come before the anti-Christ

Obama is a Muslim

Obama is a socialist

Obama is a communist

Obama isn't even an American citizen

etc, etc, etc.

Fact is, you all seem like raving lunatics, and it is hard to take any of your positions seriously if you keep slandering the guy with this type of lunancy.

Conservative Black Woman said...

Come on DJBA I don't throw hints...that even if someone in the Obama administration requested that they cover that insignia that true to form, once again these watered down, luke warm, tepid so-called Christians rolled over and threw Christ under the bus...you know just like all of the so-called Christians who voted for this radical, godless high priest of death in the person of Barack Obama.

Those who think it's foolish, lunacy to called behavior which is socialistic "socialism" are those who are ignorant or in denial.

Those who fail to see that "black" folks who feel like their lot in life is not going to improve because of Obama is a messianic-esqe point of view are again those who are either ignorant or in denial.

I'm personally am not of the opinion that Barack Obama is a communist but I understand how one could think he is because of the fact that his grand-parents belonged to the communist party USA, he was mentored by Frank Davis who was a member of the commuist party USA and the communist party USA endorsed him. So saying that he is a communist doesn't make one a lunatic just those who made a reasonable assumption based on his history and affiliations.

Likewise those who believe that Barack Obama is not a citizen also are not lunatics but are drawing a logical and reasonable conclusion based on the fact that he will not release his birth certificate...the certificate of live birth that was released is a proven fraud. I personally don't care whether or not he was born in the USA. I personally believe that he is constitutionally ineligible to hold the office of President because I personally believe he is a naturalized citizen. I believe that when his mother moved him to Indonesia that he was forced to relinguish his American citizenship in order to enroll in school because Indonesia did not allow duel citizenship at that time, further in the 81 he traveled to Pakistan at time when it was very difficult for American citizens to do so...see state department travel advisory
http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/travel/cis/southasia/TA_Pakistan1981.pdf

I believed he travelled to Pakistan using an Indonesian passport. It is therefore logical to assume if he had an Indonesian passport that he was a citizen of Indonesia at some point. Knowing that Indonesian did not allow duel citizenship we would have had to relinquish his American citizenship and in order to get it back he'd have to become a "naturalized" citizen which would render him ineligible to hold the office of President. However, the Supreme court doesn't care so it's a moot point...but clearly I'm no lunatic for holding that belief.

uptownsteve said...

"Secondly, Obama outspent Bush's eight years of wreckless spending by his THIRD WEEK in office."

Yeah, bailing out failed companies which ran wild and reckless under Bush's deregulation of markets.

"especially in lieu of the fact that the housing bubble expanded in the first place because the democrats thought it was "racist" to impose regulations..."

omigod.

Are you trying to blame the credit and banking crisis on black folks????

Banks freely extended credit to both individuals and companies based not on income or net worth but credit rating which created the bubble which eventually collapsed.

And CBW, you don't believe that your beloved "War on Terror" which is actually an occupation of a sovereign nation at the tune of %4 billion on month for 6 years hasn't hurt this economy???

"we'll see how funny it is in 8 years when your net worth has dwindled because the government confiscates more of your money to pay for the stupid decisions."

I've already seen my net worth decrease by a fourth over the last 3 years due to the tanking economy that rightwingers created.

That's why they were voted out you know?

I'm betting that the economy will level off and eventually rebound due to Obama's policies which currently have the support of most of the American people.

You folks on the far right are baying at the moon and grasping for straws and scapegoats when the culprits of all this mess is in your mirror.

Everyone sees it but you.

Conservative Black Woman said...

I meant to say "Those who fail to see that "black" folks who feel like their lot in life is now going to improve because of Obama is a messianic-esqe point of view are again those who are either ignorant or in denial.

Conservative Black Woman said...

UTS~"Are you trying to blame the credit and banking crisis on black folks????"

No I'm blaming on the democrats who rejected the efforts of Bush and McCain to more closing regulate that activity. I also blame the brokerage companies for bundling these bad loans and selling them as investment instuments backed by the US gov't.

I said "friends" not black folks but the point I was making is that the mantra that proceedth from the mouths of my "friends" who actually happen to be black is that it is Bush's fault when in point of fact the finacial situation they find themselves in is their OWN. It is a LIE, that George Bush and his administration caused this financial crisis. That's what I'm saying. Stop trying to twist my very clear and cogent responses. I said what I meant...I'm in no mood to day to hold back. So rest assured I will tell you exactly what I MEAN absent of any innuendos.

uptownsteve said...

Strawman CBW.

You are determined to make black people these dependent children lacking initiative and waiting for handouts and deliverance.

It's downright offensive.

Especially when you, A BLACK WOMAN, cheerlead for an obviously failed conservative philosophy, eight years of incompetent governing, and a party that doesn't even want black people in it!!!!!

To quote Bob Hoskins in "The Cotton Club"....

"Somebody oughta cut out your brain and pickle it. You're the craziest nut I've ever known!"

Conservative Black Woman said...

UTS~you write "And CBW, you don't believe that your beloved "War on Terror" which is actually an occupation of a sovereign nation at the tune of %4 billion on month for 6 years hasn't hurt this economy???Riddle me this? Why doesn't Obama end my "beloved" War of terror? Further why is he sending MORE troops to both Iraq and Afganistan?

uptownsteve said...

"No I'm blaming on the democrats who rejected the efforts of Bush and McCain to more closing regulate that activity."

Oh lawd, pass the Kool Aid.

Bus actually loosened regulation on housing lending.

http://www.brownpride.us/forum/bush-administration-policies-loosened-regulations-residential-lending-t27751.html

Conservative Black Woman said...

"You are determined to make black people these dependent children lacking initiative and waiting for handouts and deliverance."

How pray tell do you draw that conclusion. I don't believe that but I do believe that you must be on crack. Because you are reading something other than what I wrote.

uptownsteve said...

"Why doesn't Obama end my "beloved" War of terror? Further why is he sending MORE troops to both Iraq and Afganistan?"

CBW, you're listening to too much rightwing radio and THEY LIE.

Obama is drawing down on US troops in Iraq and beefing up forces in Afghanistan where Al-Queada is headquartered.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/28/world/fg-obama-iraq28

uptownsteve said...

"How pray tell do you draw that conclusion."

Because you said this and things like it before.

"Those who fail to see that "black" folks who feel like their lot in life is now going to improve because of Obama"

Conservative Black Woman said...

