Here is a the first page of the itinerary for the 12/05/2005 Arabic
Trade Summit:
[Click to view full size document]
During this meeting I voiced my opposition to any further immigration or trade
agreements with the Mid East and especially Saudi Arabia and the UAE.
In point of fact I am opposed to any further legal
or illegal immigration, into the United States, until both mean
and median real wages and benefits rise above the peak levels that
occurred in 1973: it has been downhill since.
The next day I got a extremely rare death threat, via email, in the form
of an Aesop fable: "The Owl and the Grasshopper." When I attempted to
contact the sender I found that the email account was no longer active.
Later I found that the owl is a religious idol worshipped by one of the
"secret societies" associated with globalists such as the Illuminati and
the World Bank.
I highly doubt that either of these representatives [Senator Levin (D,
MI) or Rep. Dingle (D, MI)] would like to be
publicly associated with their support for MEFTA. But they really didn't
think someone like me would be attending such a meeting. The charge for
attending was $30 and the only other attendees were businesses, the
Department of Commerce and Arab business lobbyists.
The point that I am trying to drive home is this: Do not think that the
media will not inoculate the public with reasons to accept this UAE Port
Deal over the next couple of weeks. Do not think that traitors
like Levin will try to "grandstand" this issue, acting like they are
protectors of US jobs for American (not foreign) workers. Just like Justice Alito, CAFTA, the
Bankruptcy Bill, the Prescription Drug Bill, etc., the media will
brainwash the American public into reluctant acceptance of a further
erosion of American Sovereignty. And the politicians (e.g., Levin
and Dingle) will act like they are protecting American interests and
jobs, while doing the complete opposite. And in the end both
Democratic and Republican representative will cave in and rubber stamp
the UAE Port Deal because of pressure from
their "corporate sponsors." If we want to change course it will be up to
us.
To that end I am preparing a 1 hour presentation that is currently going
under the working title: "The Case Against Immigration: Legal and
Illegal." I want to give this talk before audiances accross the state of
Michigan and I want it to serve as an opportunity to rally against the
Traitors who would sell out our future and security for the short term
benefits of the Multinational Corporations. I love public speaking so
the larger the venue, the better. I would be perfectly comfortable
giving this talk at the Palace of Auburn Hills, but will be satisfied to
start at the local VFW or AFL-CIO Hall. If you are interesting in
purchasing tickets for this "happening" send me an email to the
following address:
newagecitizenx@comcast.net
I hope to deliver the first lecture before July 4th, 2006.
Paste the following into the Subject Heading: "Immigration Lecture" so
that I can sort it out from the other mail. As time, date and location
become clearer I will send instructions for purchasing tickets. And
please forward this to your friends. We have to start getting beyond
talking amongst ourselves. If we can get media coverage for these
lectures it will reveal another, more important, dirty little secret:
The American Worker is getting sick and tired of being sold out by US
Multinational Corporations and we are demanding that this government
chart a new course for our individual and collective future.
To learn more about my background please visit my website and read
through my preliminary attempts to define an alternative future for
American and the world:
http://www.newagecitizen.com/
Yours in Freedom,
Professor Hemp
Contact Lou Dobbs about his Interview with Senator Carl Levin (D, Mi) on
(02/27/2006)
This is the email I just sent to Lou Dobb’s. If you also want Lou to ask
Levin, about his ties to Arab Commerce, you might also want to demand
the question is asked by sending a letter to Lou Dobb’s yourself. Here’s
the link:
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/
Letter to Lou Dobb’s:
I just read the following preview for your show this Monday (02/27):
“Homeland Insecurity: Sen. Carl Levin says the
Bush administration ignored the law requiring a complete national
security review of the port deal. He joins us. And, a port
security consultant tells us why she says handing operational control of
our ports over to the United Arab Emirates poses no threat to security.”
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/
You might want to ask Levin "if you are so against the Port Deal with
the UAE why did you speak at a Arab Trade Meeting (12/05/2005) that was
promoting trade with primarily the UAE and Saudi Arabia? Kind of odd for
a Jewish guy from, Detroit, the Auto Capitol of the World, until you
realize that his district is also home to the largest concentration of
Arab Americans in the United States.
Go to my webpage to view the first page from the meeting, which lists
both Levin and Dingle as speakers:
www.newagecitizen.com
Once at the homepage, click on the following text:
"Two Dirty Little Secrets and Professor Hemp's Plan to Address them
both"
Read through my "rant" until you come to the thumbnail of the document.
