Winds of Change.NET: Liberty. Discovery. Humanity. Victory.

Formal Affiliations
  • Anti-Idiotarian Manifesto
  • Euston Democratic Progressive Manifesto
  • Real Democracy for Iran!
  • Support Denamrk
  • Million Voices for Darfur
  • milblogs
 Subscribe in a reader

Hank Johnson Responds to Our Readers

Support Hank Johnson!
Hank Johnson

JK: Yesterday, Winds carried a Guest Blog piece by Hank Johnson, explaining who he was and what he was about, asking for support from the blogosphere, and inviting your thoughts and questions. Several of our readers took him up on that last bit - and true to his promise, Hank has responded. The discussions cover bigotry, education, illegal immigration, Iraq, and Israel.

Hello, all! This is DeKalb County Commissioner Hank Johnson. As you know, I'm in a runoff for the Democratic nomination against U.S. Rep. Cynthia McKinney in Georgia's 4th Congressional District.

Thanks so much for reading, responding, and (I hope) contributing. I can't thank you enough for your kind words and support.

I won't be able to respond quickly to all of your questions and comments, but I'll take a stab at a few. My answers are going to be frank, I certainly don't expect you all to agree with me, but everything I see and hear about this web site makes me confident that you will consider my responses seriously and take them in stride.

Jdwill asked for my take on the immigration issue.

Without question, insecure borders threaten both economic and national security, and no one is above the law. Illegal immigration and the employment of illegal immigrants should be discouraged and reprimanded.

That said, most illegal immigrants are honest, hard-working individuals. Many have risked life and limb and worked essential and frequently undesirable jobs for years in order to make better lives for their families. To unduly punish these people by imprisonment or deportation would not be an act of prudence but an act of cruelty – and harmful to the country's economy. Those who work hard, abide by the law, and make an effort to become a part of the American community deserve a second chance at legal citizenship. A second chance; not an amnesty.

The essential point is that security is not won by policies of cruelty or fear. Our immigration policy should effectively secure our borders, protect the larger national interest, and work to do so without causing extraordinary suffering for those who seek to contribute to our society and find a better life among us.

Colt asks how I will ensure that additional funding for education translates into better education, not wasted taxpayers' dollars.

I struggle with that question myself. Let me start by saying very directly that I believe in education, I believe in public education – my children are products of it-- and I believe we need to allocate more resources to it. Too many of our kids are learning in trailers, using ancient textbooks, and receiving inadequate attention from a understaffed, underpaid, undertrained corps of teachers.

Good appropriations legislation will increase funding to schools. Good education legislation will set reasonable, smart standards for while empowering local districts with the autonomy to educate their children as best suits their communities.

Competitors abroad are devoting enormous resources to the education of a multilingual, globally savvy workforce. This country cannot thrive and continue to succeed with anything less. We can't afford to have anything but the best schools in the world if we are to be prosperous in this new century which, at least so far, has been full of challenges. Smart legislation, coupling expanded funding with clear, rationale and actionable standards and accountability is really the only solution.

HA says he sees "a rising level of anti-Semitism among the base of the Democratic party" and asks what I will do "to confront this growing cancer within the Democratic party."

Thanks for the question, HA.

These last weeks have been sobering. I was proud to attend a rally of more than 5000 at Atlanta's Ahavath Achim Congregation on Sunday and was moved by such a powerful demonstration of support for the people of Israel. I agree that anti-Semitism must be resisted with all vigilance. In some parts of the world, influential leaders are fanning its flames to a frightening intensity.

Israel must continue to exist. Israel has carved a beautiful, vibrant state out of the desert, surrounded by hostility and forces trying to drag the region back to the middle ages. Its people have served their country with courage and selfless conviction. It's an amazing story of our time – a people nearly decimated by fascism have in fifty years built out of the sand one of the world's most successful countries, the only democracy in its region and a staunch ally of the United States.

If I believe that Israel's tactics in its wholly justified struggle for survival are wrong, I will not hesitate to say so. Wrong tactics deserve to be criticized but do not call into question the country's fundamental legitimacy. I also have great empathy for the Palestinian people, one of history's most tragic stories. A solution to the crisis will give both peoples the opportunity to thrive, hopefully together. But I will never – never – abandon my support for Israel's people or statehood.

