[The Urban Sombrero]

[quote=Truth]I am quite familiar with my interpretation of what liberals like to demonize as Jim Crow laws. My interpretation does not necessarily coincide with those of you and the left.

For example, I believe strongly in the right of free association though it is not specifically set forth in the US Constitution. Of course, liberal courts have created a lot of "rights" that are not mentioned, nor contemplated, in the document.

I am far more concerned with the legalization of the premeditated murder of innocent babies by the women who, through their explicit behavior, produced another human life, than I am with whether or not a white nurse treats a black male patient or with whether or not a black is comfortable with his/her seat on a bus.[

Did Roe v. Wade begin your political activism?

[The Urban Sombrero]

Segregation nicker:

The go to when all else has failed.
This is 2016. It was not the Republicans who wished segregation on anyone....

Segregation is only the issue being used to probe textualism as judicial philosophy. I certainly think it reductionist to blame Jim Crow laws on any particular party. However, I do not think a hide bound textualist approach recognized the affront to dignity that Jim Crow laws presented.

[Hoot Gibson]

I am quite familiar with my interpretation of what liberals like to demonize as Jim Crow laws. My interpretation does not necessarily coincide with those of you and the left.

For example, I believe strongly in the right of free association though it is not specifically set forth in the US Constitution. Of course, liberal courts have created a lot of "rights" that are not mentioned, nor contemplated, in the document.

I am far more concerned with the legalization of the premeditated murder of innocent babies by the women who, through their explicit behavior, produced another human life, than I am with whether or not a white nurse treats a black male patient or with whether or not a black is comfortable with his/her seat on a bus.

Did Roe v. Wade begin your political activism?

Quit pretending that you don't know how to close a quote tag, retread.

[The Urban Sombrero]

While I would agree that the Holy Bible tends to lend itself to interpretation, the admonition against murdering is absolute. Too many people get a preconceived belief and then go to the Scriptures, not to ascertain the meaning presented, but to back up their own preconceived notion. That is not open to personal prejudice when addressing the protection of all human life.

"...protection of ALL human life"... Is your view of death penalty informed by this injunction, or does relative guilt or innocence modify?

[TheRealThing]

When Scripture says that to the Lord, "a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day" that is a statement about time having no meaning to an eternal being. "In one hour" in Scripture also can mean a very small amount of temporal time. Isn't what you just did a bit of gnat straining?

Yes you have that about right, you are gnat straining. You tried to use Rev 18 in a manner such that it's meaning, in some way places value on a human being, Which is incorrect. I allowed you room to crawfish but, as usual you missed the opportunity. And frankly, you and I both know that the analogy you just used to explain God's view of time is one of my all time favs. In plainer terms, you picked that up from me in times past.

But, I'll play along for a bit longer for old time's sake. Had the text said "In that hour" or "In the hour" the time frame would have been nonspecific and likely referencing a small amount of time. Which, if an hour is not a small amount of time I don't know what is. But when the Lord says "In one hour" He means in one hour, 60 seconds. And BTW, time does not exist outside the temporal sense. You have beings that exist in eternity, (timelessness) and you have beings who exist in time. Hence, time has meaning to that which is created only, not to the creator. In other words there is only one kind of time, and that is in the temporal sense. Thus your gnat straining seems to have rendered your analogy a bit redundant.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Yes you have that about right, you are gnat straining. You tried to use Rev 18 in a manner such that it's meaning, in some way places value on a human being, Which is incorrect. I allowed you room to crawfish but, as usual you missed the opportunity. And frankly, you and I both know that the analogy you just used to explain God's view of time is one of my all time favs. In plainer terms, you picked that up from me in times past.

But, I'll play along for a bit longer for old time's sake. Had the text said "In that hour" or "In the hour" the time frame would have been nonspecific and likely referencing a small amount of time. Which, if an hour is not a small amount of time I don't know what is. But when the Lord says "In one hour" He means in one hour, 60 seconds. And BTW, time does not exist outside the temporal sense. You have beings that exist in eternity, (timelessness) and you have beings who exist in time. Hence, time has meaning to that which is created only, not to the creator. In other words there is only one kind of time, and that is in the temporal sense. Thus your gnat straining seems to have rendered your analogy a bit redundant.

I would agree that time has meaning only to that which is subject to death. As to my knowing anything about you or your favorite analogy, that is incorrect.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Revelation 18 states than even the bodies of people are traded like commodities... fine woods and marble and ivory bought and sold and a human being no different. I think the spirit is carrying the writer to note something of what has happened to the image of man there.