I listen to right-wing radio, and I read liberal blogs and listen to NPR...I will not say they lie but I will say the majority are clearly operating on "low-wattage" intellectually speaking. The liberal media outlets are masterful at spin, leveling hilarious funny digs and insults and giving half-truth...not much else.

Right wing media backs up their claims with proof data. While both sides get emotional at least the right has documented proof on their side. I submit for your review proof that the democrats shut down regulations for Fannie and Freddie...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs&feature=player_embedded

DJ Black Adam said...

@CBW:

Generally speaking, I think both right wing and liberal media are biased and not to be trusted. But you wrote:

"Right wing media backs up their claims with proof data."

Yep, they build fictions using facts in a fraudulent manner.

JMK said...

"Bush actually loosened regulation on housing lending." (UTS)
<
<
The G W Bush administration certainly DID sign onto the 0% DOWN FHA mortgage criteria and allowed Congress to direct Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to BUY/GUARANTEE a HUGE amount of all that new, high-risk, subprime debt.

The Bush administration is, without question, guilty of "trying to close the minority homeownership gap at all costs", and in the process embarked on a set of policies that allowed banks and brokerages to, in effect, counterfeit credit. The Liberals in Congress seemed to have acted on far more pernicious grounds, seeking to politicize that issue. That's born out by their being able to rebuff both the Bush administration's and John McCain's attempts in 2003 and 2005 to subject both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to more oversight and regulation.

Bush did two good things during his tenure; (1) he cut income tax rates across the board and income tax revenues skyrocketed and (2) he belatedly engaged in the military war on terror...after the jihadists had been waging a relentless war against America and American interests since 1993.

Aside from those two things, which he DOES deserve a LOT of credit for, he was a very pro-big government Keynesian.

He spent MORE (even adjusted for inflation) on reckless, wasteful social spending than even LBJ did.

He passed one of the most far reaching and expensive pieces of business regulation (Sarbannes-Oxley) in the wake of the Enron, Worldcom, Tyco scandals that raged during the 1990s and broke in the first Summer of the Bush administration.

Sarb-Ox has been blamed for causing the "jobless recovery" of 2002 - 2003, as businesses didn't add many new jobs during that recovery, largely due to the new expenses incurred by Sarb-Ox.

Congress was happy to pass Sarb-Ox, but rebuffed the G W Bush administration's calls for more oversight of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac.

We've had unbridled Keynesianism since the Summer of 2001 and since January 2007 (the start of the Pelosi-Reid era) we've gotten even more Keynesianism (and MORE economic woes) and since January 2009, we've embarked on the biggest Keynesian shift since the days of Jimmy Carter.

The last Supply Side economy America had was that of 1995 thru 2000, with some of the LOWEST Misery Indexes in four decades and one of the most prosperous periods in post-WW II America.

uptownsteve said...

"he belatedly engaged in the military war on terror...after the jihadists had been waging a relentless war against America and American interests since 1993."

How was attacking Iraq engaging in a War on Terror?

The bombers of both 1993 and 2001 World Trade Center attacks were Saudis.

You know, Bush business partners and buddies.

Of course there were other domestic terror attacks during the 90s.

Numerous abortion clinics.

The Federal building in Oklahoma City.

The 96 Atlanta Olympics.

But the perps all American Christian white boys so we can't call THEM terrorists.

JMK said...

"The bombers of both 1993 and 2001 World Trade Center attacks were Saudis." (UTS)
<
<
I really hate correcting you so much (OK, no I don't), but NONE of the 1993 WTC bombers were Saudi.

Whoops!

In fact, the bomb maker for that attack (Abdul Rahman Yasin) was, ironically enough - Iraqi....reared in Baghdad no less.

"Abdul Rahman Yasin (born April 10, 1960 (1960-04-10) (age 49) helped make the bombs used in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing attack. Yasin is of Iraqi heritage and grew up in Baghdad."Yasin, 43, was born in Indiana and holds dual Iraqi and U.S. citizenship, according to the FBI. He is of Iraqi heritage and moved there as a child, returning to the United States in 1992, according to the FBI."Abdul Rahman Yasin, who mixed chemicals for the 1993 WTC bombing, ended up in Iraq. On March 5, 1993, U.S. Attorneys let him go back to Iraq, where he grew up. No one knows why those officials let him go. Yasin is still believed to be in Iraq."Unlike Yasin, Ramzi Ahmed Yousef did get life in prison for his role in the 1993 bombing.

Ramzi Yousef is a nephew of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, of al Qaida infamy. Yousef wasn't Saudi either. He was Kuwaiti.

Kuwait remains an ally of the U.S.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was a member of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda organization. He wasn't Saudi either. He was also born and raised in Kuwait.

He headed al-Qaeda's propaganda operations from sometime around 1999. According to the 9/11 Commission Report he was "the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks."He is also thought to have had, or has confessed to, a role in many of the most significant terrorist plots over the last twenty years, including the World Trade Center 1993 bombings, the Operation Bojinka plot, an aborted 2002 attack on the U.S. Bank Tower in Los Angeles, the Bali nightclub bombings, the failed bombing of American Airlines Flight 63, the Millennium Plot, and the murder of Daniel Pearl.

In March 2007, after four years in captivity, including six months of detention at Guantanamo Bay, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed — as it was claimed by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal Hearing in Guantanamo Bay — confessed to masterminding the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Richard Reid shoe bombing attempt to blow up an airliner over the Atlantic Ocean, the Bali nightclub bombing in Indonesia, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and various foiled attacks.

The other two 1993 WTC bombers weren't Saudi either. They were Egyptian brothers Mahmud Abouhalima and Mohammed Abouhalima, both were in the USA on expired visas and subsequently won amnesty under a farmworker program after making up bogus claims. They went on to participate in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

And yes, Egypt too, remains an ally of America's an has been a major recipient of American foreign aid.

Amusingly enough, the lead hijacker in the 9/11 attacks (Mohammed Atta) wasn't a Saudi, he was also Egyptian.

Hijackers Marwan al-Shehhi and Fayez Banihammad of Flight 175 were from the United Arab Emirates.

Yes, the UAE remains a stalwart ally of the USA too.

Ziad Jarrah of Flight 93 was Lebanese.

JMK said...

As for, Timothy McVeigh (OK City), and Eric Rudolph (a serial abortion clinic bomber and the real Atlanta Olympics bomber) were called "domestic terrorists" by the U.S. government and the media and they were treated far harsher than any foreign terrorists to date.

