Alternet is a far-left web magazine that, despite having no cause to do so, deleted one of my comments and then later banned me. See deleted comments for an explanation of why, because they're willing to ban people and delete comments, you can't trust anything you read there.
Alternet strongly supports illegal immigration despite its negative impact on working-class Americans and despite how it enriches and empowers the corrupt leaders of foreign countries.
Joshua Holland of Alternet doesn't understand fundamental American concepts regarding speech - 02/27/11
Joshua Holland of Alternet has previously shown that he doesn't care about illegal aliens taking stimulus jobs and has misled about Napolitano's border comments. Now he's shown that he doesn't support free speech.
Janet Murguia of the National Council of La Raza takes to the pages of Alternet to offer "Dobbs' Resignation Was Long Overdue" (alternet.org/story/144089/dobbs'_resignation_was_long_overdue). Somewhat surprisingly, it doesn't seem to contain any outright lies, just smears and misleading statements. For instance, she tries to blame an increase in hate crimes on Dobbs and others:
The rhetoric that Lou and other extreme commentators used surrounding the debate took a harsh turn, so much so that a member of my staff called it a "wave of hate" and said that "this no longer sounds like it's about policy - it sounds like it's about us." ...This is not just an exercise in etiquette. The Latino community knows all too well the effect of extreme and polarizing rhetoric. Over the past five years, the vitriolic debate surrounding immigration has created a toxic climate for our communities. During that time, we have seen a double-digit increase in the number of hate crimes against Latinos and substantial growth in the number of hate groups targeting Latinos.
The number of "hate groups" is based on the opinion of the Southern Poverty Law Center, not exactly a credible source.
Then, she implies that the NCLR and other illegal immigration-supporting groups are going to go after other hosts:
Yet Dobbs is not alone in purveying extreme rhetoric on the subject of immigration. There are dozens of others on cable television news and radio who draw our ire. Given the free speech issues that we regularly defend, we have attempted to approach this issue with restraint. We have appealed to the journalistic integrity of the cable networks and requested balance. We have worked with advertisers who have a right to ensure that their brands are not associated with such polarizing debate. And we have used the airwaves to identify patterns of distortion and established a website (www.WeCanStopTheHate.org) to call out the worst offenders so that the public can add its voice to the debate.
The actions of the NCLR show clearly that they have no interest in a real debate about these issues.
A few days ago, Janet Napolitano of the Department of Homeland Security said "crossing the border is not a crime per se. It is civil." See the link for an excerpt from the U.S.
The latest trend in the illegal immigration-supporting community is to try to attack the month-old Heritage Foundation report (and one from the Center for Immigration Studies) claiming that 300,000 jobs from the stimulus plan will go to illegal aliens. None of them have actually claimed that no jobs will go to illegal aliens; they just try to pretend that they've "debunked" the studies by raising issues with the exact number of jobs.
So it is with Joshua Holland of Alternet . After calling names and raising issues with the 300,000 number, he shows his regard for the American worker. About the possibility that illegal aliens will get jobs under the bill, he says:
Here's the thing: I don't care, and neither should you. Because the whole argument obscures the larger issue. Regardless of the merits of CIS's "estimate," there is no doubt that if we create a bunch of new jobs -- especially in construction -- unauthorized workers will get some of them. After all, they make up about 4-5 percent of the American workforce. And that's fine, because stimulus spending is not just about creating jobs... It's about stimulating demand -- "stimulus" -- by putting dollars into working people's pockets that they can go out and spend in the economy, and a worker's legal status has nothing to do with the goods and services he or she purchases with those dollars.
Every stimulus job that goes to an illegal alien is one that was taken away from a U.S. citizen. Joshua Holland is turning his back on his fellow citizens in order to help foreign citizens who are here illegally. Unemployed U.S. citizen construction workers - including those who are struggling to purchase goods and services - should let all their friends know which side Alternet is on.