[Truth]

"...protection of ALL human life"... Is your view of death penalty informed by this injunction, or does relative guilt or innocence modify?

I'm glad you asked and, of course, I assumed you would do so. The Fourteenth Amendment provides for due process of the law and equal protection under the law. Aborted babies have received no due process or equal protection.

Convicted murderers who are sentenced to death have received due process and equal protection over and over again. Year after year. Look at the statistics. These reprobates have received free appeal after free appeal, over and over. They have, most likely, been on death row between twelve and twenty-five years after receiving their sentences. And, in fact, most never receive their due punishment.

No one seems concerned about the families of the victims. Liberals are too busy looking for loop holes to "save" the murderers. But, these same liberals wholeheartedly support the murder of the innocents as some false idea of the right of a woman to control her own body. Actually, these women have a right to control their own bodies. They can avoid getting pregnant and bringing another human being into the equation.

And, before you post concerning all the innocent people who have been executed, I'll give you the answer. The number is absolute zero. Check it out.

I have always believed in the biblical definition of life. Thus, I was pro-life long before the liberal abomination of Roe v Wade. My belief system is made up of two influences- traditional Catholic and traditional Southern Baptist. And, I do support the death penalty for the constitutional reasons stated.

Using both logic, ethics, and true moral standards:

To oppose abortion and to oppose the death penalty is consistent.
To support the abortion and support the death penalty is, though repugnant in regard to the former, consistent.
To oppose abortion and support the death penalty is consistent.
To support abortion but oppose the death penalty is not consistent.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Justice Brennan was Catholic, and said as a private individual he opposed abortion, and often when reading of some crime would think to himself "that b#&%@" ought to hang. However, he said, in his official duty as a judge, he had to balance the reach and power of the state against the rights of the individual as he interpreted the principles of the Constitution. This tension between personal belief and public function is interesting to me.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Carlos DeLuna is an example of an innocent man executed, and Justice Scalia's concurrent opinion is one place I really think he erred out of petulence and aggravation.

[Truth]

Carlos DeLuna is an example of an innocent man executed, and Justice Scalia's concurrent opinion is one place I really think he erred out of petulence and aggravation.

Well, now, let's take a look at your example of "innocence", Carlos DeLuna. Twenty-nine years after his conviction he was declared "innocent" by the Columbia Human Rights Law Journal by an ultra-liberal, anti death penalty law professor named James Liebman. That highly biased opinion was trumpeted by the anti death penalty group, Death Penalty Information Center.

These opinions are about as believable as would be the Clinton family when they tell us that old Hillary is not an opportunist liar.

Your boy, DeLuna, according to the records, had a long criminal record covering everything from theft to rape. He was definitely a prime candidate to commit murder. And, indeed, he did so and was eventually punished for that crime. Of course, that was six years and ten plus months after he murdered the gas station attendant. That was a bit quicker than most sentences are carried out but I feel sure it wasn't nearly fast enough for the grieving family of the victim.

So, The Urban Sombrero, I reject your example as lacking any credibility whatsoever. As they often say, one must consider the source and your sources lack any degree of veracity. I repeat the fact that no innocent person has ever been executed in this country.

[Truth]

Justice Brennan was Catholic, and said as a private individual he opposed abortion, and often when reading of some crime would think to himself "that b#&%@" ought to hang. However, he said, in his official duty as a judge, he had to balance the reach and power of the state against the rights of the individual as he interpreted the principles of the Constitution. This tension between personal belief and public function is interesting to me.

I would be interested in learning what constitution Brennan was reading when he "discovered" that the US Constitution allowed for federal control of abortion. I suspect he was an activist liberal who ignored the fact that, for 180 plus years, abortion was considered an issue reserved under the Tenth Amendment to each state.

You see, abortion was not illegal in all states prior to Roe v Wade. Roe (Norma McCorvey) could have gone to several other states, like California, to have her abortion. However, instead she got conned by a couple of anti-life liberal women lawyers and, with the support of NARAL, ACLU, NOW, and other such "funders", the assault on life moved forward.

It is interesting that, when the case reached the then liberal USSC, McCorvey was long forgotten and absent from any proceedings and that her baby was born and had been adopted.

