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
30 comments:
Dennis Dale's remark earlier this week about Obama earlier comes to mind ...
"His selection of the buffoonish but "safe" Joe Biden (holding all the cards, he checks nervously) betrays his lack of confidence."
Hmmm ...
Black people don't play poker to win. That's not my opinion, that's the opinions of The Mad Genius of Poker himself, Mike Caro. Here is the full context:
As a general rule, women are harder to bluff than men. Orientals are either very skillful or very luck-oriented. There’s not much in the middle. Often these tells don’t work with some Orientals. Some, not all, will even act strong when strong and weak when weak, which - as you’ll soon learn - is the reverse of what most players do, especially those from most Western cultures.
Relatively few African-American men play to win; most tend to gamble more liberally than other players. I’ve seen this become less pronounced over the years since I wrote the first edition of this book, but the tendency still dominates - giving African-Americans who choose to play poker more seriously than recreationally a key advantage. It’s their opponents’ preconceptions that facilitate the advantage. This goes doubly for women, whom male opponents don’t usually think are competent. (I once wrote a whole book about how women can take advantage of that preconception; it is called Poker for Women - A Course in Destroying Male Opponents at Poker and Beyond.)
Who am I to second guess the wisdom of a California baby boomer? Who literally wrote The Book Of Tells?
Of course, given the steep, steep level of opposition that Obama faces in his card games - lobbyists eager to put money in the pockets of politicians such as Obama - who can really say?
In all seriousness, Obama is an empty vessel. If someone with access to him can convince him that nuking Russia is a good idea politically, he'll likely do it without considering the consequences; not so with McCain.
Presidential elections are a package deal and it is the people whispering in the ear of the lump of clay called Obama who should most concern the American people.
No doubt our friend testing99 will elaborate upon said whisperers :-)
Personally, I'd prefer a chess player, or possibly a cool, logical horse handicapper...
Tschafer
Just about anything is better than "I can type, he can't type."
Neither.
Would it depend if the dice are loaded, or not?
In most conflict situations the odds are of course heavily stacked in the US military's favour so throwing the dice might not be the worse strategy.
It would beat throwing away a good hand because you have incorrectly read the intentions of the other players.
But one of the key skills of poker is the ability to deceive, which no politician wants to admit to.
Jack Kennedy loved to play golf but his people hid that fact. It was too reminiscent of Eisenhower.
If Obama wants to create an image of of himself as a poker player he will risk evoking memories of Nixon.
Nixon actually claimed to have financed his college education through poker. He was subsequently depicted in a series of Herblock cartoons as a card sharp poker player.
"Which kind of man do you want to see conducting America's foreign policy?"
The kind of man that went against his own party to push fire Rumsfeld. The kind of man that pointed out that “presidents don't lose wars. Political parties don't lose wars. Nations lose wars and nations have the consequences of failure.”
The kind of man that, when almost the entire establishment and Barack Obama had panicked accepted American defeat and Al Quaida victory in Iraq, demonstrated judgment and pushed for the surge.
How did the opposition to the surge and the denial of its success work out for you?
The public does not want the kind naive utopian who promised this radical policy:
“I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems…. I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material”
By the way, if someone as insecure as Obama becomes president, there is always the problem that they need to signal their toughness to the public through overly aggressive foreign policy. Obama will not instigate a new war out of nothing like Bush did, but he is far more likely to over-react to a crisis in order not to appear “weak”.
This is also how I interpret his silly cowboy talk about openly invading Pakistan (there is no problem with Americans crossing Pakistan borders, but you just do it, you do NOT openly proclaim it as policy and rub their faces in it).
How about one who, you know, looks over the facts and makes reasoned decisions? Is that too hard for Americans to grasp?
I understand that W is a poker player. That didn't keep him from doing a lot of things you disapprove of.
Under Mccain the U.S. will start WW3, under Obama Iran will. What's the difference?
But Obama is an arrogant and unskilled poker player...
For this metaphor to go over well, doesn't it depend on the average voter, as opposed to your average political junkie, being aware of McCain's hot temper and generally reckless predisposition? I'm some what doubtful they already are and it would be hard for the Obama camp to draw attention to that and not come across as engaging in character assassination.