Mark Cicero, responding to my assertion (posted on my web site) that the War in Iraq is and always has been a mistake in light of the nonexistent WMD, says, "If your opinion that Saddam's WMD program -- as it was understood and accepted as credible at the time -- wasn't worth going to war, it would be good to know why."

Mark: to me, the fact that we had the wrong information doesn't make the war right. We were told over and over again that Saddam's WMD stockpiles posed an "immediate threat," that he had chemical and biological weapons and would soon develop a nuclear arsenal. Wrong on all counts. American lives continue to be lost on bad intelligence, bad strategy, bad leadership.

Hindsight? Sure. But contemporary accounts of the buildup to war make it very clear that we should have known what was really up in Iraq. I was never confident in the Administration's case, and my concerns have been fully vindicated. I wish members of the intelligence community, the press, staffers at the White House, and the American people had come to a similar determination before we were made hostages of such a complicated situation.

I'm not a defeatist by any means. As you pointed out, my philosophy on withdrawal is that we must leave as soon as is possible, sensible, and ethical. Immediate pullout doesn't make sense. But lingering doesn't, either.

Matt asked if I would be willing to defy the party leadership if my personal convictions were at stake.

Easy question. Simple answer: absolutely. My convictions aren't for sale, even if it means I don't get a plum committee placement.

I enjoy and appreciate this opportunity to discuss these issues and explain my views. Thanks again for your interest and support. If I've convinced you that I am worthy of this office, please, I hope you will consider making a contribution to my campaign. Even a $10 donation can make the difference.


HA says he sees "a rising level of anti-Semitism among the base of the Democratic party" and asks what I will do "to confront this growing cancer within the Democratic party."

Sorry, but this "cancer" is a rather pathetic strawman. And though I realize you are first and foremost a politician, responding to this inanity as if it were a legitimate issue is demeaning.

The more I see and hear about this fellow, the less inclined I am to care whether he beats McKinney or not. I would suggest that Democrats who wish to inch their party away from the abyss feel free to deal with what is strictly an internal matter. As far as Republicans who wish to have a “second sane party,” I’d recommend concentrating your efforts and campaign contributions (“lunch money”) on helping worthy candidates from our own party and letting the Dems clean up the mess in their’s.

The usual on illegal immigration from the talking heads.

He lays out two completely inconsistent positions, suggests an amnesty - just emphasizes that it won't really be an amnesty - then shifts the focus of the debate completely from the root cause of illegal immigration - employers who violate a virtually unenforced law - to those noble, hard working, persecuted souls who come here to ensure our prosperity.

Nausiating. He's got the talking points down pat. The wonder of it all, is that it could have come out of Bush's mouth. Hell, I heard it come out of Kathleen Harris' mouth about a month ago in Pensacola, Fl.

This country is increasing hosed.

Davebo #1:

Antisemitism on the Left a strawman? Maybe, but before that conclusion sets in stone, you might want to read Huffington Post blogger Sheldon Drobny. On July 9, he was suggesting that the vitriol towards Israel/Jews that his writing inspired was due to right-wing Rove-bots engaging in a smear campaign. He'd kinda ditched that explanation by his 7/20, 7/21, and 7/23 posts. Be sure to check out the comments, they're so reality-based!

Thorley Winston #2:

You offer sensible advice to committed Republicans. On the other hand, many of us aren't. As an Independent, I hope I'm allowed to wish for the chance to chose between (or among) decent candidates in November. I agree with perhaps 50% of the positions Mr. Johnson has staked out. I'll call that half-full instead of half-empty. That's more praise than I can muster towards any of my three current Congressionals.

That said, most illegal immigrants are honest, hard-working individuals
Honesty doesn't begin with a crime.

No one doubts many illegals are hard working, but calling them honest is incorrect. They are criminals from the second they step into this nation without following the proper channels.

It boggles the mind that the group most responsible for the depression of low-income wage earners here in the US, is pandered too by the Democratic party. One would think the Unions would have put a stop to the whole illegal alien thing, especialy since they have been sniping union jobs for years now, but the ties between the DNC and AFL/CIO/SEIU, etc run too deep to upset the apple cart.