Brennan was what one would call a "Cafeteria Catholic" just as is Sonja Sotomayor. He'll answer for that, not me.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Well, now, let's take a look at your example of "innocence", Carlos DeLuna. Twenty-nine years after his conviction he was declared "innocent" by the Columbia Human Rights Law Journal by an ultra-liberal, anti death penalty law professor named James Liebman. That highly biased opinion was trumpeted by the anti death penalty group, Death Penalty Information Center.

These opinions are about as believable as would be the Clinton family when they tell us that old Hillary is not an opportunist liar.

Your boy, DeLuna, according to the records, had a long criminal record covering everything from theft to rape. He was definitely a prime candidate to commit murder. And, indeed, he did so and was eventually punished for that crime. Of course, that was six years and ten plus months after he murdered the gas station attendant. That was a bit quicker than most sentences are carried out but I feel sure it wasn't nearly fast enough for the grieving family of the victim.

So, The Urban Sombrero, I reject your example as lacking any credibility whatsoever. As they often say, one must consider the source and your sources lack any degree of veracity. I repeat the fact that no innocent person has ever been executed in this country.

DNA evidence, relatively speaking, is a new phenomenon. While the DeLuna issue is worthy of more than your "poison well" cursory dismissal, your claim of "never executed an innocent person" is not where the Pope's opposition to the death penalty is anchored.

[TheRealThing]

Revelation 18 states than even the bodies of people are traded like commodities... fine woods and marble and ivory bought and sold and a human being no different. I think the spirit is carrying the writer to note something of what has happened to the image of man there.

Well, this time you at least got a little closer to what is going on in the chapter you referenced. You are right in saying that slaves are bought and sold, when you buy a slave you get a body bound in service. "Image of man?" Men take the image of their father. The saved are conformed to the image of Christ. The lost are of their father the devil.

This point in Scripture is near the end of man's trek though history. The culmination of self gratification. A midstream tap if you will of the 7 year Tribulation period already in progress.

[TheRealThing]

I would agree that time has meaning only to that which is subject to death. As to my knowing anything about you or your favorite analogy, that is incorrect.

None the less, I recognize my own thoughts, as I recognize my own style of writing. And I said that was one of my favs, not my one favorite analogy. So, before you dust off my own work to throw at me, you might consider that in the future, that is if you really do intend to try and sell this sombrero thing.

[Truth]

DNA evidence, relatively speaking, is a new phenomenon. While the DeLuna issue is worthy of more than your "poison well" cursory dismissal, your claim of "never executed an innocent person" is not where the Pope's opposition to the death penalty is anchored.

Wow. You are diverse. Now you are using Pope Frank as a reference. Let's just say that, although I have great respect for the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church, I don't walk lock step with the opinions of any pope and certainly not with this one.

The DeLuna issue has no merit after a delay of twenty-nine years particularly when you are using as your proof the opinions/works of a group with an obvious agenda. The evidence against DeLuna was convincing beyond any reasonable doubt. There is no legitimate evidence to the contrary and certainly no relevance in regard to what is "gleaned" by partisans almost three decades later.

[TheRealThing]

I would be interested in learning what constitution Brennan was reading when he "discovered" that the US Constitution allowed for federal control of abortion. I suspect he was an activist liberal who ignored the fact that, for 180 plus years, abortion was considered an issue reserved under the Tenth Amendment to each state.

You see, abortion was not illegal in all states prior to Roe v Wade. Roe (Norma McCorvey) could have gone to several other states, like California, to have her abortion. However, instead she got conned by a couple of anti-life liberal women lawyers and, with the support of NARAL, ACLU, NOW, and other such "funders", the assault on life moved forward.

It is interesting that, when the case reached the then liberal USSC, McCorvey was long forgotten and absent from any proceedings and that her baby was born and had been adopted.

Brennan was what one would call a "Cafeteria Catholic" just as is Sonja Sotomayor. He'll answer for that, not me.

Well, you're the constitutional law prof. but from my limited point of view, Brennan was just another activist liberal judge. Liberal activism likes to cross dress a bit, you know? It just sounds so lofty to claim near clairvoyance in employing a seer like, dog and pony show dubbed "living document" in order to emphasize the end result over the method of approach, such as in the case of originalism, which restricts interpretive latitude.

Activists always want to change the law as it exists to accommodate current social fads and views. And because Brennan as a liberal, wanted to find a way to authorize or sanction abortion under the authority of the Constitution, he found a way to do so. It isn't in the text of the Constitution, but as in the case of the theory of evolution, men with agendas start with the answer they want, and then retro-engineer the data they need in order to validate the theory. Some deem such machinations to be dishonest.