Holland then shows a keen lack of self-awareness:
the real agenda of many of the politicians who oppose comprehensive reform [is to] to maintain a population of extraordinarily vulnerable workers rather than creating a process to bring them out of the shadows.
That claim is beyond ludicrous and shows that you can't trust Joshua Holland. Those who support immigration enforcement - such as in order to achieve attrition - want to reduce the numbers of "extraordinarily vulnerable workers" in the U.S. It's those like Holland who have continually supported massive illegal immigration who have enabled the current situation. Holland and Alternet will continue to support massive illegal immigration after "reform", and even if millions of illegal aliens were legalized they'd do their best to help the current situation form anew.
In June, Palin gave a speech at the Wasilla Assembly of God, her former church, in which she exhorted ministry students to pray for American soldiers in Iraq. "Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God," she told them. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan."That makes it sound like she thinks the war in Iraq is a "task that is from God", but that's not really what she meant. The Alternet article takes their quote from the NYT (link), and omits a key part which is boldened below:
She also told the group that her eldest child, Track, would soon be deployed by the Army to Iraq, and that they should pray "that our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God, that's what we have to make sure we are praying for, that there is a plan, and that plan is God's plan."Assuming that the NYT itself didn't misquote her, I read that as her hoping that our leaders aren't sending them out on a task that's disreputable, not that she thinks of the Iraq war as a modern-day Crusade. However, this smear will probably be hitting your mailbox - and mailboxes in the Middle East - any second now.
9/11/08 UPDATE: Alternet appears to have taken their smear from the Associated Press. On Sep. 3, Gene Johnson of the AP offered what's called here "Palin: Iraq war 'a task that is from God'". See the full quote here. And, in his interview with Palin, Charlie Gibson reached Alternet level (link, see also this):
GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, "Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God." Are we fighting a holy war?
PALIN: You know, I don't know if that was my exact quote.
GIBSON: Exact words.
PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln's words when he said - first, he suggested never presume to know what God's will is, and I would never presume to know God's will or to speak God's words.
But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that's a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God's side.
That's what that comment was all about, Charlie.
GIBSON: I take your point about Lincoln's words, but you went on and said, "There is a plan and it is God’s plan."
The Washington Post recently published a blog post about Sarah Palin (in their words) "slash[ing]" funds to a non-profit group. Except, what they got from the state of Alaska alone was over three times what they got from all government sources combined in 2006. Let's take a look at the WaPo's "downstream", the three-eyed fish who gobble up what the WaPo sludges out.
Alternet frequently posts articles supporting illegal immigration, and until the last two incidents I've been able to post a dozen or two comments pointing out issues with those posts without a problem. Due to the non-abusive nature of my comments, the issue is that Alternet is afraid of an open debate and only wants an echo chamber.
Here's the email they sent me:
AlterNet commenting privileges suspendedAs previously discussed, I can't find those "community policies" and they didn't respond to the email I sent after the earlier comment was removed.
Grounds: Violations of AlterNet's community policies and/or complaints from other readers.
Here's the comment that apparently caused the ban, which still appears at post time on alternet.org/blogs/peek/93035:
The people being discussed are IllegalAliens, i.e., citizens of another country who are here illegally. Needless to say, giving them discounted educations would encourage even more people to come here illegally with their children. In other words, it would be horrible public policy. Not only that, but every college spot or discount given to an IllegalAlien is one that's taken away from our own fellow citizens. That's even worse public policy.
(Note: the last time I posted a comment here, Alternet deleted it. Hopefully that won't happen again.)
I've left several comments on Alternet's immigration entries, and as far as I know none had been deleted until the last. That last comment was left on the entry "Minutemen Scream "F@$k You Brown Boy!" at Latinos Attending Obama Talk" by Kyle de Beausset (alternet.org/blogs/peek/91440). That post is just the latest in that leftwing site's long line of far-left articles supporting illegal immigration; note that in contrast to some other leftwing sites, left-leaning commenters occasionally call Alternet on their biases.
