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