Phil Kent: Criticism is a strike against freedom of speech
Phil Kent, the subject of a blog post yesterday regarding his attitudes about immigration and racial diversity and his appointment to an important state board, has submitted a response. It is published here without alteration:
By Phil Kent
After the January Tucson shooting tragedy, Jay Bookman piously proclaimed that “Free and open debate is the lifeblood of democracy.” Yet Bookman’s intolerance for public safety measures prevents him from adhering to his own admonitions. His column personally attacking me is yet another example of his demagoguery.
Why doesn’t Bookman want me on a panel overseeing compliance with Georgia’s immigration control law? Because he doesn’t want it used, that’s why. He hates the law, the board and me because of my opposition to the open borders lobby. And in a thinly veiled effort to prevent the implementation of this public safety measure, he takes selective quotations from my writings and analysis of our nation’s changing demographics to discredit my calls for strict enforcement of immigration laws.
If I’m incorrect, why didn’t he refute my actual positions? Instead, he engages in platitudes and pursues the politics of personal destruction. These are not the actions of someone who is (1) right; and (2) believes in “free and open debate.”
“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum,” says Professor Noam Chomsky. Bookman faithfully follows this maxim.
What intellectual dishonesty. These liberals love to call names but not debate.
Bookman is worried about one conservative on a seven-person state panel, yet voices no concern over issues of far greater magnitude.
Did Bookman have a problem with a real “extremist” – Al Sharpton— getting a nightly program on MSNBC? Here is an agitator who called a gang rape victim a “whore” and perpetuated one of the biggest legal hoaxes in decades.
Did Bookman have a problem with Barack Obama going to a church where the pastor wildly claimed whites created AIDS to kill off black people? Did Bookman condemn Obama for not repudiating anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan, or rejecting his endorsement for president? What about Jesse Jackson’s corrosive comments about the Tea Party wanting to reinstitute slavery? Of course not. They are all liberals, so he venerates them.
I have no problem with Bookman debating me on immigration— and, by the way, I’m not opposed to legal immigration. But, in following Chomsky’s strategy, he wars against freedom of speech. He seeks to silence those who disagree with him by smearing them. That doesn’t play well in America. And it won’t work with me.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2012 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
712 comments Add your comment
Normal
September 7th, 2011
5:58 pm
Gosh Jay,
You’d think he was GLL!
@@
September 7th, 2011
5:59 pm
Geez!
“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum,” says Professor Noam Chomsky.
Did Noam Chomsky really say that!!??!!
Normal
September 7th, 2011
6:00 pm
He certainly can divert like GLL. Cons! Gotta love them…
getalife
September 7th, 2011
6:03 pm
Looks like you made a friend Jay.
jm
September 7th, 2011
6:03 pm
Well, I don’t know that he refuted any of Jay’s points. Appears to just be an “out of context!” response.
Maybe he and Jay should debate in a public forum, hosted by the AJC…..
Aquagirl
September 7th, 2011
6:03 pm
Play that victim card, Phil!
Bosch
September 7th, 2011
6:05 pm
Wow he certainly whines like a con…
1811/0311
September 7th, 2011
6:07 pm
Jay:
And now you have been rightfully indicted for a very biased and inaccurate thread.
And as I intimated yesterday, maybe soon we can look forward to a thread from you about the RADICAL advisors and czars in Obama’s administration.
jm
September 7th, 2011
6:07 pm
Wonder if he wants to actually refute anything Bookman quoted him on? Apparently not…..
Left wing management
September 7th, 2011
6:08 pm
It’s all Noam Chomsky’s fault
@@
September 7th, 2011
6:09 pm
Whooaaaa, John Kerry sounds like Noam Chomsky.
Absurd!
schnirt
Jay
September 7th, 2011
6:10 pm
@@, I suspect Chomsky did, but in the context of complaining that a very narrow range of liberal opinion is tolerated in the mainstream media. Kent presents it as if Chomsky were advocating it as a strategy.
jm
September 7th, 2011
6:10 pm
“He seeks to silence those who disagree with him ”
I guess Jay’s post kind of refutes one of Kent’s last points, which seemed to be the central theme of his response……
Bosch
September 7th, 2011
6:10 pm
Why do you hate him Jay why?
Doggone/GA
September 7th, 2011
6:10 pm
Now what is it that Dave R. calls it?
Oh yeah!
Deflection!
getalife
September 7th, 2011
6:11 pm
He deflected the blame to Jay.
Typical con rebuttal.
Bosch
September 7th, 2011
6:11 pm
And who besides me has even heard of Noam Chomsky before now?
saywhat?
