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
10 comments:
This isn't a legal problem. It's a PR problem, but it's all inadmissible in court.
This seems like a nice example of how posts on the internet can bite you on the ass later. Just as some future employer may be looking at your Facebook posts, some future prosecutor or plaintiff's attorney may be doing so.
Zimmerman flees to Arizona but is stopped and deported to Mexico. Neil Conan's head explodes
??? Don't understand the censorship on this thread. ???
The left have painted a portrait of Zimmerman as a white vigilante who profiled an innocent black child and then hunted him down and shot him like a dog. This account seems incredible to anyone who knows anything about the circumstances of the case but tune in MSNBC - any commentator, any time - and you will still hear that narrative.
But the picture that the right paints of Zimmerman is hardly any more plausible. He is Mother Theresa spending his time and money helping the downtrodden. He is the selfless and noble defender of his beseiged neighbors.
The truth is almost certainly more mundane. From the Sacco and Vanzetti trial back to the Cataline Conspiracy, the injection of politics into a case makes for poor accuracy but good theater.
I'm enjoying it.
Albertosaurus
Hey, y'all boy is a "No-Limit Vato!"
a potential legal problem
Chuck Rudd does not say anything about a "potential legal problem". It would be a stupid thing to say.
He does cite Jezebel - that fine source of legal analysis - as saying that his MySpace account "might pose some problems in court".
I guess none of the crack grrl reporters at Jezebel are aware of Trayvon's contributions on social media.
The statement "They do a year and dont ever open thier mouth to get my ass pinched" is too vague to be useful. He could say it's a joke, or he was pretending to be cool, or by "they do a year" he meant something like they would do a year. Probably not even admissible anyway.
It isn't a legal problem. At best it is an impeachment issue that looks very weak given his age at the time.
What is stronger is that there is only one witness to what happened and the police have admitted under oath that they have no evidence to contradict him. Add to that that the physical evidence and (apparently) the limited witness evidence support George's story and nobody should give a darn about his old social websites. Far more prejudicial than probative.
An insightful commenter had said in regard to a previous post, that the social media is not a natural way to live. I agree, but alas, I don't think it is going away. People who kept multimillion word diaries used to be considered insane. Now it's becoming the norm. It is now suspect not to have an online identity. I've opted out, but I do have some advice for those who partake: anything you post, can and will be used against you.
I'm old enough to ignore it and I'll probably get a pass. Schools would be wise to advise students to treat it as a streaming college application/resume/obituary.
Post a Comment