And I guess it's fittingly and ignorantly ironic of you to inject race yet again into this topic on the very same day when four American blacks were arrested in Newburgh, NY, over their involvement in a major domestic terror attack.

SEE: http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local&id=6824114

AND: http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/20/4-arrested-in-new-york-terror-plot/

Incredibly enough, you have a perfect track record UTS....You haven't been right on a single thing you've pontificated on.

You didn't know the difference between the National DEBT and a Budget DEFICIT, that Congress, NOT the U.S. President controls the federal budget, didn't know the facts about NYC's horrific crime rate under David Dinkins administration, nor its astounding decline under the Guiliani administration, nor the real legacy of the Reagan years.

They say "Even a stopped clock is right twice a day," but you defy even that dictum....you've NEVER been right on ANYTHING.

uptownsteve said...

"And I guess it's fittingly and ignorantly ironic of you to inject race yet again into this topic on the very same day when four American blacks were arrested in Newburgh, NY, over their involvement in a major domestic terror attack."

And just what "attack" was that racist?

Seems that all the black would be terrorists are arrested before the action and are never found to have any weapons.

I stand corrected about the Saudis and the 1993 WTC bombing.

You do acknowledge that the 9/11 bombers were Saudis, don't you?

One thing for certain, they weren't Iraqis.

So once again JMK, you're just blowing a lot of smoke and not saying anything.

I'm starting to realize that you are merely Constructive Feedback with a small penis and lack of jumping ability.

JMK said...

Don't downplay the seriousness of the Newburgh terror plot.

They sought out and willingly bought what they beleived to be C-4 and a shoulder launched surface-to-air missle.

They deserve the same fate tht Tim McVeigh got, because their intentions were the same.

Just because they were less competent and an FBI informant infiltrated the group, doesn't make them any less vile or dangerous.

The leader of the 9/11 atacks was an Egyptian engineer named Mohammed Atta.

The fact that 15 of he 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudis doesn't make that government, which is STILL considered an ally by the current administration, any less so, any more than the fact that two of the 9/11 hijackers were from the UAE, make that stalwart ally (the UAE is an even more reliable ally to the U.S. than Saudi Arabia) any less so.

Islam is a death-cult, based upon a 7th Century Warlord's blueprint for conquest. One of Mohammed's wives gave him the idea of transposing his warrior ethos into a religion to assure the continued devoion of those he conquered.

There is no such thing as "fundamentalist Islam" (that religion has never had a Reformation, so there's no "reformed" or modernized Islam), just as there's no such thing as "radicalized Islam" - ANY strict adherant of traditional Islam believes in Sharia Law, which is completely incompatible with Western values.

When I say you haven't been right about ANYTHING you've posted about, I'm NOT being mean, just honest.

uptownsteve said...

puh-leeze.

The FBI has been targeting, profiling and survielling black Muslim outfits for years and as soon as they hear any buzz words (Jews, jihad)they swoop in first with the entrapment ("I got a missile to sell you") then the arrest.

The Haitian clowns in Miami a couple of years ago were supposedly planning to bomb the Sears Tower and couldn't even find Chicago on a map.

uptownsteve said...

"Islam is a death-cult, based upon a 7th Century Warlord's blueprint for conquest."

And Christianity's conquests of the lands of the darker people of the world was based on what?

Altruism?

You can't be serious.

DJ Black Adam said...

@Uptown and JMK:

I see where you are coming from Uptown, but I have to agree with JMK regarding the theology (not the people) of Islam.

As religions go, ISLAM by its own doctrine is a religion of force and violence, the Ummah (community of God in Islam) is to be brought by force.

Contrarily in Christianity, the Kingdom of God is not too be forwarded by men or man's violence but by God.

These rare opposites in theology and ideology. In other words:

Islam by CREED is violent, but violence has been the ACTION or DEED of some.

Christianity by CREED is peaceful, but violence has been the ACTION or DEED of some.

Which when you look at Buddhism we find:

Buddhism by CREED is peaceful, and peace has been the ACTION or DEED of some, however there can be violence (as was seen in Thailand recently).

So just like with people, religious ideologies can flawed, but some, like Islam, start with an initial presupposition of force and violence.

JMK said...

"The FBI has been targeting, profiling and survielling black Muslim outfits for years and as soon as they hear any buzz words (Jews, jihad)they swoop in first with the entrapment ("I got a missile to sell you") then the arrest." (UTS)
<
<
Stings HAVE to be initiated BY THE TARGETED individuals.

A member of Perverted Justice going online as a 12 y/o and engaging in conversations with pedophiles who seek that persona out is LEGAL and will ALWAYS stand up in court.

Same when an FBI informant infiltrates a hate group like the one in Newburgh, NY and then, AFTER they set up a plot, the informant puts them in contact wih an undercover FBI agent posing s a Bosnian Muslim with contacts that can get them weaponry and explosives...that too is not only LEGALLY sound, but it's excellent police work, as well.

They have all four of those yardbirds on tape planning to bomb synaogues etc.

Their intentions weren't only idiotic and anti-American, they were jihadist...and for that they deserve the same fate as Tim McVeigh.

As usual, your rigid racial bigotry leaves you unable to acknowledge a black scumbag when you see one.

I'm not surprised.

JMK said...

"And Christianity's conquests of the lands of the darker people of the world was based on what?" (UTS)
<
<
No wonder you're so consistently wrong all the time.

You are an extremely sloppy "thinker."

Christianity never conquered a single country.

Some predominantly Christian nations conquered the more undevelopped and aboriginal peoples of the world...often bringing modern civilization to those parts of th world where primitive barbarism had been the norm until the Colonialists came.

Take a cursory look at post-Colonial, sub-Saharan Africa today, a land where tens of thousands of children, as young as two or three years old, are condemned as "witches" and beaten, tortured and starved in an attempt to rid them of the "evil spirits" within them.

Get a copy of last night's Nightline, where a government official in the Congo, responsible for that country's child welfare bureau, rationalized to a reporter that "Yes, children as young as two y/o CAN be witches and that can be determined by tell tale signs, like black eyes and distended bellies."I guess it can be said that, "Sadly, civilization didn't take hold there."
<
<
<
<
"So just like with people, religious ideologies can flawed, but some, like Islam, start with an initial presupposition of force and violence." (DJBA)
<
<
That's exactly right.

Islam began a a warrior cult that was transformed into a pseudo-religion or cult.

