claims the NYT:
O Lord our God arise,
Scatter our enemies
And make them fall;
Confound their politics,
Frustrate their knavish tricks,
On Thee our hopes we fix,
God save us all!
My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer
Second: You can make a tax deductible contribution via VDARE by clicking here. (Paypal and credit cards accepted, including recurring "subscription" donations.) UPDATE: Don't try this at the moment.
Third: send money via the Paypal-like Google Wallet to my Gmail address (that's isteveslrATgmail.com -- replace the AT with a @). (Non-tax deductible.)
Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.
You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.
Or you can send money via credit card (Visa, MasterCard, AmEx, Discover) with the industry-standard 2.9% fee. (You don't need to put money into your Google Wallet Balance to do this.)
Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).
Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here's how to do it.
(Non-tax deductible.)
Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)
Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)
Posts
11 comments:
NPR's coverage of immigration is not very good from an objective journalism standpoint, with the occasional lean toward the very bad end of that spectrum. An example of the latter might be yesterday's interview with Chertoff on 'All Things Considered', where he actually says that one consequence of not getting an immigration 'reform' bill would be that growers who couldn't get their fruit picked would 'decide they want to move their farms to south of the border or north of the border into Canada'. Earlier he says the administration will continue to enforce immigration law 'as vigorously as we have been'. Of course there has been little vigor in that effort all along. During all of Chertoff's ridiculous statement, the NPR interviewer never called him on any of this.
Ace points to the New York Times' inevitable spin on the story and how quickly Harry Reid's suggestion that the media "not focus on Democrats" was apparently taken up.
It would seem that Chertoff, and the guy that hired him, Bush, would be more to blame than NPR about what Chertoff said in the interview.
It would seem that Chertoff, and Bush, the guy that hired him, would be more to blame than NPR about what Chertoff said in the interview.
...more to blame than NPR about what Chertoff said in the interview.
There was a general comment about the lean of NPR's coverage -- feel free to agree, disagree, whatever. For another relevant data point here, take note of this commentary.
Also, there was a specific complaint about the Chertoff interview:
...the NPR interviewer never called him on any of this.
NPR was not held responsible for what Chertoff said, rather for not questioning him just a bit about the obvious hyperbole & nonsense.
eh
"...where [Chertoff] actually says that one consequence of not getting an immigration 'reform' bill would be that growers who couldn't get their fruit picked would 'decide they want to move their farms to south of the border or north of the border into Canada'."
Let me get this straight (putting aside any questions of the easy geographic portability of all crop growing):
1)growers don't employ Americans
2)growers dump all the social costs of their "cheap" labor on Americans
3)an abundant supply of affordable imported produce is already available at American grocery stores, and
4)growers are threatening to off-load the social costs of their industry from the backs of Americans and go dump them on Canadians and Mexicans.
Okay.
The New Political Reality in America
Appealing openly on racial/racist grounds to certain groups is OK: blacks, Hispanics, etc.
But don't bother appealing to whites that way: the press will roast you. But "minorities" should enjoy their status while it exists. Whites won't always be sitting on the sidelines. One day we'll demand a chance to play that game, too.
I don't think it's a situation that representative democracy can survive. Perhaps that's the whole idea.
Interesting that you've brought up Chertoff. I dreamed about him during the Katrina catastrophe when his political leanings were as murky as the floodwater. (BTW, Chertoff, his sallow face in stark contrast to the rising tide, was perched on the railing of a bridge presumably in NO, as the water rose and pulled people, dogs and debris along in its currents.) I've avoided spicy food before bedtime ever since.
I've had people tell me that NPR is a balanced news source. Thanks to this interview I now have evidence to the contrary.
Chertoff recently declared that anyone who wasn't for the bill was for mass deportations that will leave "teary eyed children" orphans. The same man who is now discussing a "silent amnesty" remininscent of Obama's "quiet riot" leaves no doubt about his pro-Amnesty stance.
A look at the NPR commentary on June 7th by economist Russell Roberts was even more telling. Roberts fails to mention any economic theory to support thinking with his heart about quotas. To him, they're a communist tool to prevent future socialists from entering the country.
NPR has provided us with a detailed analysis of the various approaches to being pro-Amnesty. Meanwhile, Chertoff's vehemence in promoting the bill has left me convinced that the US is down to a single political party.
The Wall Street Journal had yet another article up - an interview with Sen. Kyl - endorsing the mass amnesty today.
What amazes me is this: where the hell are all the pro-legalization voices in the repsonses to that article? Save for lone idiot Michael McCaffrey, who writes a letter about everything, there aren't any. Yet this happens time and time again: when the Urinal publishes a pro-amnetsy piece, all the letters are against. Whne they publish an article about it by their lone anti-amnesty voice - the brilliant Peggy Noonan - all the letters support her.
So, besides business groups, and people who don't speak Spanish, where's the support?
i would not worry about anything chertoff says. he is out of touch with reality. so far out of touch that judging by the interviews he gives, he actually seems to think his job is not even possible - that homeland security cannot be achieved and that americans should simply learn to live with an open border, illegal aliens, drug runners, and terrorists.
every time i think i have seen it all, along comes a new politician to blow me away. i mean the US now has a man in charge of homeland security who was gone on record several times saying that homeland security is not possible. what is happening here?!
Amusing moment this AM while listening to a bit of "Meet The Press" on the magic talking box,the host(not sure who it was--Bob Scheiffer,or somebody)--summed up the panel with this: "Americans WANT immigration reform,they WANT a viable guest worker program...a CBS/NEWS NY TIMES POLL SAYS..." HA! I read about that poll in Steves blog a few days ago! It was a completely fraudulent question where you practically HAD to give the guy the answer he wanted;totally unreliable. How many people out there thought,"Hmmm..this poll says that,maybe I'm outta touch!" :O
Post a Comment