The comment is included below; how exactly it violates their "community policies" isn't clear since I've been unable to find out what those are. It doesn't seem to violate the rules of other sites, and I'm going to ask Alternet to explain exactly what the problem is.
De Beausset (aka "kyledeb") operates the site Citizen Orange (citizenorange.com) and contributes to The Sanctuary (thesanctuary.soapblox.net) and he starts the post with the following:
I'm here in San Diego where Barack Obama just spoke at the annual National Council of La Raza (NCLR) conference. NCLR flew me out here and provided with me accommodations at the luxurious San Diego Marriot Hotel Marina. I was given the opportunity after I helped publicize NCLR's latest We Can Stop the Hate video using Digg and StumbleUpon, among other new media tools.
The comment that was deleted follows; unfortunately, I forgot to call them on their false headline in that there was just one supposed "Minuteman":
Thank you, Alternet!
Whenever someone's confused over the meaning of the word "irony", I'll send them to this post. It's truly ironic that the only incident of racism at a La Raza convention Alternet can find is an alleged incident from one loon. "Brown boy" isn't exactly a common slur, and it's quite likely that it was said in response to him being called "white boy". There are also plenty of goons on Alternet's side. Oops: I didn't mean to reduce myself to the NCLR-funded kyledeb's side by engaging in guilt by association.
If Alternet is going to continue publishing open borders articles, let me suggest at the least getting better writers.
Then, we move on to the subhead:
Anti-immigration zealot and GOP presidential candidate Tom Tancredo hired what he often refers to as "criminal aliens" to renovate his Colorado house.There's a difference between illegal aliens and criminal aliens, and I strongly suspect that the workers were just the former and not the latter. And, of course, he's not "anti-immigration".
Then, from the article:
When Tancredo hired a construction crew to transform his drab basement into a high-tech pleasure den in October 2001, however, he did not express concern that only two of its members spoke English. Nor did he bother to check the workers' documentation to see if they were legal residents of the United States. Had Tancredo done so, he would have learned that most of the crew consisted of undocumented immigrants, or "criminal aliens" as he likes to call them. Instead, Tancredo paid the crew $60,000 for its labor and waited innocently for the completion of his elaborate entertainment complex.1. As stated above, he contracted with a contractor .
2. He probably would have violated several state and federal laws if he had inquired about their status; in that case (as with Mitt Romney), the far-left would be accusing him of racial profiling and discrimination.
3. As stated above, Tancredo knows the difference between those who are just illegal aliens and those who are criminal aliens. He doesn't call the former with the latter term unless it applies.
During the renovation process, two illegal workers hired by Tancredo were alerted to his reputation for immigrant bashing. They went straight to the Denver Post to complain. Tancredo "doesn't want us here, but he'll take advantage of our sweat and our labor," one of the workers complained to the Post on September 19, 2002. "It's just not right."1. Once again, Tancredo didn't "hired" them directly .
2. An interesting question is who exactly "alerted" the workers; was it a setup?
3. The Post article followed and coincided with the Jesus Apodaca incident, in which the Denver Post collaborated with the Mexican consulate to push giving college discounts to illegal aliens. See the September 29, 2002 letter Tancredo wrote to the Post (link). They apparently wrote 24 stories about the issue... over nine days. More response here.
...Then defiance gave way to vitriol as the congressman dubbed undocumented immigrants, "the face of murder."Blumenthal is being extremely misleading; Tancredo wasn't refering to all "undocumented immigrants", but to coyotes, drug smugglers, and terrorists .
It continues, this time with mere smears (I didn't bother clicking to the second page to see if there are more lies):
Down on the border, Tancredo announced his support for the Minutemen, providing the anti-immigrant militia with a veneer of respectability while its pistol-packing members hunt for brown-skinned evildoers.Obviously, the use of the word "militia" is meant to convey an incorrect portrayal of their actions, as is the word "hunt", and of course, they're interested in evildoers of all skin colors.
