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

712 comments Add your comment

LawDawg

September 8th, 2011
11:09 am

Mama Says:

1) Preemption is a real thing. I have no idea what the rest of that means.

2) I grew up in South Georgia and most of my friends are conservative. A lot of them are also openly racist. I do not know what else to tell you. Also, Phil Kent is openly racist, so it is sort of odd to act like no conservatives are racist in this of all comments sections.

Have a nice day.

Mama Says

September 8th, 2011
11:11 am

by the way Dawg since the constitution is law—-and you attended such an exceptional law school can u explain how the federal courts upheld slavery please ? or as you lawyerly types refer to it established precedent–which was obviously and correctly ignored

Mama Says

September 8th, 2011
11:12 am

DawgI never said there were no racist in the conservative ranks—-can u say that about he liberal ranks ?

philosopher

September 8th, 2011
11:21 am

Whether or not the federal courts upheld slavery is a non-issue here- the issue is whether or not Deal should have appointed a self-admitted bigot to the Immigration committee. You know, like hiring a convicted child molestor to teach in a daycare center.

Adam

September 8th, 2011
12:26 pm

Mama Says: Will you nominate a woman so you can spend 4 years telling anyone who opposes her policies that they are Chuavinist ?

Why do that when I can nominate ANYONE and call the critics on their lies and slander towards that candidate?

Joe Mama

September 8th, 2011
1:22 pm

Mama Says — “the founders did not set up the current system, they asked for limited federal powers FROM the states which the states granted to form a cohesive defense and monetary system.”

Check again in re the monetary system.

And with respect to courts, it has always been the province of the Federal courts to express the boundaries of Federal power BUT ALSO to enjoin the activities of the several States when one or more of them act in contravention of the Constitution or applicable Federal law.

“Never was it intended for the federal government to dictate to each state the laws whihc they could or could not enforce on their own”

Actually, yes. There are plenty of writings about that. States can’t, for example, enter into treaties with foreign governments. There are plenty of other areas in which Federal power trumps State power, and many of the Founders wrote about many of those areas.

Chris Mahon

September 9th, 2011
11:12 am

Well, Mr. Kent, I have no desire to limit you freedom of speech, nor, I suspect, does Mr. Bookman. What I do oppose is that you should be serving as an appointee on a panel overseeing improprieties in the enforcement of the new immigration law in Georgia. You can speak out all you want, but based on your publicly stated opinions I don’t think you will carry out your duties fairly.

Silvio Silver

September 9th, 2011
10:15 pm

Jay,

Good work. Would that we were all as vigilant, what with creeps running around like Phil Kent who appear to subscribe to this outlandish philosophy that contends “whites are people, too!” Yowzer.

All kidding aside, as someone whose father lost two uncles to summary executions during WWII, I can assure you I’m i.n.t.i.m.a.t.e.l.y familiar with reflexive, unthinking hostility to any assertion of white identity or admission to having concern for white group interests. But what does any of that matter now? Look at the societies that this brand of myopic idiocy has made the key contribution to creating. There is something awfully awry going on upstairs among those who insist on pretending that race is nothing important, nothing important whatsoever. One way or another there’s going to be a price to pay for this; the only question is what sort of price.

Jay

September 9th, 2011
10:53 pm

“There is something awfully awry going on upstairs among those who insist on pretending that race is nothing important, nothing important whatsoever.

Well, Silvio, then count me among those with something awfully awry going on upstairs.

larry england

September 12th, 2011
9:40 am

I spent most of the last thirty years in augusta and mr. kent was a constant reminder of how little progress has been made in racial relations.I served in vietnam as a grunt where the only thing that really counted was how you performed in an ambush and how much you griped but most of the people i worked with in disaugusta would have fit in well around 1860 and so would mr.kent.Gov.Deal has slapped racial progress in the face with this appt..Own up Deal and Kent to who you are.Don’t hide behind the sheets and mirrors and silly little blogs.

BillyJoeJimBob

September 13th, 2011
5:47 pm

Enlightened Liberal
You are not very enlightened at all……….YOU ARE STUPID!!!!!

Adam

September 14th, 2011
7:57 am

Great comeback BillyJoeJimBob. You should run for President on the Republican ticket.