[TheRealThing]

Wow. You are diverse. Now you are using Pope Frank as a reference. Let's just say that, although I have great respect for the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church, I don't walk lock step with the opinions of any pope and certainly not with this one.

The DeLuna issue has no merit after a delay of twenty-nine years particularly when you are using as your proof the opinions/works of a group with an obvious agenda. The evidence against DeLuna was convincing beyond any reasonable doubt. There is no legitimate evidence to the contrary and certainly no relevance in regard to what is "gleaned" by partisans almost three decades later.

The internet is a many splendored thing! :biggrin:

[RunItUpTheGut]

Justice Brennan was Catholic, and said as a private individual he opposed abortion, and often when reading of some crime would think to himself "that b#&%@" ought to hang. However, he said, in his official duty as a judge, he had to balance the reach and power of the state against the rights of the individual as he interpreted the principles of the Constitution. This tension between personal belief and public function is interesting to me.

Is this kind of like when the liberals on the supreme court illegally made a law which gave gays the right to marry?

Im confused.:eyeroll:

[Truth]

Well, you're the constitutional law prof. but from my limited point of view, Brennan was just another activist liberal judge. Liberal activism likes to cross dress a bit, you know? It just sounds so lofty to claim near clairvoyance in employing a seer like, dog and pony show dubbed "living document" in order to emphasize the end result over the method of approach, such as in the case of originalism, which restricts interpretive latitude.

Activists always want to change the law as it exists to accommodate current social fads and views. And because Brennan as a liberal, wanted to find a way to authorize or sanction abortion under the authority of the Constitution, he found a way to do so. It isn't in the text of the Constitution, but as in the case of the theory of evolution, men with agendas start with the answer they want, and then retro-engineer the data they need in order to validate the theory. Some deem such machinations to be dishonest.

While we are admonished not to judge others, your tagging of Brennan as an activist liberal is correct. Eisenhower stated on a number of occasions that the worst mistakes of his life were appointing Brennan and the equally radical liberal, Earl Warren, to the USSC. He was correct. Those were two devastating mistakes.

The bottom line in these appointments is that Democrats only appoint thoroughbred activist liberals who remain true to their philosophy. Republicans often fail miserably in nominating conservatives with such dedication and passion. Kennedy and Roberts, though allegedly devout Catholics, have been serious disappointments.

Who will replace Scalia? Obama nominates. The US Senate confirms or rejects. Obama, being completely loyal to his black half and ignoring his white half, will nominate a black. Who will that black be? Three good possibilities are Eric Holder who would be near impossible to confirm and may not be young enough to serve for 25 or 30 years, Loretta Lynch who is an absolute rubber stamp for any and all liberal causes, and Cory Booker who is a senator from New Jersey and, though a good spinner of neutrality, just as liberal as the other two. Do you doubt it? Obama is the most race oriented president in history. With him, everything is racial and his dominant half is always a victim. Thus, in light of how he thinks, how can he not nominate a black?

The Republican senators need to grow a backbone and stand strong. Voters, particularly those who believe in the Second Amendment, better wake up and vote as if their right to keep and bear arms is in danger of being taken away. Because, indeed, that is the case. All Obama, Clinton, and Sanders need is one more justice. Fate ridded them of their most able opponent. The other conservatives on the Court are not leaders like Scalia. I cannot overstate the seriousness of this constitutional crisis. Don't any of you doubt it.

[TheRealThing]

While we are admonished not to judge others, your tagging of Brennan as an activist liberal is correct. Eisenhower stated on a number of occasions that the worst mistakes of his life were appointing Brennan and the equally radical liberal, Earl Warren, to the USSC. He was correct. Those were two devastating mistakes.

The bottom line in these appointments is that Democrats only appoint thoroughbred activist liberals who remain true to their philosophy. Republicans often fail miserably in nominating conservatives with such dedication and passion. Kennedy and Roberts, though allegedly devout Catholics, have been serious disappointments.

Who will replace Scalia? Obama nominates. The US Senate confirms or rejects. Obama, being completely loyal to his black half and ignoring his white half, will nominate a black. Who will that black be? Three good possibilities are Eric Holder who would be near impossible to confirm and may not be young enough to serve for 25 or 30 years, Loretta Lynch who is an absolute rubber stamp for any and all liberal causes, and Cory Booker who is a senator from New Jersey and, though a good spinner of neutrality, just as liberal as the other two. Do you doubt it? Obama is the most race oriented president in history. With him, everything is racial and his dominant half is always a victim. Thus, in light of how he thinks, how can he not nominate a black?