It is a religion and ideology based on the subjugation of women, the outright ownership of children and the self-proclaimed "right" of the Muslim to kill the infidels/unbelievers in their midsts.

Christianity CAN BE and has occassionally been abused, but most of the time (99% of the time) it's been government abusing that religion NOT the reverse.

Islam is predicated on violence and Medieval, sub-human morality and that cult has rarely been able to be reined in by even the most rational of governments.

The difference is between a true religion (Christianity) and a death obsessed cult (Islam).

I'm not even a practicing Christian, I'm a non-denominational Deist, and even I can easily see that very distinct difference.

uptownsteve said...

"Christianity never conquered a single country."

You know your white racist arrogance is absolutely breathtaking.

If Muslim or black invade countries and inflict their will through violence it's barbarism and terrorism.

When white Christians do it, they're instilling civilization.

Unfrigginbelievable.

Did you learn anything in school about the Crusades, which sometimes (the Fourth Crusade) pitted one Christian against another.

Or how about during the fourth century when Constantine declared Christianity the “official” religion of the Roman Empire and so began attacking neighboring states in the name of Jesus Christ.

In the Western Hemisphere, Christians used their scriptures as cudgels against Native Americans.

Until very recently, Protestant and Catholic Christians terrorized each other on the streets of Northern Ireland.

Get real racist.

uptownsteve said...

Oh BTW racist,

All the truth about the Newburgh entrapment and bogus plot against NY synagogues isa coming out now.

Read all about it.

http://www.alternet.org/world/140209/fbi_blows_it:_supposed_terror_plot_against_ny_synagogues_is_bogus/

DJ Black Adam said...

@JMK:

You wrote: "Take a cursory look at post-Colonial, sub-Saharan Africa today, a land where tens of thousands of children, as young as two or three years old, are condemned as "witches" and beaten, tortured and starved in an attempt to rid them of the "evil spirits" within them."

I think one must look at PRE-Colonial sub-Sahran Africa if one wants to be fair in detrmining how much "civilization" the Europeans brought to the Continent, as well as PRE-Colonial Africa in general. Specifically the Ghaninan Kingdom and the Axumite Kingdom.

Just saying....

JMK said...

EVERY example you gave (the Crusades, the Holy Roman Empire and even America's transition to the wonderful nation its become, ALL make my point exactly.

I appreciate that UTS.

Christianity has NEVER conqured a single nation. Some nations that were predominantly Christian did.

Of course that NEVER happened in America. As one of the hallmarks of America's Founders and their documents was unfettered religious freedom.

What I said, "Christianity never conquered a single country.Some predominantly Christian nations conquered the more undevelopped and aboriginal peoples of the world...often bringing modern civilization to those parts of th world where primitive barbarism had been the norm until the Colonialists came..." and that is unquestionably true.

JMK said...

"All the truth about the Newburgh entrapment and bogus plot against NY synagogues isa coming out now." (UTS)
<
<
Family members ALWAYS seek to exonerate their kin accused of crimes.

The FBI and the NYPD claim the tapes show otherwise.

Legal entrapment is so difficult a case to make that to date, there have been NO/ZERO documented (successfully defended) cases of entrapment by law enforcement in the post 9/11 anti-terror procedures.

Entrapment is the act of “getting a subject to do something that they otherwise wouldn’t do, OR engage in an act that they are unaware is criminal in nature.” THAT’S entrapment.

Law enforcement undercovers CAN infiltrate groups, encourage illegal acticvities that the targets bring up and even suggest embellishments to a plot, SO LONG as the subjects initiate discussion of engaging in criminal acts. That’s a FACT.

The classic case of entrapment is an undercover officer asking an unsuspecting stranger to hold a brief case, the subject is unaware contains drugs or other contraband and then arresting that person for “possession.”

That case is virtually mythological in nature.

BUT, that WOULD BE entrapment because that person was unaware that they were engaging in a criminal act.

Another example was displayed in the Randy Weaver case, where undercover FBI agents purchased a shotgun from Weaver (perfectly legal, especially since shotguns are NOT regulated as rifles are). They then go back and demand that Weaver cut the barrel down (which WOULD BE illegal). When Weaver refuses, they tell him, “The deal’s off unless you cut that barrel down,” and then sign out a warrant for his arrest, subsequent to that illegal transaction. FBI agents were charged and convicted in that case and Weaver won a civil judgment for just over $4 Million.

Internet pedophile stings are NOT entrapment because (1) those men ALL know the actions they’re engaged in are illicit and (2) sent illegal emails (it’s illegal to send lewd pictures or lascivious content to a minor) AND entered strange dwellings (the decoy’s houses) willingly, demonstrating that they INTENDED to commit a crime (pedophilia) and were NOT enticed into “doing something they otherwise wouldn’t be inclined to do.”

The fact that you immediately wish to believe the claims of biased family members without hearing law enforcement's case is again, not surprising, given your penchant for sloppy thinking and emotionalized judgment.

uptownsteve said...

"Christianity has NEVER conqured a single nation. Some nations that were predominantly Christian did.

Of course that NEVER happened in America. As one of the hallmarks of America's Founders and their documents was unfettered religious freedom."

And of course those millions of indigenous people who were slaughtered, enslaved and converted were just being "civilized"?

You're a clown.

JMK said...

There were certainly a number of Medieval Sub-Saharan African kingdoms that were based on trade and agriculture, as opposed to the predominant nomadic, hunter-gathering cultures, like the Masai of mid-Africa, that have retained that traditional lifestyle they carried forward from the earliest of times.

In many ways, the most advanced cultures of sub-Saharan Africa were about on par with some of the more advanced cultures among America’s Indians – the Iroquois and the Seminoles. One of the leading Sub-Saharan African cultures was the Mali culture.

For instance, chattel slavery was an integral part of the sub-Saharan economy at a time when the institution of chattel slavery had not even existed in Europe, although the European serf was probably not all that much better off than a slave, bound by law to the land. By even Medieval standards, justice could be harsh in Africa, often similar to the practices employed by America’s Indians. Women had very few rights, and while that was also largely true in Europe as well, women were generally more harshly treated in those cultures. And while Malian women, just like European women, were at times able to participate in business (a fact that disturbed and surprised Muslim chroniclers), it was not a common occurrence in either locale.

After the death of one of its more successful rulers, Mansa Musa, the Kingdom of Mali went into a slow decline. For another century its civilization held sway in West Africa, until Songhay established itself as a dominant force in the 1400s.