On another note Steve, plan on talking about Obama's Letterman appearance? You had mentioned that he should poke fun at himself, and I think the the self-deprecating line about magazine covers and not being the current media darling was rather effective. And I don't think you would deny he came across as good humored, which you seemed skeptical of him being capable of.
I wonder if on net this will turn out to be a win for him, appealing to conservatives and independents irritated by the PC language excess that McCain of all people seems to be championing now. So perhaps now would be the opportune time for you yourself to express some regret for jumping on the Republican bandwagon with their psychoanalytic take of "lipstick on a pig" as a freudian slip?
In all seriousness, Obama is an empty vessel. If someone with access to him can convince him that nuking Russia is a good idea politically, he'll likely do it without considering the consequences; not so with McCain.
Obama has demonstrated that he can look over the facts and make sound independent judgements. For example, he didn't buy into the WMD crap that all of the Republicans and many leading Democrats were pushing. He didn't buy into the non-existent surge. Sadly, he has partially bought into the myth that Iraq has improved since McCain/Bush's fake surge began. But this is America and anyone who is sensible on foreign policy isn't allowed to run for office. We have to settle for people who at least are heading in the right direction.
McCain seems to be an empty vessel who is willing to take whatever position will get him ahead politically. That explains why he repudiated all of his positions and values during the last couple of years when he decided to run for President.
There won't be WW3. We're not going to go to war against either Russia or China.
Yes, Card Guy, the election is a package deal. Obama's advisers include Bill Ayers, the various Revs at Trinity United, various Code Pink people, Moveon, Daily Kos, and the usual Democratic National Security idiots like Holbrooke and Sandy Berger. Clinton retreads who came on board with Obama early. Plus Susan Rice and Joe Biden, who wanted to send $20 million to Iran no strings attached after 9/11.
Obama's policy would throw Israel over the side, no doubt generating joy among his Muslim/Democratic backers and paleocons, but sending every ally of the US (India, various Eastern European nations) into fear, making whatever deal they can with enemies.
He would however besides running away in Iraq, allow Iran to go nuclear, NOT respond to the US being nuked, and probably abandon Afghanistan/Pakistan also. [Obama in the debates, unlike Hillary, said he would NOT retaliate if the US were nuked -- not surprising if you look at his backers.]
McCain will keep us in Iraq, next to Iran, able to influence them. He like Obama will probably be forced to abandon Afghanistan since Pakistan's collapse means we can't supply forces there.
McCain is unlikely IMHO given HIS backers (lots of retired military / defense thinkers) to attack Iran directly, though he might blockade it (McCain is a Navy Man). He'll definitely up the Navy's ship count, Naval Air wings, and being a Naval Aviator likely favor that for pressure.
McCain would definitely spell out a "What Will the US do if nuked?" policy including very likely a list of nations to be wiped out, and what to get off the list (dump nukes, basically). Just to let everyone know the red lines. There would probably be only two nations on it -- Iran and Pakistan. [North Korea is under China's protection and sadly untouchable.]
It's interesting to note the two BIGGEST gambles Obama and McCain have taken.
McCain literally gambled with his life after extensive torture that his captors would not kill him by refusing early release and he noted "they broke me" and also his fellow prisoners "lifted me up." A VERY extraordinary admission, even though I oppose his Amnesty/McLettuce program.
Obama's biggest gamble? Becoming a "Community Organizer."
McCain's second biggest Gamble? Backing the Surge when the "experts" said it would not work. Obama's second biggest Gamble? Running for President.
"I understand that W is a poker player."
I think Russian Roulette would be a better analogy.
"Under Mccain the U.S. will start WW3, under Obama Iran will. What's the difference?"
Is this some kind of joke? How is a country on the other side of the world with an economy the size of Miami's and no major allies going to start WW3?
It seems to me there is something in the American psyche that needs to invent an enemy where none exists. These kinds of people should just follow professional sports where they won't end up killing us all.
America is headed towards a white minority. We're looking at a country that's going to be 50% white. This population will be more economically successful than their black and brown welfare dependents and this will be taken as proof of their inherent wickidness. If things don't change they'll also be the only group denied their own ethnic identity.