UPDATE: Howie Klein linked to the Blumenthal article (downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2007/12/heath-shuler-joins-tom-tancredo-know.html), and I left a one-sentence comment linking to this post; the comment appeared and was then deleted. He's really afraid that his readers will learn the truth, isn't he.
UPDATE 2: I'm not going to bother registering to comment, but Pam Spaulding links to the article in the falsely-titled post "Tom Tancredo hired 'criminal aliens' to build his family's rec room" (pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3807). She reposted that at Pandagon; let's see if they approve the comment I left: pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/12/02/ tom-tancredo-hired-criminal-aliens-to-build-his-familys-rec-room/
Footnotes in the extended entry.
 The article Blumenthal refers to is "Illegal labor aided Tancredo Workers say they redid basement for immigration critic" by Michael Riley, September 19, 2002. A copy is here.
Undocumented immigrants helped remodel U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo's Littleton basement, two of the workers told The Denver Post. The workers said they were among a crew of five or six people who labored for contractor Creative Drywall Design of Denver, creating a home theater with terraced seating, a billiards table and game area, and a bedroom for Tancredo, a Republican and one of the nation's most vocal immigration critics. From a September 18, 2002 House floor speech (link):
All but one of the crew were undocumented immigrants from Latin America, according to two of the workers. The Denver Post is not naming the employees because of the possibility that identification might lead to legal proceedings against them.
Tancredo didn't break any laws, according to immigration lawyers briefed on the case. He never asked whether the workers - only two of whom spoke English - were in the country legally, said Eric Givan, project manager for the company.
The company's president said he believed all of his workers were in the country legally and that he had documentation from them on file. The two workers said their documentation was false...
As the contractor's client, Tancredo had no legal obligation to ask if all the workers were documented. In his floor speech Wednesday night, he said he couldn't legally ask that question.
"You can be sued under the Civil Rights Act if you go out and ask people who have been hired by someone else if they are here illegally or not," he said.
But a Justice Department lawyer disagreed. "If a person wants to feel more comfortable by asking a contractor to sign something assuring them that everyone who works for them is legal, they can do that because (the contractor) has that obligation in the first place," said the lawyer, who declined to be identified.
Creative Drywall owner J.J. Fukunaga said he has documents on file showing that each of the company's 15 employees is legally entitled to work in the U.S. The documents vary by employee but in some cases include copies of Social Security cards and driver's licenses, he said. When asked to show copies of those documents, he declined...
..."Tom Tancredo is no more breaking the law by having his basement refinished by a company that employs undocumented workers than anybody who goes into a McDonald's and gets served a Big Mac" by an undocumented immigrant, said Laura Lichter, a Boulder immigration attorney...
...What is the most discouraging or disconcerting aspect of this whole thing is that when trying to characterize and personify the illegal immigration issue by using the Apodacas, what you do is ignore another face of illegal immigration that is much, much uglier, much nastier. That is the face of illegal immigration that you confront on the borders of this country, both the Canadian border and the Mexican border. It is the face of murder, it is the face of infiltration into the country of people who are coming to do us great harm, it is the face of drug smuggling. It is the face of rape and robbery, because coyotes who often bring these people, in this case from Mexico, into the United States, they charge them sometimes $1,000 or $1,500 to bring them into the United States illegally, and when they get to the borders they rape the women, they steal the money, they force the people into the United States into some of the most inhospitable parts of the country in terms of the desert, and they die out there. This is an ugly thing...