September 7th, 2011
6:12 pm
I suppose Kent might have a point if Obama appointed Farrakhan as ambassador to Israel, Al Sharpton as Attorney general, and Jesse Jackson as, well, anything, and Jay said nothing. If Obama did any of these things however, I certainly believe Jay would have nothing positive to say about them, contrary to what Mr Kent apparently believes. So does Mr Kent have a point? Sadly, no.
jm
September 7th, 2011
6:13 pm
Jay, people should have to stand by their words, generally speaking. Though I suspect most everyone has said things they regret. Or seem worse if taken out of context.
Not that Kent has succeeded in making the argument that the meaning of his comments were different than what you suggested.
Ugh. Whatever, the tenor of debate and discussion in this country has reached a fever pitch. And Hoffa and Obama are just dogpiling on.
1811/0311
September 7th, 2011
6:13 pm
Headline: “Even Blacks and Hispanics Begin to Turn?”
Aquagirl
September 7th, 2011
6:14 pm
Help! Help! Phil is being repressed!
1811/0311
September 7th, 2011
6:15 pm
saywhat?
See second paragraph of my 6:07 …………… or not.
Don't Tread
September 7th, 2011
6:15 pm
“He seeks to silence those who disagree with him by smearing them.”
Straight from the Obama playbook, starting with the “clinging to guns and religion” comment (and probably even before that). Leadership by example.
1811/0311
September 7th, 2011
6:16 pm
Green Bay Packers:
“-Last year…. after the Packers / Bills game, Buffalo released quarterback Trent Edwards
-During the Packers / Eagles game, the Packers injured Philadelphia quarterback Kevin Kolb.
-Philadelphia then had to play backup quarterback Michael Vick.
-During a playoff game against the Eagles, the Packers injured Michael Vick and another backup was needed.
-After the Packers / Cowboys game, Dallas fired Wade Phillips and most of his staff.
-After the Packers / Vikings game, Minnesota fired Brad Childress and most of his staff.
-Four weeks after losing to the Packers, the 49er’s coach Mike Singletary and most of his staff were fired and replaced.
-During the Bears Playoff game, the Packers injured Jay Cutler and backup Todd Collins forcing the Bears to go with 3rd string quarterback Caleb Hanie.
-Here’s the question…. Is it just me, or did the Packers create more jobs last year than Obama?
@@
September 7th, 2011
6:16 pm
If Mr. Kent is reading this, I’d just like to suggest he put forth his arguments rather than go on the defensive against jay’s personal attack.
jm:
It looks like Mr. Kent has refuted jay’s claim that he’s against ALL immigration.
Phil Kent, named by Deal to the Immigration Enforcement Review Board on Friday, is a former journalist, an author, a national spokesman for American Immigration Control and executive director of the American Immigration Control Foundation. The AIC opposes not just illegal immigration but immigration generally.
I swear, I’ve never heard of this Kent fella.
getalife
September 7th, 2011
6:18 pm
“I have no problem with Bookman debating me on immigration”
We are listening kent.
Instead of deflecting blame like cons do, debate the issue.
Bosch
September 7th, 2011
6:18 pm
Yeah Jay you’re supposed to be poutraged every time some left wing kook talks! Don’t you know that? Because we all know that to be silent is in fact agreeing.
I guess cons have never heard of the concept that it’s better to ignore the stoopid.
1811/0311
September 7th, 2011
6:19 pm
“COPS: Ark weatherman found in hot tub with naked dead man wearing ‘dog collar’… ”
……………………………. but did he have a license ?
@@
September 7th, 2011
6:20 pm
I’d like some background on the other six board members. If they’re reasonable and looking to be reasonable, the odds are in their favor.
Bosch
September 7th, 2011
6:20 pm
Kent must have called Scout to assist in his whiny deflections by spamming the blog with irrelevant shut.
Enlightened Liberal
September 7th, 2011
6:20 pm
I think it’s high time we completely open our borders, if someone wants to come, all they have to do is go to the border, give a name and a preferred destination, we give them a green card and place them on a path to citizenship. A background check is racist and unkind. Just open the doors and let them all come in. If they have no money, give them every entitlement. It’s only fair to take from Paul and give to Peter.
1811/0311
September 7th, 2011
6:20 pm
“Now this has taken a hit on the president politically. 44-percent approve of the job he’s doing, all time low of his presidency. A more important number that our pollsters say is in there is this idea that is this a long-term setback for him or a short-term one? 54-percent said long-term. Our pollsters are concerned. That’s kind of numbers you have when the public starts to give up on a president as a problem solver,” NBC’s Chuck Todd said on the “Nightly News.”
1811/0311
September 7th, 2011
6:21 pm
Bosch :
Then don’t read it. Especially, the stuff about Obama that you can’t refute.
