Black Talk Radio News – America in fact did not abolish slavery w/ Immigration Attorney Angela Chan

During the first hour today we will discuss some the social/political news of the day. A few stories on my radar is the false reports being circulated by right wing blogs that Michael Brown’s mother took to facebook to post comments “celebrating” the reported shooting of two cops in Ferguson.

During the second hour we will be joined by Ms. Angela Chan to discuss legalized slavery in the United States and the illegal use of detained immigrant labor by prisons.

Ms. Angela Chan is the policy director and senior staff attorney at the Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Asian Law Caucus. Ms. Chan recently authored an article dealing with the 13th Amendment titled. “America Never Abolished Slavery” which was published on the Huffington Post.

In the article Ms. Chan comes to conclusion that the 13th Amendment did not technically abolish slavery and that the loop hole that allows for slavery as punishment for crime has been exploited to create a slave labor force in America.

After we speak to Ms. Chan, lets revisit the news reports first surfacing when two non-Ferguson police officers were allegedly shot in front of the Ferguson police department. Since the shooting, the news being reported and statements by St. Louis law enforcement officials have been inconsistent and some deliberately attempting to tie protests against racist police terrorist to the shooting instead of treating it as an individual incident of alleged crime.

Share This!
Comment Here

3 Replies to “Black Talk Radio News – America in fact did not abolish slavery w/ Immigration Attorney Angela Chan”

  1. Some after thoughts about this show. I was delighted to hear that Ms. Angela
    Chan was coming on your show to talk about the 13th Amendment. I was
    particularly interested in how she would interpret the law. This is what
    she is trained to do.

    She did not study law to become an Abolitionist, by default it has landed in
    her lap based on her findings in this article she has written.

    One must understand that Ms. Chan is a lawyer and her job is to interpret
    the rule of law. Of course many would feel in the public arena that she is
    more than qualified to dissect the 13th Amendment more so, than someone
    who does not have her credentials…..BUT she is NOT qualified and she said herself that she does not want to Co-Op anyone who has been around longer
    in the Abolitionist Movement than she has with respect to being an advocate
    for becoming an Abolitionist.

    It would seem to me that her basic premise is to get the knowledge out to
    the masses that the 13th Amendment is very much alive and in full force.

    She is not going on the circuit and talk about the agenda that Max stated.
    Max. and Yohanan, are qualified individuals who can go out on the circuit and
    present this case to public. Max and Yohanan, knows the hard cold facts
    about the Prison Industrial/Slave Plantation Complex Corporation. Max
    outlined some goals that the Abolitionist Movement is striving for.

    With all due respect, Ms. Chan will never “BRING IT” like Max or Yohanan.

    These two distinguished gentlemen Max and Yohanan are your ministers
    of the movement not Ms. Chan.

    Ms. Chan caught me off guard when she agreed that ” just
    acknowledging that slavery was never abolished is enough to become
    an abolitionist . Ms. Chan was just saying what you wanted to hear, because
    she knows dog on well that is simply not true in her line of work.

    “A lawyer job is to prove he/ his case, not simply state it.”

    I like many other informative listeners prefer a “tick for tack” interview style.
    Although the show was informative, I felt that she could have extracted
    more from you had she asked some questions, which only lead me to believe that she really was not interested .At times, I felt that she was agreeing with
    you without question and I felt that was superficial.

    “Kudos” to Ms. Chan and keep up the good work.

    1. Well said Lena. I kind of got the same vibe regarding her reply to Scotty. My goal was to take her over the edge. You’ve seen the potential now realize the truth. I’m glad she put that article out. I’m glad Huff Post published it. But it still only begins to shed a light on an inconceivable corruption of every ideal this nation is built upon. Those of freedom and democracy.

      I’m also very thankful you shared your thoughts here.

    2. Correction, I recall stating “recognize slavery exists and work in any capacity to end it”. That in fact is all an abolitionist is, someone who sees and acknowledges slavery and works to end it.”

      It seemed to me her apprehension was about appropriating a movement, like we made up the term and thereby leaders of some sort. Abolitionism was here long before I was and anyone alive today.

      It is not my place to say this person ain’t a abolitionist and this person is when the formula is quite simple either you are or you are not. No one has to give her a card saying she is in the club. I think she is a great abolitionists ally.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

WordPress Anti Spam by WP-SpamShield