The Republican senators need to grow a backbone and stand strong. Voters, particularly those who believe in the Second Amendment, better wake up and vote as if their right to keep and bear arms is in danger of being taken away. Because, indeed, that is the case. All Obama, Clinton, and Sanders need is one more justice. Fate ridded them of their most able opponent. The other conservatives on the Court are not leaders like Scalia. I cannot overstate the seriousness of this constitutional crisis. Don't any of you doubt it.

We seem to be had. The Supreme Court is in great jeopardy of succumbing to liberalism, that's one of the three coequal branches of the federal government. The US Congress is now in the hands of Republicans, who seem to be waiting for direction, that's two of three.

The executive, that's three seems to be the potential remedy for which everybody is waiting, but both of the Presidential campaigns are a swirling mess. A mess for which the outcome looks to have a diminishing likelihood for success. Both sides are hopelessly mired in an embarrassing foodfight. The Democrats are offering the people a choice between a doddering lunatic socialist, and an equally compromised woman, with sufficiently enough feminist and social issues so as to provide the soaps with material for the next decade.

On the Republican side, there seems to be three candidates who would govern in a fashion which does not cater to the globalist view, Cruz, Trump, and Carson. When considering the prophetic texts regarding the one man, who will be the autonomous head of the one world government, with one economy and one church, the specter of globalism should give any American chills. That is one of the main reasons why I do not favor Jeb, Kasich, or Rubio.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Barack Obama's appointees are Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan. Obama seeks diversity, without question. But it seems agenda driven by the conservative posters on this thread to suggest Obama is the most race-oriented President in history. In addition, Justice Brennan was every bit the intellectual force that Scalia was, and simply because he interpreted the Constitution from a different framework doesn't make him an idiot or a satanist.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Again, "Truth," do you recall the occasions which often led Ike to lament his selection of Justice Brennan? You discredit the intellectual and academic vigor of others because of their worldview. Don't you imagine the very ones you discredit do the same? We've got to get beyond the knee-jerk label and stop boot-licking around the internet vagabonding everywhere only for material that reinforces our own biases.

[RunItUpTheGut]

THE SUPREME COURT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DIVERSITY.
They could all be flaming liberals for all I care, AS LONG as they uphold the constitution and correctly decide cases based on the constitution.

No party affiliation or politics should be discussed anywhere. A judges personal beliefs and political ties shouldnt be known to anyone. It has become a spectacle of who's republican or who's dem..

That has no bearing on the Supreme court. Its why gay marriage was legalized. Those justice who passed that phony law didn't want the repercussions of dissenting.
Hell at least with Obama care they somewhat came up with a reach around calling it a tax. They just said F the laws with this other garbage.

[Truth]

Barack Obama's appointees are Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan. Obama seeks diversity, without question. But it seems agenda driven by the conservative posters on this thread to suggest Obama is the most race-oriented President in history. In addition, Justice Brennan was every bit the intellectual force that Scalia was, and simply because he interpreted the Constitution from a different framework doesn't make him an idiot or a satanist.

Your post is ridiculous. Factually, it doesn't warrant a reply. Your characterization of the reasons for Obama's ultra-liberal appointments and your personal conclusion as to Brennan's level of intelligence are laughable. But, then, I must remember that these are merely your opinions and that they have no basis in truth whatsoever. The level of your fantasy is best illustrated by your suggestion that Obama is not the most race oriented president in history. In the law, we often take what we call judicial notice of the obvious. Obama's obsession with race is a good example of the use of the term. Everything with him evolves and revolves around his black half. For you to deny this costs you whatever scintilla of credibility you may have had.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Gay marriage was legalized because a majority of the court held that same sex couples were entitled to equal protection under the law. A Constitutional democracy is not a local congregation of the Baptist Church. In granting rights and freedoms in a Constitutional democracy, liberty of conscience is granted in a whole host of behaviors and enterprises that the majority or the individual might find offensive, even loathesome. There is a price to living in a free society with codified rights and freedoms. It is to be surrounded in the marketplace of ideas and images with opinions contrary, practices offensive, words inflammatory. I might, at the same time, be repulsed by what I see as debauchery when seeing news clips of a gay rights parade where individuals are flaunting every standard of decency I hold to, and yet recognize the delicate splendor of a society which gives right to that which it generally abhors in recognition of the sovereign gift of freedom of conscience within broadly defined rights. It is part and parcel of living in a free society, a Constitutional democracy. The Framers had faith in democracy, but not blind faith.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Your post is ridiculous. Factually, it doesn't warrant a reply. Your characterization of the reasons for Obama's ultra-liberal appointments and your personal conclusion as to Brennan's level of intelligence are laughable. But, then, I must remember that these are merely your opinions and that they have no basis in truth whatsoever. The level of your fantasy is best illustrated by your suggestion that Obama is not the most race oriented president in history. In the law, we often take what we call judicial notice of the obvious. Obama's obsession with race is a good example of the use of the term. Everything with him evolves and revolves around his black half. For you to deny this costs you whatever scintilla of credibility you may have had.

