Conservative radio host defends slavery. . .

[Triana]

There are many in the GOP who would love a return to slavery - in many forms. Wage slavery, reproductive slavery, and traditional 'work for nothing till you drop dead' slavery. When they say "we want to take our country back", that's likely what they mean. White, male, slave-owning - back to those days.

[snappyturtle]

1. Cenk's video was incomplete. I don't like it when a host cherry picks

words. The complete conversation between Jan M. and his caller is in the link below.
Puts a bit of a different bent to the accusations of Cenk....What really blew my mind
was that Cenk thinks this radio host should be sanctioned? Whether we like his words
or not, there is a first amendment that allows him to voice his opinion. We need to
be careful or we have no leg to stand on when it happens to us.

http://mediamatters.org/embed/static/clips/2015/08/19/41463/who-thejanmickelsonshow-20150817-janimmigrantslaves2

(Transcript also available at link.)

------------------------------------------
What made me curious was Cenk's outrage in what he espoused was sanctioning of slavery.
I, too, thought, how could anyone be for slavery? The radio host says that we know what's wrong with slavery....Cenk knows better....and I expect more from him. Maybe he got a 'lead' and ran with it before thoroughly checking it out.

[Jack Rabbit]

3. Dissenting

I took the time to listen to the unedited version of the discussion between Mr. Mickelson and Fred (thank you for the resource), but I am not convinced that what Mr. Mickelson is proposing isn't slavery.

Mr. Mickelson isn't really arguing against slavery, but rather presenting the kind of sophist justification for his little by telling us that slavery isn't slavery. Fortunately, this little matter is going over like a lead balloon; otherwise, every right wing politician from Ted Cruz to Sarah Palin to Mitch McConnell would be embracing it. So far, there's been no defense of Mr. Mickelson from those quarters.

It is Mr. Mickelson, not Cenk, who uses the word asset(s) to denote an individual held as property of the state. Words like asset and property are seldom used nowadays to denote a human being. A pick up truck owned by a construction contractor is an asset. A coal mine is property for the coal company. True, slaves were assets to those who owned them prior to the Civil War, but that was the point of the Civil War and the three constitutional amendments that were passed immediately following the war.

The use of terms like asset or property, which Mr. Mickelson uses repeatedly in his discussion of the topic, are dehumanizing when used used on a human being. It is the epitome of objectification. What Mr. Mickelson is advocating is the objectification of human beings for the exploitation of their labor. In other words, Mr. Mickelson is advocating slavery.

[snappyturtle]

4. I took the host as saying that the tables have been turned and it's, in his POV,

the citizens of the country who are the slaves to illegal entrants into the country.

Is his use of the word asset not accurately describing the present day incarcerated
in the U.S.? It's a labor force. That would explain his reference to the sheriff out in Phoenix
and that he is advocating imprisonment for an illegal act which can be avoided by obeying
the state border signs he would have erected. Interesting states rights slant.


Not exactly broadcasting from a cave, as Cenk purported, from the state capital...unfortunately, Clear Channel.

Broadcast area Des Moines, Iowa
Branding NewsRadio 1040, WHO
Frequency 1040 (kHz) (also on HD Radio)
First air date April 11, 1924
Format News/Talk
Power 50,000 watts
Class A


I guess my biggest beef is with Cenk. Just tell me completely what Jan Mickelson said.

As far as the repubs not saying anything, I think they're laying in the weeds waiting to see which way the wind is blowing.

[Jack Rabbit]

5. Yes, the host did say that

I took that part of his argument as simply preposterous. There are studies that show that illegal immigrants contribute more to the US economy more than they take away from it.

As for Sheriff Arpaio, his name and "law" should not be mentioned in the same sentence. How would you feel about working people on a wall without pay and with minimal housing and nutrition? That sounds like slavery to me, too. As for "the law," it seemed to be noticeably absent from Mr. Mickelson's proposal. Mr. Mickelson's signs say that illegal aliens will become property of the state, not that those suspected of being illegal aliens they will be prosecuted. That sounds like something Sheriff Arpaio would like to do, too.

[Jack Rabbit]

2. "Read the Constitution" Civics lesson for Mr. Mickelson:

Is this clear enough for you Mr. Mickelson?

Thirteenth Amendment

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Of course, if the Donald can cite "lawyers" who argue that the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't mean that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside when it says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside," I suppose Mr. Mickelson can find a right wing shyster or two who will argue that the Thirteenth Amendment doesn't mean what it says, either.

Right wingers (I still refuse to use the word conservative to denote these reprobates) have declared war on the US Constitution as amended following the civil war. Voter ID laws, in spite of claims by right wing politicians and functionaries like Karl Rove, are about preventing American citizens from voting. That nullifies the Fifteenth Amendment. At least one Republican presidential candidate says there is no such thing a birthright citizenship, in spite of the Fourteenth Amendment's declaration that all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens. Now a right wing propagandist asks, "What's wrong with slavery?"

These right wing reprobates couldn't be more clearly wrong.

[snappyturtle]

6. Sounds to me that if a crime is committed and conviction reached, one could be

subject to slavery or involuntary servitude. I think Mr. Mickelson considers illegal entry into the U.S. a crime.

[Jack Rabbit]

7. I have two problems with that explanation

First, if the Thirteenth Amendment prohibits slavery or involuntary servitude (those are the words), then slavery cannot be the punishment for a crime. You would have a better chance trying to make it a capital crime. In additions, modern conventional standards would demand that Mr. Mickelson's "assets" must be fed and housed better than Sheriff Arpaio would feed or house them.

Second, my experience with right wingers doesn't permit me to assume that Mr. Mickelson believes in due process, especially for people who are not white Anglo-Saxons. Perhaps I'm wrong and he does. On the other hand, perhaps you're being overoptimistic.

[snappyturtle]

8. ??????

Thirteenth Amendment

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

[Jack Rabbit]

9. Ya got me, pardner

[snappyturtle]

10. I'm sorry. I was really trying to make sure my old brain was reading what I

thought I was reading.