Sub-Saharan Africa’s cultural development was merely different than Europe’s and Asia’s.

It may well have developed to the same level of modernity that other cultures have today, or it may have developed along a very different line that led to a far simpler, more environmentally friendly and more inter-dependant and cooperative cultural model, one some might find preferable to today’s Industrial/Information-based model. The same is true for the American Indians and the other aboriginal peoples of the world.

JMK said...

Over a decade ago, I got to speak to a controversial CUNY African Studies professor, named Leonard Jeffries. Jeffries was famous for his view about “Ice people” (whites) and “Sun people” (blacks)...he is viewed as a bigot on par with fellow CUNY professor Michael Levin.

Sadly both men are virulent racial bigots.

My take on Jeffries view is that his basic premise has some merit, just not in the way he thinks.

In fact, the bulk of the aboriginal peoples lived and developed in the warmer, more hospitable equatorial regions of the world (“Sun people”), while the bulk of whites, certainly European whites came from some of the far colder and inhospitable regions (“Ice people”) of the earth.

To complicate that situation, the humans who left Africa and migrated to Europe and Asia encountered a lot more genetic diversity – those who moved into Asia encountered Peking and Java man and those who entered Europe encountered Cro-Magnum man and Neanderthals and as a result they developed differently and with far greater genetic diversity introduced into those populations over time.

Moreover, the harsher extremes in those less hospitable regions forced those humans to deal with scarcity of resources and it inculcated a view that “the earth was a challenge and not a mother” and that “other peoples constituted a threat,” as they competed in the same region for the same scarce resources. Those conditions created a culture focused on “mine and yours” and looking to harness and conquer an inhospitable earth.

When those two cultures inevitably clashed, around the 1200 to 1400 AD, the culture of the “Ice people” crushed and wiped away most of the cultures of the aboriginal “Sun people”.

Overall the imposition of the “Ice culture” on the entire world has been a VERY good thing. That culture has led directly and expressly to the harnessing of nature and the creating of the technologies that we’ve all come to depend upon today.

The fact is that there are no longer any culturally aboriginal peoples, except in a few very remote outposts.

The Africans who’ve moved into Europe and America have become culturally European. They’ve become an integral part of that modern culture which sprang from the earlier “Ice culture”. Which is why, whether he likes the idea or not, UTS here has far more in common with me, then he does with anyone from sub-Saharan Africa.

That’s how fully that “Ice culture” has become the world standard...and we all owe a great deal, all our modern comforts and conveniences to.

JMK said...

Christianity NEVER conquered another nation.

Nations conquer other nations.

In America, a far more advanced, industrial culture REPLACED a far less developed, indigenous culture....that's often a painful process.

It happened in Europe, when the Norse peoples wiped out the original Celts, a swarthy, olice-complexioned people and the Northern "Barbarians" took control of the Old Roman Empire and transformed it into the Northern European Holy Roman Empire, retaining many of the outer trappings and traditions of the earlier Roman Empire, but even Christianity was transformed during that time - many of the original Christian holidays (Holy-days) were moved to comply with the pagan ceremonies of the Northern people - Christmas celebrates the Winter solstice, Easter the Spring and Halloween and the then far more important (All Souls Day) celebrated the Fall Harvest celebrations.

DJ Black Adam said...

@JMK:

"The Africans who’ve moved into Europe and America have become culturally European. They’ve become an integral part of that modern culture which sprang from the earlier “Ice culture”. Which is why, whether he likes the idea or not, UTS here has far more in common with me, then he does with anyone from sub-Saharan Africa."

Fascinating perspective. Unfortunately I don't have very much time to respond to it today. Suffice to say, as a member of the Royal African Society, I have gotten a pretty good view of the continent of my primary ancestors, as a historian in my own right, I have also taken a great look at the many kingdoms of the continent of my primary ancestors. From all that, I have a "different" perspective than the one you have expounded about the overall issue of "civilization" in Africa and in Europe,

While I do appreciate the culture and lifestyle that my ancestors helped build free of charge, I do find it particularly troubling that old Pat Buchanan stand - by that "we black folks should be happy massa brought us over here" shtick. We really don't know how far Africa would have developed had not millions of Africans been kidnapped and sold to the Europeans and Arabs, nor how far western society would be without roughly 400 years of free African labor.

Matter of perspective I suppose....

JMK said...

"We really don't know how far Africa would have developed had not millions of Africans been kidnapped and sold to the Europeans and Arabs, nor how far western society would be without roughly 400 years of free African labor." (DJBA)
<
<
Please don't overlook the primary roll Africans played in the slave trade, DJBA.

It was Africans who sold their neighbors into slavery in both the European and the far larger and longer lasting Zanzibar slave trades.

The industrial Revolution was conceived of and invented in England.

The gasoline powered engine was conceived of and invented in Germany by Fritz Wankel.

America's railroads and canals were predominatly built by Irish, German and some Chinese labor. Its mines constructed primarily by Irish and German labor.

Chattel slavery existed in America from around 1625 to 1863 (about 240 yrs). The bulk of that labor was used for agricultural purposes in the South.

The Northern view, which evolved from those humans who faced a more hostile earth, and dealt with scarcity, has become, and to the betterment of us all, the standard culture of the modern world.

Outside that viewpoint, that worldview, the Industrial Revolution and the Information Age would be inconceivable.

DJ Black Adam said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DJ Black Adam said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DJ Black Adam said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DJ Black Adam said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DJ Black Adam said...

JMK:

You wrote:

"Please don't overlook the primary roll Africans played in the slave trade, DJBA."

As long as you don't continue to minimize the truly PRIMARY role that Europeans played in the slave trade and act as if somehow those who were demanding, transporting, marketing and distributing the African Slaves were somehow less PRIMARY because some African tribes sold out other Africans? In any case, How is that relevant to the overall issue we are discussing? Sure some slaves were sold into slavery by other African tribes, many others were just straight out taken by both European and Arab slave traders.

Just as Arabs are doing in Sudan today, such is how they did in previous times, kill the men, rape the women, enslave the children.

Europeans, from Spain, Portugal, France and England didn't kill the men, they enslaved whomever they could grab , sometimes with the aid of other Africans, doesn't absolve either party.

You continue with:

"Chattel slavery existed in America from around 1625 to 1863 (about 240 yrs). The bulk of that labor was used for agricultural purposes in the South."