Your district might not face significant problems (fiscal, infrastructure, crime, healthcare, etc) that those of us in the illegal flooded lands do right now, but give it time and it will. Then what will you do?

We might not all agree with the guy, but let's at least give Johnson some credit for putting himself out there and engaging real people. I can't think of many politicians who would step into hostile territory like this and have a discussion. It's impressive -- don't short change him. I'm giving him a few bucks.

I'm not sure how posting on a site after the proprietors have endorsed your candidacy because they and most of their readership utterly despise your opponent and extend an invitation for you (or your staff member) to post constitutes going into "hostile territory." IMO it’s sort of like Republican members of Congress who post on Red State or Democratic members who post on Daily Kos or the Huffpost. Although in fairness to Redstate, they did have the former DNC chair guest blog for a few hours

Now if Cynthia McKinney or James Moran ever post here, that would take some guts.

Wow...what hospitality!!

A few fast responses...

Davebo, he's quoting someone who raises an issue. And responding in a pretty reasonable way. responding with "that's a strawman, I'm not addressing it" would be ludicrous.

Thorley, that's certainly your right and privilege. Johnson is a liberal Democrat (as am I), and that position means something. The fact that you don't agree with those positions doesn't have a lot to say about whether you'd rather have an inclusive liberal in the Congressional seat or a delusional one. Those are your choices in this case; John McCain isn't in the running.

Wasted - I'm genuinely sorry that you're nauseated - can I suggest a Tums? Because you're going to need one. There are arguably a bunch - tens of millions - of illegal immigrants in the country today. There is no way we are physically going to be able to identify them - much less identify, detain, and deport them - and anyone who says anyone else is delusional.

We need a policy that deals with this issue, and that deals with how we in turn deal with the illegal population in the country while we're figuring it out.

He's proposed one.

Gabriel - I'll do a longer post in immigration. Note that I'm all for border and employer enforcement. But whatever we do has to take into account the fact that - in part through our policies as well as choices we each make in the course of our days - we've got a bunch of people to deal with who are already here. And that I'm not willing to surrender a whole lot of my rights - including rights to privacy - to make that process massively more efficient.

More later, but geez, folks - he's a liberal Democrat, running in a district where only a liberal Democrat will win. He's an opportunity to knock down one of the truly bad - in a large number of ways - Congressmembers in the nation. One of 585 who help direct the country.

Isn't that worth it?

And I'll add one thing - how is your dismissive refusal to have a positive (i.e. where you disagree but engage) dialog with him different from what McKinney does?


Dear Mr. Johnson,

Thank you for answering these questions. I do have a few issues with your answers, and I hope you can clear them up. If so, I'll pledge to contribute $250 to your campaign.

On the immigration issue, have you studied the law? An immigrant myself, I can tell you there are many problems with the current immigration laws. While everybody talks about illegal immigration, doesn't it make a lot more sense to properly reform immigration laws to make it easier for everybody who can meet the requirements to come here and legally work? The requirements are part of the problem, as a required college degree is obviously not in the possession of many immigrants from Latin America. Any legislation that makes it legal for them to be here without one unfairly discriminates against those from Western countries. Because I do agree that these people are helpful to the overall well being of the U.S., why not replace the college requirement with a standard entry exam (in English only) for everybody? Those should be easy to pass for those already here. The main problem I think most people have is immigrants that refuse to learn to language. If the current illegal immigrants pass within a year (long enough to become fluent enough in English) they get to stay.

Meanwhile, there should be enforcement of laws in place. You say law abiding citizens. Part of the problem is that all these people have kids, and those kids, while illegal, use our school systems. In several states, they even get in-state tuition at universities. As somebody who has paid the high foreign student tuition for many years, I fail to see how these families have been law abiding. At the very least make it part of any fine that any school and health care services will have to be paid for. Otherwise it is amnesty no matter how you spin it.