If President Obama saved a puppy, "Truth," you would have something negative to say. "Did you notice it was a black lab?". Ah, the credibility sniffer has deemed me unworthy. I will try to sweep up my shattered feelings. William Brennan was every bit the intellectual that Antonin Scalia was. You just abhor his decisions.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Let us say a majority of Americans living in Mississippi abhor the idea of drinking from the same water fountain as black-skinned people. Can you address that from the textualist framework, "Truth"? Should a Constitutional Amendment have been required to strike down laws such as these? You said previously that your concern was abortion, not so much where black folks sat on a bus.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Has it occurred to you that fifteen, yes, fifteen, Presidents were content to see their fellow human beings bought, sold, beaten, marginalized, captured, forced to labor as oxen and not so much as issue an edict? And you suggest Barack Obama is the most racially divisive President? I am not a huge fan of President Obama, never voted for him, think Cornel West and Tavis Smiley need to radically confront the level of dysfunction and disregard for law and order within black youth culture, but, "Truth" your claim of "obvious" is only such if your mind is closed, your vision clouded, your heart hardened.

[TheRealThing]

Has it occurred to you that fifteen, yes, fifteen, Presidents were content to see their fellow human beings bought, sold, beaten, marginalized, captured, forced to labor as oxen and not so much as issue an edict? And you suggest Barack Obama is the most racially divisive President? I am not a huge fan of President Obama, never voted for him, think Cornel West and Tavis Smiley need to radically confront the level of dysfunction and disregard for law and order within black youth culture, but, "Truth" your claim of "obvious" is only such if your mind is closed, your vision clouded, your heart hardened.

Not that you've got the first clue on a personal level about what you're shoveling here, but knowing your fondness for the internet, I have supplied all who would care to brush up on the subject with a link, which will more than clarify the whole slave situation. (in the historical sense) Not only can slave trade not be hung on 15 US Presidents, it cannot even by hung on white men in general.

EXCERPT---
"The white man did not introduce slavery to Africa . . . . And by the fifteenth century, men with dark skin had become quite comfortable with the concept of man as property . . . . Long before the arrival of Europeans on West Africa’s coast, the two continents shared a common acceptance of slavery as an unavoidable and necessary—perhaps even desirable—fact of existence. The commerce between the two continents, as tragic as it would become, developed upon familiar territory. Slavery was not a twisted European manipulation, although Europe capitalized on a mutual understanding and greedily expanded the slave trade into what would become a horrific enterprise . . . . It was a thunder that had no sound. Tribe stalked tribe, and eventually more than 20 million Africans would be kidnapped in their own homeland. 10
- See more at: http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/41...lJyb3.dpuf


Recent history has seen high ranking officials from Nigeria, Ghana, Benin, Senegal among others, freely recognizing the role of African Kings who participated in slavery

EXCERPT---
"Historians estimate that ten million of these abducted Africans “never even made it to the slave ships. Most died on the march to the sea”—still chained, yoked, and shackled by their African captors—before they ever laid eyes on a white slave trader. 11 The survivors were either purchased by European slave dealers or “instantly beheaded” by the African traders “in sight of the [slave ship] captain” if they could not be sold.12 Of course, the even more horrific and inhuman middle passage—the voyage of a European (and later American) slave ship from Africa to the Western Hemisphere—still lay before those who had survived the forced trek to the coast." - See more at: http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/41...lJyb3.dpuf


I mean, was it not you who cited Revelation 18 in an effort to condemn people who happen to have money? Then when that turned out not so good you retreated, but not before you pointed out that slaves would still be for sale on the block at the end of time. Which is imminent BTW. So who are you wanting to blame here, and for what?