AJC's Jay Bookman A Mindless Twit
Bookman's had a few too many gerbil extractions, been smoking his stained undies, or something. But his piece typlifies the kind of total horse droppings that the AJC has turned into. An agenda-driven bunch of snot-nosed head-in-the-sand candy asses that have no grasp of reality and try to avoid it at all cost. What happened to the concept of journalistic integrity? You won't find any at the Atlanta paper.
Sometimes you have to take a step back and view something in its totality rather than focus on every turd in a pasture. Bookman resorts to the textbook bullshit of the pro-amnesty surrender monkeys: Anyone that disagrees with an amnesty is in a small minority of racists and he tries to frame the debate as an "either/or," which is bullshit. Either we deport 12 million gate crashers or we find a way to bring them out of the shadows and help them become contributing members of society. (barf) He goes so far as trying to lay some kind of guilt trip on opponents like, "Oh, history won't be kind to the people that opposed surrender to the invading hordes."
Bookman totally omits the FACT that the One Time amnesty of 1986 was a total failure and that this legislation is the same pig in a different dress. Our government hasn't gotten serious about enforcement in all these years and still has no intention of getting serious. It's all a scam. We the people who have watched this issue know it. Bookman and his ilk just keep shoving their fingers in their ears and repeating the bullshit lies hoping to snow a few people that are as clueless as they.
Fact is that even a poll at their own paper showed that most people don't want illegals to even be given a chance to pay a fine and stay. (they want them deported) FACT is that every legitimate survey says that Americans want less legal and illegal immigration, and we want our borders secured and our laws ENFORCED. Why don't you quote Rasmussen, Jay? Kind of kills your only a small group of racists argument, doesn't it? You deceitful weasel.
Poll (Rasmussen)
If voters had a chance to improve the legislation, 75% would “make changes to increase border security measures and reduce illegal immigration.” Just 29% would” make it easier for illegal immigrants to stay in the country and eventually become citizens.”
Voters who believe that the current bill will succeed in reducing illegal immigration favor its passage by a 51% to 31% margin. Those who believe the bill will lead to even more illegal immigration oppose its passage by a 70% to 12% margin.
Overall, despite a major push by the President and others over the past week, support for the Senate bill has not increased at all. In polling conducted last night (Tuesday, May 29), 26% of voters favor passage of the bill. That’s unchanged from the 26% support found in polling conducted the previous Monday and Tuesday. Forty-eight percent (48%) of voters remain opposed.
Since Georgia U.S. Sens. Johnny Isakson and Saxby Chambliss helped negotiate a U.S. Senate deal on immigration reform, they've been greeted here at home by a backlash of bitterness, paranoia, anger and in some cases barely concealed racism.
The senators' patriotism and manhood have been challenged; they have been condemned as traitors to the country and to their conservative roots. The harshest criticism has come from their own party, from some of their own longtime supporters.
Also notice that he has NOTHING to say about the democrats. I was at a left-wing dem site reading their comments the other day and guess what? Most don't favor this amnesty, either. And I have no doubt that the Dems' phones are ringing off the walls but the pro-amnesty left-wingers don't want to mention that. They only want to make this look like a party issue where just a few hard ass republican racists are holding up "progress." Scumbags!
It's also important to note that immigration reform advocates have gotten much of what they claimed to want out of a deal. They have long argued that we need to get serious about border enforcement, and they've been right. The bipartisan deal cut in the Senate addresses that problem in a number of ways, among them by doubling the size of the Border Patrol.
Enforcement in the workplace is also necessary, again as immigration reformers point out, and the Senate bill addresses that, too. It commits the federal government to creating a long-overdue worker verification system, and it requires employers to use that system.
Bookman, you disingenuous clown. Aren't you one of those jerks that argued nothing could stop the invading hordes? But, as all of us knew, if this country got serious about ENFORCEMENT the border crossings would slow down. And that's EXACTLY what's happened even with the anemic efforts put forth. AND, again, he talks a good game about enforcement but, as we've seen, there's been jack-shit for enforcement all these years. But it's going to be different, this time?
Comment(s) »
» Leave a comment
- Your E-mail address is never displayed. If you enter it, it will only be visible to the blog author
- The line and paragraph breaks automatically
Tell it, brother.
Bookman's column lies somewhere in that gray area between unintentional hilarity and deliberate self-delusion. Consider the following clueless lines from his column:
1. "... a backlash of bitterness, paranoia, anger and in some cases barely concealed racism." (Ah, I get it: When illegals march by the thousands in the streets of major American cities, screaming their demands and waving Mexican flags, that's a legitimate protest. But when American taxpayers who aren't crazy about footing the bill for trespassers express an opposing view to their Congressmen, that's "a backlash of bitterness, paranoia, anger and in some cases barely concealed racism." Gee, thanks for clearing that up, Jay.)
2. "At least now the motivation of many of those behind the controversy has been pushed to the forefront, where it can be seen for what it is." (Translation: When you can't overcome the legitimate arguments of people who oppose the immigration bill ... resort to personal attacks that cast aspersions on their "true motivation.")
3. "But it's striking that opposition to the deal is being driven not by criticism of specific details of the deal, but by the fact that a deal exists at all." (Ummm ... NASA Control to Jay: Time to return to Earth's orbit. The specific details of the deal are EXACTLY what opponents are upset with. And there isn't space to list their specific beefs.)
4. "They have long argued that we need to get serious about border enforcement, and they've been right. The bipartisan deal cut in the Senate addresses that problem in a number of ways, among them by doubling the size of the Border Patrol." (Jay, did you write that with a straight face? The feds haven't even gotten around to building the fence that Congress supposedly approved -- and you genuinely believe this bill is "getting serious" about border enforcement? The steaming heap of "get-tough" verbiage contained in that bill is about as likely to make a difference as a new city ordinance requiring Osama bin Laden to turn himself in immediately or face the revokation of his library card.)
5. "Their real concern is about the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants already inside our borders. Yes, those people are here illegally, but they are also here because we the American people and we the American government made a conscious choice to join them in ignoring our own laws." (Say what??? Speak for yourself, Jay. "We the American people" made no such choice, conscious or otherwise. In fact, as the Rasmussen poll indicates, the vast majority of "we the American people" are demanding that our government ENFORCE our laws. Yo, Jay: Show me these American citizens who've been clamoring all along for the feds to lay off the illegals and start handing out Welcome Wagon bags as Jose, Maria and their 12 kids scale the fence.)
6. "Long after Spanish has disappeared from their tongues, those descendants will remember who had depicted their parents as leeches ..." (More self-delusion from our prince of PC. First of all, many of them are continuing to speak Spanish -- been to an ATM lately? -- and secondly, what exactly do YOU call millions of people who avail themselves of free hospital care, in-state scholarships and other handouts in a nation they entered illegally? Y'know, "leeches" works for me.)
Dude, all I can say is ... I feel sorry for anybody who has to read this kind of self-righteous inanity over bacon and eggs every morning. Jay Bookman is to journalism what Alec Baldwin is to fatherhood.
P.S. Did you notice the little ad just to the right of Jay's column -- the one touting Mundo Hispanico, "The voice of Georgia's Hispanic community since 1979"? Hmmm ... maybe that's why the AJC tries so hard to keep its Hispanic readers happy.
Comment by TheEditor— 2007/06/03 @ 01:22 AM — (Reply)