On your answer of the war, that is a gutsy position to take on a blog like this. I respect people who disagree with the war, but I have a problem following your reasoning. In President Bush's State of the Union address in 2003, he specifically said that we had to act BEFORE it became an immediate threat. Based on the translations of Iraqi documents, it is clear that Iraq at the very least intended to resume its development of those programs after sanctions had been lifted. As we can see with Iran, any regime that has that ambition should be dealt with pro-actively rather reactionary. In hindsight, without WMD being part of the discussion, would you have invaded Afghanistan in 2000 when it became clear that after the attacks on the Embassies and the U.S.S. Cole Al Qaeda was an immediate danger to American interests and had previously struck on American soil? Considering there were 2 UN resolution demanding the Taliban hand over Bin Laden, it was clear that the diplomatic method was not working. If you would not invade, why not? If yes, why would you agree to go into Afghanistan but not Iraq? One more question, considering that it was clear that Iraq would restart its programs, and that sanctions were making life very difficult for Iraqi citizens, what would your solution have been that would have ensured the safety of citizens of both the US and Iraq?

I look forward to your answers.

Thorley, it actually did take guts for Hank Johnson to do this, given the nature of political campaigns, his position in this one, and the potential for downside exposure. And it is also worth commending the civility he has displayed in the process.

I'll add that your decision to leave the Democratic party to sort out its own mess and suffer is a valid and defensible option; some of us have made a different choice by placing notions of citizenship and/or mutual obligation that cross party lines higher on the scale. Your position may be that truth trumps all; McKinney is indeed representative, and it's better to let it show. Two differing views on how to make things better; two different approaches proposed.

But it's better for me to engage your position at its core, even if we only end up agreeing to disagree, than it is to shut you out or call you evil because of a defensible choice. Yes?

As for having McKinney here, the issue would never arise. We would no more offer her a forum than we would David Duke. For many of the same reasons.

Moran [D-MBNA] would have to make a pretty compelling case, but it's at least within the realm of the possible. I'll add that Moran's political position would actually make his appearance here less of a risk than the one Hank took.

nothing new here, just another empty suit mouthing platitudes. being better than mckinney is not really much of a test, and i would be immensley surprised if this guy voted any differently than her.

While there are many issues on which I do not share Mr. Johnson's views, I confess that I'm impressed at his willingness to step up in this forum, say what he thinks and take the instant heat this medium provokes.

If I lived in his district, he would unquestionably have my vote in his runoff - not because our politics are closely aligned - they are not - but because his opponent is a blight on the Congress and the nation, an impediment to reason in government - and because, based on what I’ve read of him here and elsewhere over the last few days, he seems to be a man of thoughtful conviction and intellectual honesty.

As I consider the problems facing this nation and the urgent need for politics as we now know it to change, I’ve come to a place where I'd choose a man of thoughtful conviction and intellectual honesty with whom I disagreed over a rigid ideological soul-mate any day.

This man deserves to be heard and to be taken seriously. Agree with him or disagree, he seems the kind of person we need in public life. I’m glad he’s here and I hope he’ll be elected to the Congress. And yes, I’m making a small contribution to help make that happen.

"Wow...what hospitality!!"

What did you expect? Aren't the loudest members of an audience always the hecklers?

Same thing applies to the internet.

That's probably one of the reasons that bloggers dedicated to partisanship usually run echo chambers in place of comment forums.

I think winds' is doing the right thing by endorsing this candidate, but an intellectually diverse forum such as winds is hardly the ideal location for building up support and excitement. It's like having a political convention or a pep rally in which the other team is invited along.

Kudo's to Mr. Johnson for playing along, though I sincerely hope the other commentators don't imagine that he's got no better things to do than answer complaints from people who aren't even in his district.

Mr. Johnson,

What do you have to say about the issue of ballot access in your state?

Why do I ask? Well, as a way of answering that question I'd like you to consider what another person who has thought about running in your Congressional District has to say about the matter:

Wow. This is kind of embarassing. A more childish series of comments I have not seen outside of Kos. I have always considered this site to be operated and frequented by adults and this is reflected by the quality of both posts and comments. This? Not so much.

First of all, Armed Liberal is just that. A liberal democrat from waaaay back. I am not. I am a religious libertarian conservative republican. Over the last dozen years, we have had many "heated" discussions on almost every issue one could imagine. We disagreed on many things and agreed on many more. At the end, we always walked away friends because we recognized the humanity underneath both our convictions.