A black is 60 times more likely to commit a crime against a white than vice versa. And still you've got the media portrating blacks as victims and encouraging hate crime legislation to protect them. Remember the Duke rape case? The Jenna 6 nonsense? Ruling that denying illegals welfare benefits was unconstitional? The University of Delaware hate whitey indoctrination program? What do you think things will be like when whites are a numerical minority?
From the Wikipedia article on white pride:
White pride activists state whites will become a minority group in historically white countries. They note that non-Hispanic whites comprise less than half the population of California and Texas, the states with the largest economies outside of New York, and that some models predict that white people will become a numerical minority in the United Kingdom by 2100.[9] This phenomenon is sometimes referred to as the minority-majority effect.
However, simple numerical minority status is not how most sociologists or economists define a minority group. To avoid confusion, some writers prefer the terms "subordinate group" and "dominant group" rather than "minority" and "majority".[citation needed] In this context, sociologists argue that white people—specifically white men—would remain the culturally and politically dominant group in historically white countries, even if they came to represent a numerical minority.[10]
Here that? Becoming the first people in the history of the word to let yourselves become minorities in your own countries isn't a defense against racism! You'll still be advantaged and evil and everytime a black or mestizo can't do calculus or robs a liquor store whites will be blamed.
I'm scared to death of the future. McCain is as bad at amnesty as you can get but some of you think that he's more pro-white than Obama because he wants to fry Iran.
Look both Obama and McCain are 100% looking out for their own best intersts when it comes to the topic of being loudly and strongly in favor of immigration from mexico
what no one on this board has pointed out - is that amnesty for the 20 million illegals doesn't really matter.
The 20 million illegals are having babies here in America. On average, each illegal couple from Mexico has three kids. And then the kids have kids of their own on average at the age of 19. At that rate of reproduction, the population descended from the illegals grows exponentially.
That is why the population of the USA is projected to grow by more than 100 million so quickly - it is caused by the massive number of children and grandchildren being produced by the immigrants from Mexico.
There is so much talk on this blog about amnesty vs no amnesty. Amnesty doesn't matter - the 20 million will have plenty of kids whether they are citizens or not.
And the kids are American citizens
Simply by sneaking across the border and having lots of kids here in America, the fine folks from Mexico have won control of the United States. The demographic changes are coming. That is why in many ways Obama and McCain are both smart to be so loudly pro - Mexican.
They both realize that in the future this will be a latin country and the history books will be written from a latin or mexican perspective. The anti amnesty forces will be portrayed in a very negative light. Obama and McCain just both want to be remembered by history as good guys and the only way to insure that is to go on record as being pro amnesty.
Sorry to say but those of us who go "on the record" as being against the influx of mexicans will be regarded by the future residents of these 50 states as nothing other than nazis.
that is how history will treat us.
...NOT respond to the US being nuked...
Give me a break. That's the stupidest thing you've written here yet. And that's saying something.
Give me a break. That's the stupidest thing you've written here yet. And that's saying something.
Must confess I got so worked up when I read testing99's comment that I didn't read the whole thing. So if Obama really said he wouldn't retaliate if nuked, I retract the comment.
A couple of thoughts for the board:
1) Testing99 is a neocon who is against illegal immigration. There doesn't seem to be a lot of daylight between you paleos and him on domestic issues.
2) There's a simple way to keep Mexicans from taking over this country: vote Republican and then encourage the GOP to ditch compassionate conservatism. Make it hard for a high school dropout to survive here. Cut back on the earned income tax credit, stonewall the Dems on raising the minimum wage, bust unions, etc. The Mexicans will start going home.
Julio
I wonder if on net this will turn out to be a win for him, appealing to conservatives and independents irritated by the PC language excess that McCain of all people seems to be championing now.
A vote for Obama is a vote for no more PC langauge? I think not.
OK, there are like 4 anonymous posts in a row here. Could those who don't want to use even a borrowed fictional name (no, Captain Jack Aubrey is not my real name) at least use a name like AnonFromMinn or something?
There's a simple way to keep Mexicans from taking over this country...encourage the GOP to ditch compassionate conservatism. Make it hard for a high school dropout to survive here....
First, there will probably always be jobs requiring nothing more than uneducated labor. America already does a better job at producing unskilled labor than any other country in the First World - we don't need to import any more.
...stonewall the Dems on raising the minimum wage, bust unions, etc. The Mexicans will start going home.