[List below updated 12/11/07]
"People have to understand what we're talking about here. The president of the United States is an internationalist... He is going to do what he can to create a place where the idea of America is just that – it's an idea. It's not an actual place defined by borders. I mean this is where this guy is really going... I know this is dramatic – or maybe somebody would say overly dramatic – but I'm telling you, that everything I see leads me to believe that this whole idea of the North American Union, it's not something that just is written about by right-wing fringe kooks. It is something in the head of the president of the United States, the president of Mexico, I think the prime minister of Canada buys into it... And they would just tell you, 'Well, sure, it's a natural thing. It's part of the great globalization ... of the economy.' They assume it's a natural, evolutionary event that's going to occur here. I hope they're wrong and I'm going to try my best to make sure they're wrong. But I'm telling you the tide is great. The tide is moving in their direction. We have to say that."
This has resulted in various people calling Tancredo names or disputing that such a plan is underway. And, some of them dispute that such a plan exists, but then say that such an idea isn't so bad after all. While it's certainly possible to disagree with Tancredo's assessment, all of the comments I've seen involve some form of name-calling and none of them discuss the issue on its merits. In some cases this might be actual pro-NAU propaganda, in others it might be due to opposition to Tancredo's support for our immigration laws, in others it might be a knee-jerk defense of Bush, and in some it might be due to the fact that many bloggers aren't, shall we say, that good at research and analysis.
* Judd Legum of Think Progress says: "You might think the right would immediately repudiate this kind of conspiracy theory. You'd be wrong." As could be expected from that site, most of the comments are name-calling. Some however support the NAU concept.
* Steve Benen of The Carpetbagger says: "Now, far be it for me to defend the president against an unhinged attack from a far-right lawmaker, but does anyone seriously believe that the Bush White House wants to dissolve U.S. borders altogether?" At least two out of five comments, while calling names, provide facts on the SPP.
* "AllahPundit" says: "Oh Lord... We get e-mails from those people all the time. We... do not publish them... Update: HotAir commenters (most of them) agree: Tancredo’s a prophet whose only crime is seeing too clearly the nefarious machinations towards one-world government that are happening under our very noses!" (HotAir is run by Michelle Malkin; the first post I made to her immigration blog concerned the SPP. Her position on this matter isn't known.)
* "Captain Ed" (who isn't a real captain) says: "Tom Tancredo reminds people today why he will forever remain a fringe element in American politics... This is absurd. George Bush may not have responded very well to immigration concerns from his base, but he's done more than his father, Bill Clinton, and even Ronald Reagan in bolstering border security. Tancredo is engaging in mindless demagoguery with these doomsday descriptions, and moving closer to the realms of paranoia." Most of those commenting disagree.
* John Podhoretz says: "I speculate in my book, Can She Be Stopped?, that Tancredo will run as a third-party candidate in 2008. Sounds like he'd be perfect to top Lyndon LaRouche's ticket. If you are serious about the importance of immigration restriction, you'd best be looking for a leader who hasn't chosen to place himself beyond the political fringe."
* Mark Steyn says: "Chances of an EU-style sovereignty pooling arrangement in North America? Zero per cent – whatever Tom Tancredo and the CFR say."
* SeeDubya from Junkyard Blog mockingly refers to "internationalist conspiracy", "sweet, sweet New World Order", "Illuminati endgame", and pretends that the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board supports U.S. sovereignty.
* MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy calls Tancredo various names such as "barking moonbat".
* Alexander McClure at Wizbang Politics says: "...I hope the White House throws all of its resources into this race to make sure that Tancredo also goes into retirement. He is an embarrasment to the party."
* John Hawkins at Right Wing News had a debate with Jerome Corsi on the topic. While Hawkins is not a Bush apologist in the Captain Ed/RedState/BlogsForBush mold, he is on the wrong side of this issue.
* "Appalacian Scribe" John Norris Brown says: "Why anyone gives this nutcase credibility is beyond me."
* Ragnar Danneskjold at the Jawa Report says: One would think that a U.S. Congressman would realize that any statement that starts with "I know this is dramatic" and proceeds to defend the ideas of "right-wing fringe kooks" is pretty unlikely to go anywhere good.