When AL asked people to consider donating to Mr. Johnson, I was conflicted. His positions are certainly liberal but not excessive. His positions are certainly not mine and if I lived in his district, I wouldn't vote for him. But when compared to Ms. McKinney, he looks really good. I had to look deeper into his statements.

His position on Israel is strong. His sympathy for the Palestinians is understandable if misplaced. We all want a solution to the "Palestinian Problem" but he is adamant about his support for Israel's right to exist. You don't get that with McKinney in office.

As to immigration, his position is reasonable. I live in SoCal and know all about the problems. But rounding up people from Olvera Street and bussing them to Tiajuana is not a solution. We need to control our borders; not so we can reduce immigration but so we can increase it. There are talented and driven people all over the world who would love to move here and contribute to the American Dream but our current laws don't allow it.

On the war, I have to look at his opponent. His views are wrong but nowhere near as idiotic as McKinney's. Let's hope he can "grow in office" when he gets inside.

So, at the end, I had to ask, am I willing to accept less than perfection to remove someone who I believe is a supporter of our enemies? Hell yes. McKinney is a hateful anti-Semite and both she and her father need to be kicked out of the public arena. In that district, a conservative Republican is not going to do it. As Rummy said, you fight with the army you've got. Johnson is the soldier that has stepped up to this fight and he needs support.

I made my decision. I sent my "lunch money" to Mr Johnson with the hope that he can defeat a very bad person. I thank Mr Johnson for doing what needs to be done. To those who demand perfection, I suggest holding your breath until you turn blue. It certainly worked in kindergarten.

Thanks again to AL for bringing Mr Johnson in and to the candidate for opening himself up to questioning from a sometimes "illiberal" audience.

Mike A.,

I'd say the main problem with our immigration laws is that they are mercantilist in construction. A more capitalist oriented immigration legal structure would stem most of the illegal immigration.

Joe, even if we believe that this fellow would be more “inclusive” than McKinley (sort of like how Barack Obama was supposed to be more “inclusive” and we’ve seen what a partisan hack he turned out to be), so what? At the end of the day he’s going to vote pretty much the same way Cynthia McKinley would and for those of us that are focused on legislation and votes – which matters a lot more than rhetoric – there really isn’t any change for the better on that end.

As far as our choices, I agree that this district is probably going to go to a left-wing Democrat just like the Senate seat being contested in Connecticut will almost certainly go to a Democrat this year. But it’s false to say that “these are our choices.” They aren’t. We have another choice and one I would suggest that all Republicans, conservatives, and those inclined to agree more with us on the issues remember which is to let the Dems sort out their intra-party squabbling amongst and focus on winning our own races.

We have hotly contested races in which worthy Republicans are standing for reelection or running for other offices. In my own State of Minnesota, Governor Tim Pawlenty is facing a tough bid for reelection and Congressman Mark Kennedy is in a tough race for an open Senate seat while State Senator Michelle Bachman is running for an open seat in the 6CD. Minnesota, being a “purple” State and the 6CD in particular being a swing district are all races which could stand to have an effect on the national political landscape (particularly if the dynamic Governor Pawlenty is reelected, he would probably be on the short list of VP candidates in 2008 or a contender himself).

This is only what’s going on in my own State and I know that there are other hotly contested races going on across the country which would also have an effect on the makeup of the 110th Congress and who will be running for President in 2008.

A race in a deep blue Congressional district between two liberal Democrats one of whom may or may not be nicer than the incumbent but would almost certainly vote the same – not so much.

Thorley -

"you" certainly have another choice; I'll point out two things.

First, that we'd all be better off if we concentrated on slicing off the outlying 5% of each party and working to elect centrists - both Republican and Democratic. The core centrist value, as I see it, is comity, and the realization that we're all in the same boat.

Getting rid of the most divisive, most corrupt, and most ridiculous elected officials ought to be a project sane partisans of both parties can support.

Second, I'm a Democrat and a liberal (albeit a kind of odd one...), and we at Winds are presenting Hank Johnson as both a good Democratic candidate, a good candidate who meets the test above, and finally, a candidate whose victory will remove from office someone whose values are - in a word - idiotarian.