1811/0311
September 7th, 2011
6:23 pm
Pelosi Peeved ? PELOSI PEEVED ?
Headline: “Pelosi Peeved Republicans Opt Out of Rebuttal to Obama Speech”
“Republicans have decided they’re not going to give a rebuttal to President Obama’s jobs speech later this week, a decision House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi took as a high affront to the White House.”
Aquagirl
September 7th, 2011
6:23 pm
Kent must have called Scout to assist in his whiny deflections
You’re actually reading that irrelevant shut? Wow, talk about too much time on your hands.
getalife
September 7th, 2011
6:26 pm
Scout finally got one right.
“Then don’t read it.”
We don’t.
1811/0311
September 7th, 2011
6:26 pm
Headline: “Man Arrested With Live Lobsters in His Shorts”
Ah …………………………… nevermind.
1811/0311
September 7th, 2011
6:26 pm
getalife:
You did that one.
@@
September 7th, 2011
6:26 pm
I like what Bernie Goldberg had to say about Obama.
He made a good first impression but it only works for him once. Time’s up.
saywhat?
September 7th, 2011
6:27 pm
Scout, 1811/0311
September 7th, 2011
6:15 pm
“saywhat?
See second paragraph of my 6:07 …………… or not.”
Radicalism is in the eye of the beholder. Obama’s appointees do not look radical to me nor, one would assume, to Jay. Meanwhile, everybody to the left of Dick Cheney looks radical to you.
Perhaps you could write your own column and alert us all to this rampant raging radicalism?
1811/0311
September 7th, 2011
6:27 pm
Headline: “White House: Obama Won’t Be Democrats’ ‘Speech Police’ …”
But he will for the Republicans and the Tea Party.
1811/0311
September 7th, 2011
6:28 pm
saywhat?
According to your buddies here you were supposed to pick “or not”.
Want to try again?
1811/0311
September 7th, 2011
6:29 pm
@@ 6:26
LOL !
Bosch
September 7th, 2011
6:31 pm
Scout I don’t just going by the number and length of your posts!
Keep Up the Good Fight!
September 7th, 2011
6:31 pm
These liberals love to call names but not debate.
“These liberals” — I bet he snarled when he typed that……
Why Jay…. you musta smeared the poor fellow…. he’s crying….
Guy Incognito
September 7th, 2011
6:32 pm
Bosch
September 7th, 2011
6:11 pm
And who besides me has even heard of Noam Chomsky before now?
I have. His theories on language acquisition are interesting
josef
September 7th, 2011
6:32 pm
FROM Downstairs…
From Kent:
“The Bantus, for example, don’t know any English. But beyond that they don’t comprehend how modern appliances – ranging from washing machines to automobiles – operate.”
Stupid ignoramus, he. Bantu is a primarily a language group and not a particular people, sort of like Germanic or Romance. When applied to the various ethnicities of the African continent, the term would include some 400 million persons, among them some of civilizations’ foremost thinkers, writers of prestige, musicians of all forms of note, and a range of socio political leaders including several Nobel Prize winners. I think “they” probably do know how to use a washing machine and automobile, though I will concede that no small few probably hire laundresses and chauffeurs to do it for them.
And, this, folks, is that “qualified” appointee.
And Mr. Kent, just in case you ARE peeking in here to see what we liberals (and no small few conservatives here) think about you…you want personal attack you whining little excuse for a homo sapiens…I got your personal attack…
saywhat?
September 7th, 2011
6:32 pm
Shorter Phil Kent:
“It’s Jay’s fault! It’s Obama’s fault! It’s Noam Chomsky’s fault! Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and the Obama’s church minister guy whose name I can’t remember are all worse than me, and its their fault too! I’m NOT a douche!”
AmVet - Read my lips. No new Texans!
September 7th, 2011
6:33 pm
Ideology aside, that response was truly pathetic, Mr. Kent. And befitting an uber-lame far right wing blogger. Or talk radio personality.
He hates the law, the board and me because of my opposition to the open borders lobby.
Sophomoric, paranoid and unsubstantiated.
These liberals love to call names but not debate.
Who exactly are “these liberals”? And which names are those, Mr. Kent? And what in gawd’s name do they have to with Jay Bookman’s article?
And then the coup de gras of his intelligent debate – “white” red herring allusions to Sharpton, Wright and Farrakhan.
In summation, an embarrassing effort.
Normal
September 7th, 2011
6:34 pm
Scout,
Kent seems to have a problem with “freedom of speech” unless it is fr him. Al Sharpton, the Reverend Wright, Louis Farrakhan, and Jessie Jackson all have the right to say what they want. It’s America at it’s best.
“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”
Voltaire
…as it should be. Mr. Kent should practise what he preaches.