Since you seem to be trying to understate this issue. Let us talk about the money and economy that existed because of the slaves in the United States and South and Central America, for the colonies and their mother countries?

How did this affect the overall course of history in regards to European power in the world? If you posit it was minimal, as you seem to be doing, please tell us how it was. Explain to me how 240 years (more or less) of labor on the backs of the African Slave was minimal?

JMK said...

“As long as you don't continue to minimize the truly PRIMARY role that Europeans played in the slave trade and act as if somehow those who were demanding, transporting, marketing and distributing the African Slaves were somehow less PRIMARY because some African tribes sold out other Africans? In any case, How is that relevant to the overall issue we are discussing?
Just as Arabs are doing in Sudan today, such is how they did in previous times, kill the men, rape the women, enslave the children.”
(DJBA)
<
<
I responded to YOUR leaving out the PRIMARY roll that Africans played in the slave trade.

Africans grew wealthy selling their neighbors and other Africans they captured into chattel slavery.

Ironically enough, chattel slavery still exists in much of Asia, most of the Arab Mideast and throughout sub-Saharan Africa and it’s not limited to Muslims enslaving non-Muslim blacks, though that is mostly the case in that region.
<
<
“Europeans, from Spain, Portugal, France and England didn't kill the men, they enslaved whomever they could grab, sometimes with the aid of other Africans, doesn't absolve either party.”<
<
Almost ALWAYS “with the aid” and through the profit of “other Africans”.

And again, IF the world were still mired in the agrarian age, chattel slavery would be the order of the day.
<
<
“Since you seem to be trying to understate this issue. Let us talk about the money and economy that existed because of the slaves in the United States and South and Central America, for the colonies and their mother countries?“How did this affect the overall course of history in regards to European power in the world? If you posit it was minimal, as you seem to be doing, please tell us how it was. Explain to me how 240 years (more or less) of labor on the backs of the African Slave was minimal?”<
<
That’s not understating, I merely corrected your claim of “400 years of free labor.”

It was around 240 years and it had no more or less an effect on America’s or Europe’s economies than the so-called “free labor” provided by the serfs of Europe or, for that matter, those workers tethered to “Company towns” in the U.S. where workers worked for less than the cost of their room, board and provisions, charged them by those companies.

Agrarian societies use slave labor. Always have.

In an agrarian society, chattel slavery is a survival issue, an economic issue more than a moral one.

It is ONLY the Industrial Revolution that slowly freed those without access to political connections/power and without significant wealth from serfdom/chattel slavery and even that was a slow and arduous transition, replete with “Company towns” that sought to tether workers to the companies they worked for.

The fact is that virtually all of the slave labor in America was concentrated in the rural South and used for then labor intensive agricultural work.

The “free labor” provided by Medieval serfs and by the workers in European and American “factory towns” provided at least some industrial value, though not nearly as much as a well-paid, well motivated workforce would have.

The Europeans power in the world evolved from their being the among the first to master worldwide sea travel and, of course, the gun and the development of other warfare technologies.

DJ Black Adam said...

@JMK:

"Africans grew wealthy selling their neighbors and other Africans they captured into chattel slavery."

A relatively few Africans gained a relatively insignificant fiscal benefit for selling out other blacks into Slaves. When White people like yourself overstate that, all it makes it look like is if you are misdirecting from the primary agitating factor, that being as I stated before: “demanding, transporting, marketing and distributing the African Slaves”, which is disingenuous at best.

That’s not understating, I merely corrected your claim of “400 years of free labor.”

Another thing that makes you look like a racist, even if you are not one. 400 years takes into account the period of time of slavery, Jim crow and overall black exploitation and second class citizenship that existed here in the Americas, when you falsely reduce that to “chattel slavery” you are being misleading at bets. Again, I'd have to think your only point in even going there is misdirection. The subject in hand is if that labor force was not present would the United States be the super power that it is? To which you write:

“It was around 240 years and it had no more or less an effect on America’s or Europe’s economies than the so-called “free labor” provided by the serfs of Europe or, for that matter, those workers tethered to “Company towns” in the U.S. where workers worked for less than the cost of their room, board and provisions, charged them by those companies.”

More misdirection, talking about the indentured servant status and overall exploitation of company's of their non-Black workers, is making a false either / or, no one is positing that other factors did not help forward western power, I could list about ten, however; to suggest, as you have that the exploitations of the African and the mother continent was peripheral, is disingenuous and an intellectual falsehood.

Like I said before JMK, I don’t think you are a racist per se, nor even a White Supremacist, I do think you cherry pick what you want to hear or know.

JMK said...

"400 years takes into account the period of time of slavery, Jim crow and overall black exploitation and second class citizenship that existed here in the Americas..." (DJBA)
<
<
Yeah...and that's called an exaggeration...an embellishment...a lie.

You know why?

Because 240 years of chattel slavery DOES NOT translate into "roughly 400 years of free African labor."Ironically enough, such embellishments make you look like a racist (despite the fact that I don't believe you are either...see how silly that game is?) and a person who relishes and wallows in a sense of victimization (which I don't believe you really are).

The fact is that Africans selling other Africans into chattel slavery for their own profit was one of the PRIMARY rolls played in the African slave trade.

And AGAIN, if we currently lived in an agrarian society, chattel slavery would be the order of the day.

It was industrialization NOT any moral imperative that really ended chattel slavery in Europe and the Americas....it's also why that institution still exists in large tracts of Asia, most of the Arab Mideast and, ironically enough, throughout sub-Saharan Africa.

So, what value can we attribute to the 240 years of agrarian slave-labor here in the USA?

That really is hard to say.

It anything, it fueled/benefitted the South, which subsequently lost the Civil War to the industrialized North.

In a very real sense, it enriched the Confederacy which lost that conflict, so you COULD argue that the value of that labor could best be measured in Confederate money, which was worthless by the end of the Civil War.

Honesty dictates that we look at such things honestly, DJ. The cultures of sub-Saharan Africa and the pre-USA Americas were agrarian societies predicated on chattel slavery. They were, for the most part, extremely cruel and arbitrary societies steeped in all manner of superstitions.

The sad fact is that there was never any such thing as "the noble savage," just the savage savage.

Another truth is that in the beginning of mankind's development there were two separate worldviews or foundation-cultures, one held by the aboriginal peoples who lived and developed around the warmer, more hospitable equitorial regions and another held by the peoples of the latitudes further north and south of the equator, where the earth was far less hospitable. The latter group dealt with issues of scarcity and competition and developed a worldview based on harnessing/controlling an inhospitable earth and dealing with "others" as competitors rather than guests.