So while you may choose not to support Mr. Williams, your loud assertion that members of the Winds audience should join you - or that Joe, who is more conservative erred in bringing him here - is just plan wrong.


Mike A (#15): Winds includes a non-liberal audience... but an "illiberal" audience is something entirely different, and refers to an audience/ blog that is hostile to liberty and/or rabidly intolerant.

I'm proud to say we don't have an audience like that.

Obviously I'm definitely not a "Progressive" and so of course I've several ideological differences with Mr. Johnson. And in fact, seeing McKinney reelected would actually be in my partisan interest short-term. But unlike the nutty Left, the good of our nation is more important than short term partisan interest. We need to increase the sanity of the Democrat party for the good of our nation. Accordingly, Marc's point about removing the nuttier extreme from the nuttier wings of the parties is dead on and for that reason, Mr. Johnson has at least my best wishes for the moment.

We were told over and over again that Saddam's WMD stockpiles posed an "immediate threat

Really? By whom? I do recall Bush saying in the SOTA that we couldn't afford to wait until the threat was immanent; perhaps you were listening to the wrong people?

Eat your heart out, Kirk.


Thank you for responding. That is a lot more than I can say for my representative, Carl Levin’s little brother.

My take on your response:

Without question, insecure borders threaten both economic and national security, and no one is above the law. Illegal immigration and the employment of illegal immigrants should be discouraged and reprimanded.

Essentially you give one sentence to a weakened concept of enforcement (my emphasis on ‘reprimanded’) and then two paragraphs devoted to language like:

- honest, hard-working
- undesirable jobs
- unduly punish
- act of cruelty
- harmful to the country's economy (a valid point if we deported them all)
- second (huh?) chance at legal citizenship

My sense is that you will not help get us where I believe we need to go:

- enforce the border
- fine and punish businesses that are free-riders on our social contract
- document the current illegals as guest workers and track them
- after an adjustment period, deport remaining illegals
- end the PC and budget war nonsense that ties law enforcements hands in our cities
- enable the US to control the rate and quality of immigration (is that too much to ask for?)

The fact that I believe you would characterize these as policies of “cruelty and fear” means you won’t be getting my support based on this issue alone. Others have ably highlighted where we would diverge on Iraq.

Oh, and I am giving this feedback in a spirit of constructive participation, and on a personal level admire you for taking this time to really communicate with us.

Hank's answers seemed reasonable and well thought-out. I agree that he's likely to be weaker on immigration enforcement than I would like but his position on Israel strikes the right tone.

Thorley says that it doesn't matter that he isn't a nutcase like McKinney because he's likely to vote the same way in many cases. I disagree. Allowing the quality of discourse to slide into McKinney's brand of hate-mongering is, quite simply, bad for our political system.

I won't be easily confused for a Liberal Democrat but I just contributed $20 to Hank's campaign.

As a Libertarian, I just took the highly uncharacteristic action of donating to a liberal Democrat. I made a (token) $10 contribution to Hank Johnson's campaign.

Like many others here, I disagree with a great many of Mr. Johnson's political positions. But there were three important factors which led me to contribute:

1) He appears to be a sane, rational person who is prepared to engage in reasoned discourse with other people who hold different views, without automatically demonizing them. That is becoming all too rare these days, and we desperately need a return to civil debate.

2) He took the initiative to post on blogs and present his views and respond to his critics. I want to reward him for that, in the hope that it will encourage him to continue doing so and also encourage other politicians to openly engage their critics instead of spending all their time on spin and PR.

3) He is not Cynthia McKinney, and this is truly one of those cases where the greater evil is so bad that it would be worth supporting almost any lesser evil. (This is not meant to imply that Mr. Johnson is evil, but rather that he is a member of the 99+ percent subset of humanity which is less evil than McKinney.) Hank Johnson has a better-than-even shot at defeating Cynthia McKinney, and would seem the height of short-sightedness [how's that for a phrase?] to let this opportunity get away.

Best of luck, Mr. Johnson, and I hope you are able to raise a substantial amount of money over the Internet to make your quest successful.