* Ezra of People for the American Way's Right Wing Watch says, among other things (rightwingwatch.org/2007/03/phyllis_schlafl_2.html):
...the Eagle Forum published a list of questions for its supporters to ask candidates on the trail, ranging from Schlafly's theory of "supremacist judges" to the John Birch-esque "North American Union." She says her plan is working, according to "Swift Vet" co-author and fellow "North American Union" enthusiast Jerome Corsi...
A few links are included in that excerpt, including one linking the first "North American Union" to Wikipedia's entry on "black helicopters".
* Joshua Holland, staff writer for Alternet, joins the list with "Debunking the North American Union Conspiracy Theory" (alternet.org/audits/54184). He can't even get past the second paragraph without violating Godwin's Rule:
The North American Union story is an offspring of the John Birch Society right, with its attendant xenophobia and paranoia. It comes complete with a shadowy international cabal intent on stabbing decent, hard-working Americans in the back -- Dolchstoss!
He mentions the Council of Canadians, without mentioning that they're a leftwing group and thus tend to disprove his contention that the NAU "story" is just a rightwing issue. And, he mentions some of the "dots" making up the NAU "story", but he just can't connect them.
* Chris Hayes of The Nation offers "The NAFTA Superhighway" and says that highway is fictional. Some of the letters say he's full of it, with one claiming that Katrina vanden Heuvel is a member of the CFR [11/05/10 UPDATE: Katrina vanden Heuvel is indeed a member of the CFR].
* Both join Vice President Dick Cheney in claiming there's no such highway.
* In early August 2007, Stephen Colbert had a little bit of "fun": youtube.com/watch?v=Ookak1IQJ3U
* Seattle Times columnist Bruce Ramsey offers "Bet your bottom amero that U.S. sovereignty is safe". He bases his conclusion that there's no plan to create a NAU by asking... "the government's chief negotiator on trade, Susan Schwab". She tells him it's just an "urban legend". And, he believes what she says. The JBS - mentioned in his piece - responds here.
* The Fox News "all stars" (Fred Barnes, Juan Williams, and Charles Krauthammer with host Brit Hume) play the Bush quote and then have a bit of fun here: youtube.com/watch?v=TT4tBvRDy38 Krauthammer whitewashes the Bilderberg conferences, saying that he went to one. He compares those who think the NAU is possible to those who believe that Elvis is still alive. Barnes and Williams join in with the "fun". Just because these three idiots say people aren't pushing for it shouldn't be taken as proof that it is being pushed, but...
11/27/07 UPDATE: Drake Bennett of the Boston Globe offers "The amero conspiracy": ...The NAU may be the quintessential conspiracy theory for our time, according to scholars studying what the historian Richard Hofstadter famously called the "paranoid style" in American politics. The theory elegantly weaves old fears and new realities into one coherent and all-encompassing plan... [etc. etc.]...
12/03/07 UPDATE: Gretel Kovach of Newsweek offers a very weak debunking attempt of the NAFTA Superhighway and the NAU in "Highway To Hell?" (newsweek.com/id/73372). That's linked to by the Washington Post's "Fact Checker", Michael Dobbs (blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/12/a_superhighway_to_nowhere.html), who offers his own weak attempt. And, on 11/30/07, Stephen Braun of the Los Angeles Times offered "Paul believes in threat of North American superhighway" (link). It's similar to the WaPo's "Fact Checker" article, including a Stephen Colbert "joke". And:
Federal and state highway and trade officials and transportation consultants reacted Thursday with befuddlement and amusement. The fearsome secret international highway project Paul described does not exist, they said... ...the Trilateral Commission [is] an enduring bugaboo of conspiracy theorists... As alarms about NAFTA's illusory highway have spread across the Web, the issue's whiff of paranoia has ignited sparks of humor... [Colbert "joke"]
12/09/07 UPDATE: Matt Stearns of McClatchy Newspapers offers his own "debunking".
12/11/07 UPDATE: The SPLC has also tried to cast doubts on these schemes.