As you'd expect, when those two worldviews ultimately clashed, the Northern view in effect wiped out the equatorial view.

Today, we are all members of the SAME Northern culture. We all adhere to and support private property rights ("mine vs yours"), we honor competition above almost all else and we all benefit from the creature comforts and conveniences that have come from our being able to harness/control nature for our benefits via ever improving technologies.

I think you're, at least in this case, mistaking such honesty for "racism".

DJ Black Adam said...

@JMK:

"I think you're, at least in this case, mistaking such honesty for "racism"."

Not at all, I don't think you are a racist, just wilfully ignorant when convienent.

JMK said...

"I don't think you are a racist, just wilfully ignorant when convienent." (DJBA)
<
<
Bottom-line, the statement, "Today, we are all members of the SAME Northern culture. We all adhere to and support private property rights ("mine vs yours"), we honor competition above almost all else and we all benefit from the creature comforts and conveniences that have come from our being able to harness/control nature for our benefits via ever improving technologies," is not only honest, but undeniably true. There's no controversy about such a statement.

DJ Black Adam said...

@JMK:

The statement you highlighted on your last posting is not what I find problematic. This one more exemplifies that, as you wrote:

"In a very real sense, it enriched the Confederacy which lost that conflict, so you COULD argue that the value of that labor could best be measured in Confederate money, which was worthless by the end of the Civil War."

JMK. There are coproations that still exist that made a lot of their wealth off of the slave trade in various capacities, and some of the riches families in the United States have heirs that gained a great deal of wealth that they still have now because of the slave trade, do you deny this actuality?

JMK said...

"JMK. There are coproations that still exist that made a lot of their wealth off of the slave trade in various capacities, and some of the riches families in the United States have heirs that gained a great deal of wealth that they still have now because of the slave trade, do you deny this actuality?" (DJBA)
<
<
<
<
What I stated about how virtually all that slave labor was used (in agriculture) is absolutely and without question true, DJBA.

Moreover, it was (over 90%) employed in Southern (South-eastern) agriculture, which enriched the South...the Confederacy.

So that's certainly the best (really the only) way to attempt to value that free labor.

Did many others, outside the South, profit from the slave TRADE?Absolutely....from the TRADE, but NOT from the "free labor". That "free labor" was employed as I stated.

Yes, many already wealthy families (with the capital to outfit ships) got somewhat richer in the then legal slave trade, just as there are many wealthy people and some major Corporations that continue to get richer off the sale of tobacco products that reap untold amounts in ill health effects on the population....again, perfectly legal today.

Do companies that owned entities that once transported slaves, or, like insurance giants Aetna and AIG, insured owners for runaway slaves, owe anything despite NOT having profitted from any slave labor, but did from the slave TRADE, owe restitution? It must be noted that Aetna and AIG didn't "make a lot of their wealth off of the slave trade". That was a very small part of their overall business even at THAT time.

England was said to have "profitted the most from the African slave trade" but even at the height of that trade, it accounted for, at most 5% of England's GDP.

You are making two separate charges and mixing two separate and distinct issues - the slave TRADE IS separate and distinct FROM the "value of free African labor."The chattel slave labor was largely/overwhelmingly employed in Southern/Confederate agriculture, rendering it of dubious ultimate value, while the profit-making FROM the slave trade, which is still ongoing today, across large tracts of Asia, throughtout the Arab Mideast and throughout sub-Saharan Africa, while it may be repugnant from a modern perspective, is an entirely separate issue from your proposition about the possible value of that slave labor.

I believe I accurately explained the best case scenario for valuing that slave labor...which was your primary and initial point.

The separate and distinct issue of slave TRADE profits (profits from a TRADE that was legal at that time, just as selling tobacco is today, despite widespread ill-effects) is an even thornier issue.

(1) How can that be properly valued and (2) where is the precedent for making legal transactions illegal and retroactively compensatory centuries later?

It can't be accurately valued and there is no precedent for such retroactive compensation.

DJ Black Adam said...

@JMK:

You write: "Did many others, outside the South, profit from the slave TRADE?Absolutely....from the TRADE, but NOT from the "free labor". That "free labor" was employed as I stated."

Thank you for broadening the impact of the free labor to include the transport, sale, distribution and other industries utilized for the business of the "free labor" the trade in Black African slaves brought.

So yes, the "free labor" directly benefited the south, it indirectly and directly benefitted the rest of the US and to a greater extent the Western world (since I believe people from the north used Cotton, sugar, Bananas, Tobacco, etc., etc.

Thanks JMK, I will retool my initial presupposition and adjust my argument accordingly.

JMK said...

"Thank you for broadening the impact of the free labor to include the transport, sale, distribution and other industries utilized for the business of the "free labor" the trade in Black African slaves brought." (DJBA)
<
<
<
As noted and obviously neither one of us can argue with the FACT that the issues of "slave labor" and the profits from the slave trade, are separate and distinct issues.

It's as I said, "You are making two separate charges and mixing two separate and distinct issues - the slave TRADE IS separate and distinct FROM the "value of free African labor.<
<
"The chattel slave labor was largely/overwhelmingly employed in Southern/Confederate agriculture, rendering it of dubious ultimate value, while the profit-making FROM the slave trade, which is still ongoing today, across large tracts of Asia, throughtout the Arab Mideast and throughout sub-Saharan Africa, while it may be repugnant from a modern perspective, is an entirely separate issue from your proposition about the possible value of that slave labor."<
<
The slave trade was and TODAY (at least in much of Asia, most of the Arab Mideast and sub-Saharan Africa) IS perfectly LEGAL.

We may find such a trade horrific and barbaric, BUT in those regions of the world where chattel slavery is still practiced today (ironically enough, about 70% of the today's world's population), such trade is LEGAL, as it was in the past.

While we could and SHOULD have a second abolitionist movement today, the fact is that concerning that past trade, (1) We simply cannot properly value the profits made on that trade and (2) There exists NO existing legal precedent for making legal transactions illegal and retroactively compensatory centuries later.

DJ Black Adam said...

@JMK:

You wrote: "As noted and obviously neither one of us can argue with the FACT that the issues of "slave labor" and the profits from the slave trade, are separate and distinct issues."

Maybe for your point they are, for mine they are not.

As for your justification predicated on the LEGALITY of the slavery issue, you can save that, you and I have two entirely differet laws when it comes to many issues it seems.