You get it precisely backward. The way to reduce the need for illegal labor is to slow the growth in the need for unskilled labor - that means raising its price. Raising the minimum wage and increasing the number of unionized workers would do that, as would encouraging investment in capital equipment.
That's why we should actually want illegal workers to unionize. We should want them to be able to sue for unpaid overtime. We should want them to qualify for workmen's comp (though probably not unemployment). Anything making it more expensive to employ them reduces the advantage businesses gain by employing them.
Look at the current situation. CIS estimates that the illegal population has shrunk by over 1 million in the past year. While they maintain that increased enforcement is primarily responsible, the slowing economy has certainly helped.
If we lowered the minimum wage to a dollar an hour there'd be all sorts of jobs created that businesses would "need" to fill but that no Americans would even be available - let lone willing - to do.
While I've traditionally been a free market kind of guy, and still basically am, until the mass immigration problem is dealt with I have emphatically become pro-union and pro-minimum wage. If they had an initiative in my state raising the minimum wage to $20 an hour I'd vote for it, even though it wouldn't benefit me.
The biggest non-sequitur in the arguments of groups like he Chamber of Commerce is that on the one hand they argue that they need millions of immigrants because the rate of job growth is (was) so high that there aren't enough Americans to fill all the new jobs; on the other they argue that higher minimum wages will slow job growth. Well if job growth is already higher than it needs to be, then why would slower job growth be a worry?
Another non sequitur: on one hand they believe that when demand rises for products (for homes, gasoline, etc.) that prices should be allowed to rise. On the other, they think that the price for labor should never rise; that when it does they should be able to import foreign labor rather than pay better wages.
So how to reduce the presence of illegals and the demand for "guest" workers? 3 simple steps:
1) Raise the cost of labor, slowing job growth.
2) Raise the legal/financial risk to those who hire.
3) Eliminate all government-provided or -allowed benefits, like driver's licenses, public education, in-state tuition, vehicle registrations, bank accounts, etc.
"Make it hard for a high school dropout to survive here. Cut back on the earned income tax credit, stonewall the Dems on raising the minimum wage, bust unions, etc. The Mexicans will start going home."
But surely we can achieve these laudable goals - or at least the general trend: immiserating the lower classes - even more easily by letting more Mexicans in.
Dr Stephen Maturin
Richard H said:
"I'm scared to death of the future. McCain is as bad at amnesty as you can get but some of you think that he's more pro-white than Obama because he wants to fry Iran."
I agree substantially with what you wrote. However, there is a distinction between McCain and Obama re white people: McCain is a member of our deracinated elite. He is neither actively pro nor anti white, he simply does not take into consideration a policy's or action's effect on white people. On the other hand, Obama, as one would expect from someone who took electives in critical race theory with anti-white racist Derrick Bell, looks at any potential through the lens it's racial impact (obviously seeking pro-black (and probably anti-white) results).
richard h:
"This population will be more economically successful than their *black and brown welfare* dependents and this will be taken as proof of their inherent wickidness."
I'm assuming black and brown refers to blacks and Hispanics?
I sure hope so, since that identifier includes groups such as Filipinos and Indian Americans who are certainly *not* welfare defendants and on average, more economically successful than the population. I sure would hate for them to get lost in all this immigrant hate....
"I'm assuming black and brown refers to blacks and Hispanics?
I sure hope so, since that identifier includes groups such as Filipinos and Indian Americans who are certainly *not* welfare defendants and on average, more economically successful than the population. I sure would hate for them to get lost in all this immigrant hate...."
The fact that brown Indians and yellow Asians succeed has never stoped La Raza, the NAACP and our elites from calling this a racist country before, why should we expect it to in the future?
Keeping your country homogenous should be an end in an of it self but you won't find me claiming that Japanese are as bad as Guatemalans or Haitians.
"A factoid/metaphor that Obama should try to get to the public's attention is that he plays poker"
This is exasperating. A "factoid" is not a small fact, a piece of trivia. It is a NON-Fact. And invention dressed up to look like a fact. Hence the "-oid" suffix. You know: like humanoid or asteroid. Please don't propagate solecisms.
@Richard H:
please e-mail me privately for an amazing story of black violence.
h34e@yahoo.com
Post a Comment