Wow AL:

Snark from the man himself! Sorry, but I dissagree with you strongly. And while I fully understand that there are tens of millions of illegals within our borders, I've never suggested that we could simply round them up and send them away.

Yet both you and Mike A pretend that I - or somebody - has proposed such a thing in order to make your arguments. So now Hank Johnson's position is reasonable, because rounding up and bussing illegals back is unreasonable? Sorry, but that logic escapes me.

Yes, we need a policy that deals with this issue. Johnson has proposed one? Let's see... he pays lipservice to the economic damage that illegal immigration does. Then he turns around to give us the usual paeon about how noble these people are. (That's not really the issue, but it plays well to the Latino vote.) And what does Johnson propose? Some vague notion of tightening border security (how?) followed by:

Johnson: "Those who work hard, abide by the law, and make an effort to become a part of the American community deserve a second chance at legal citizenship. A second chance; not an amnesty."

Ah. A second chance... a chance to what? Steal what was never offered to them? But NOT an amnesty. I see. Then he underlines the whole incoherent mess by suggesting that any other course of action would be "cruel."

Please AL. This is a new and "reasonable" policy? This is noise, nothing more.

There are very real, workable solutions to illegal immigration. But you won't hear them from our politicians. Nope, they mostly alternate between floating ideas designed to be stillborn on the House floor - like rounding them all and bussing them back, or building a wall from Corpus Christy to San Diego, or encamping an army along that line - and arguments pointing out why those ideas are ridiculous.

That's a shell game, and I'm truly surprised to see you playing.

I suppose I can respect Johnson's honesty: he's effectively saying that illegal immigration isn't really a problem, and he intends to do nothing much about it.

But I have to say no thanks.


Eat your heart out
I did something better than that; I actually read the article.

Guess what? While a few of the quotes do use the I-word, far more of them make it clear that the speaker is not talking about immediate, short-term things. And the higher up you go, the more pronounced it is. That's supposed to convince us of something?

Leave a comment

Here are some quick tips for adding simple Textile formatting to your comments, though you can also use proper HTML tags:

*This* puts text in bold.

_This_ puts text in italics.

bq. This "bq." at the beginning of a paragraph, flush with the left hand side and with a space after it, is the code to indent one paragraph of text as a block quote.

To add a live URL, "Text to display": (no spaces between) will show up as Text to display. Always use this for links - otherwise you will screw up the columns on our main blog page.

Recent Comments
  • TM Lutas: Jobs' formula was simple enough. Passionately care about your users, read more
  • Just seeing the green community in action makes me confident read more
  • Glen Wishard: Jobs was on the losing end of competition many times, read more
  • Chris M: Thanks for the great post, Joe ... linked it on read more
  • Joe Katzman: Collect them all! Though the French would be upset about read more
  • Glen Wishard: Now all the Saudis need is a division's worth of read more
  • mark buehner: Its one thing to accept the Iranians as an ally read more
  • J Aguilar: Saudis were around here (Spain) a year ago trying the read more
  • Fred: Good point, brutality didn't work terribly well for the Russians read more
  • mark buehner: Certainly plausible but there are plenty of examples of that read more
  • Fred: They have no need to project power but have the read more
  • mark buehner: Good stuff here. The only caveat is that a nuclear read more
  • Ian C.: OK... Here's the problem. Perceived relevance. When it was 'Weapons read more
  • Marcus Vitruvius: Chris, If there were some way to do all these read more
  • Chris M: Marcus Vitruvius, I'm surprised by your comments. You're quite right, read more
The Winds Crew
Town Founder: Left-Hand Man: Other Winds Marshals
  • 'AMac', aka. Marshal Festus (AMac@...)
  • Robin "Straight Shooter" Burk
  • 'Cicero', aka. The Quiet Man (cicero@...)
  • David Blue (
  • 'Lewy14', aka. Marshal Leroy (lewy14@...)
  • 'Nortius Maximus', aka. Big Tuna (nortius.maximus@...)
Other Regulars Semi-Active: Posting Affiliates Emeritus:
Winds Blogroll
Author Archives
Powered by Movable Type 4.23-en