JMK said...

"Maybe for your point they are, for mine they are not." (DJBA)
<
<
<
No, they ARE two separate and distinct, even UNRELATED issues.
<
<
<
"As for your justification predicated on the LEGALITY of the slavery issue, you can save that, you and I have two entirely differet laws when it comes to many issues it seems." (DJBA)
<
<
<
Again, I dodn't offer an OPINION.

In appx 70% of the contemporary world's population, there are NO LAWS prohibiting chattel slavery and the trading in slaves. There are no such laws in most of the Arab Mideast (Sharia Law allows the trafficing in slaves), there are none in most of sub-Saharan Africa and none in large swaths of Asia.

In EVERY legal sense, in those locales, slave trading is "perfectly LEGAL", right now....today!

Over 200 yrs ago it was "perfectly legal" universally.

AGAIN, the problems you face trying to consider a long dead slave trade currently actionable are legion. As I pointed out, the fact is that concerning that past trade, (1) We simply cannot properly value the profits made on that trade and (2) There exists NO existing legal precedent for making legal transactions illegal and retroactively compensatory centuries later.

DJ Black Adam said...

@JMK:

O.K., it seems we are speaking two different languages here, so let me back it up.

One, you have established the FACT that there was wealth generated from the trade of people, and wealth generated from that labor force. Further, that people in the North and Europe benefited from that labor, rather that translated to cheaper food prices, cheaper prices for clothing etc., the fact is there was a measurable benefit.

Two, I don't think that the Black Africans who were enslaved nor their ancestors need be "thankful" or "grateful" for that dehumanizing and IMMORAL (legal or not) enterprise of slavery.

Three, who is saying put a price tag on it, no need, the fact that the enterprise of slavery and the free labor that came with it being factors that lent themselves to establishing the Western powers is a predication or res ipsa loquitur.

Four, the fact of the legality of slavery in some places does not change my overall presupposition or argument, nor can slavery be legal when it is clearly illegal under agreed upon law and treaty within the charter of the United Nations, though logistically not enforceable just because we politically look away doesn’t make it right.

Five, this “savage” status you attribute to sub-Saharan African culture pre-colonialism I find problematic, so pleas define “Savage” and explain how the Ghanaian Kingdom or that of the Kingdom of Axum (where which I have ancestry from) were “Savage”.

JMK said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
JMK said...

"One, you have established the FACT that there was wealth generated from the trade of people, and wealth generated from that labor force." (DJBA)
<
<
There STILL IS "wealth" being generated by TODAY'S ongoing slave trade.

Let's agree that Western Europe (Britain ended chattel slavery in 1825) and America (which abolished slavery in 1863) were ahead of over 70% of the world's population TODAY.

Again, the problem with looking for some kind of recompense for that past trnsgression is that there exists NO existing legal precedent for making legal transactions illegal and retroactively compensatory centuries later.<
<
"I don't think that the Black Africans who were enslaved nor their ancestors need be "thankful" or "grateful" for that dehumanizing and IMMORAL (legal or not) enterprise of slavery." (DJBA)
<
<
You won't find that argument among ANY of my posts.

People today, from EVERY ethnic group can decide for themselves if they feel fortunate to have been born here rather than elsewhere, or not.

Those who do not feel fortunate are certainly free to find another locale that beter suits them.
<
<
"Four, the fact of the legality of slavery in some places does not change my overall presupposition or argument, nor can slavery be legal when it is clearly illegal under agreed upon law and treaty within the charter of the United Nations, though logistically not enforceable just because we politically look away doesn’t make it right." (DJBA)
<
<
Sharia law codifies chattel slavery as legal under that system.

Moreover chattel slavery is legal in large tracts of Asia and most of sub-Saharan Africa as well.

In a global democracy, which we should ALL be thankful we don't have, OVER 70% of the world's governments SUPPORT some forms of chattel slavery.

One thing the adherants of Sharia Law and strict Constituional Originalists, such as myself have in common is a disdain for and a disregard for any kind of "international law" authorized by that malignant body known as the UN.
<
<
"Five, this “savage” status you attribute to sub-Saharan African culture pre-colonialism I find problematic, so pleas define “Savage” and explain how the Ghanaian Kingdom or that of the Kingdom of Axum (where which I have ancestry from) were “Savage”." (DJBA)
<
<
Since you're far more thoughful than UTS, I'll ask you honestly, is that misrepresentation on your part due to skimming what I wrote, or is it more deliberate?

I do think I was pretty clear about the focus of that remark - the predominantly (over 90%) of the cutures in those places that were agrarian. Agrarian societies are virtually all predicated on chattel slavery, the subjugation of women and the maintainance of tribal customs by all manner of cruel an unusual punishments, often for relatively minor infractions. THAT is what makes the agrarian societies of pre-Colonial sub-Saharan Africa, the pre-European America and Medieval Europe "savage".

I merely stated that as honetly as I could, "Honesty dictates that we look at such things honestly, DJ. The cultures of sub-Saharan Africa and the pre-USA Americas were predominantly agrarian societies predicated on chattel slavery. They were, for the most part, extremely cruel and arbitrary societies steeped in all manner of superstitions. The sad fact is that there was never any such thing as "the noble savage," just the savage savage."And yes, even the trading societies of both pre-Colonial sub-Saharan Africa and the ones in the Americas did have chattel slavery, the subjugation of women and a wide variety of cruel and unusual punishments....often for petty offenses.

That's fact should be no more "offensive" than the FACT that Medieval Europe was equally savage and equally ignoble.

DJ Black Adam said...

@JMK:

"People today, from EVERY ethnic group can decide for themselves if they feel fortunate to have been born here rather than elsewhere, or not."

Sure.

Those who do not feel fortunate are certainly free to find another locale that beter suits them.

Sure. And those that think I should be lavishing gratitude for the circumstances that lead to my being here, need to relocate themselves as far away from my physical presence as possible.

JMK said...

"Sure. And those that think I should be lavishing gratitude for the circumstances that lead to my being here, need to relocate themselves as far away from my physical presence as possible." (DJBA)
<
<
<
There's a non-sequitor there....your implying that there are those demanding that you feel "gratitude".

I looked back for any comments that would've implied that and found none, thus that's a non sequitor.

Suffice to say, I'm very glad we agree that "Those who do not feel fortunate to be here, or feel America to be a "hateful" or "unfair" place are certainly free to find another locale that better suits them."