If you click on the thumbnail the full size document will appear in
another window.
Call me if you have additional questions or would like to have me on
your show sometime.
Comment on Carl Levin's appearance on Lou Dobb's (02/27/2005)
The three most important points being made
here are as follows:
(1) The 45 Day Review means nothing -- Bush
can sign it regardless of what the committee or Congress decide.
(2) Levin, Dingle and most of Congress are going to allow this "sell
off" of American Infrastructure to a nation that has aided and abetted
terrorists.
(3) 80% of the American public opposes the UAE Port Purchase.
If you didn't know better you would think Carl
Levin was against both UAE Port control as well as further UAE
investment in the United States. This is how he "positioned" himself on
Lou Dobb's on Monday (02/27/2006). I have included that transcript at
the end of this email.
Now Levin does say one important thing here that the media is
purposefully obscuring:
(1) THE
PORT IS GOING TO BE SOLD NEXT WEEK AND THEY WILL INSIST THAT IT CANNOT
BE UNDONE.
(2) AT THE END OF THE "45 DAY RE-REVIEW" BUSH CAN ELECT TO SIGN IT
REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS AND CONGRESS CANNOT
CURRENTLY DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.
(3) BUSH HAS INDICATED THAT HE WILL SIGN TO APPROVE THE UAE PORT DEAL.
So basically we are looking at a government which has already screwed us
on Credit Card Penalties, Bankruptcy Legislation, Pensions, Iraq,
Prescription Drugs. Now they are going to lie to us with a straight face
(e.g., Levin and Dingle) while in private they are found at Arab Trade
meetings encouraging the foreign colonization of the United States.
Once you have read the Lou Dobb's transcript go to my website:
www.newagecitizen.com
On the homepage you will find the article:
"Two Dirty Little Secrets and Professor Hemp's Plan to Address them
both"
In that story I reveal how both Levin and Dingle were both slated to
speak at an Arab Trade Summit on 12/05/2005. The two primary countries
represented at the meeting: the UAE and Saudi Arabia.
I think we need new leadership in this country.
Here is what he said on Lou Dobbs (02/27/2005):
LOU DOBBS TONIGHT: Levin on the UAE Port Deal
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0602/27/ldt.01.html
LISA
SYLVESTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): Dubai Ports World says it
will delay taking over operational control of six U.S. port facilities.
But if you read the fine print, once the company closes the deal it will
be the new owner.
SEN. CARL LEVIN (D), MICHIGAN: I don't think we ought to fool the
American people on what's going on here. This -- if this closing takes
place, Dubai owns these facilities.
And one of Dubai port deals strongest critics is Senator Carl Levin.
He's a ranking member of the Armed Services Committee. He'll be my guest
here.
I'll also be talking with two of the country's leading port security
analysts who have opposite views on this deal.
DOBBS: Kim Petersen, Michael Kreitzer, gentlemen, we thank you very much
for being here.
Still ahead here, Senator Carl Levin, a key opponent of this Dubai Ports
takeover. He is the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services
Committee and he'll be here to give us his view. Our nation's governors
in Washington. They are demanding action on an illegal alien crisis that
the federal government has yet to recognize.
Governor Janet Napolitano of Arizona joins me here next. Please stay
with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: We have been reporting to you this hour on what appears to be on
the part of at least Senator Bill Frist, the Majority Leader in the
Senate, other members of the leadership of both the House and the
Senate, but principally the Senate, to be an entire change of direction
from last week when they were defying the White House to rolling over
for this White House and falling in line if you will.
The U.S. Senate has just concluded a closed door briefing on this Dubai
Ports World deal. The Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee
Senator Susan Collins now says she still has major concerns about the
deal. Ed Henry has just talked her. Ed Henry has a report for us. Ed.
HENRY: That's right. This basically was all sparked by the fact that, as
you know earlier today, Senator Collins released an unclassified
document that revealed the Coast Guard had concerns and raised some
questions about what they call intelligence gaps in this port deal. The
Bush administration response to this hearing was they knew about the
concerns in December. They addressed them. They got assurances from the
company involved here. If they went to a classified briefing they would
allay the concerns of the senators.
Senator Collins and the top Democrat on that committee, Democrat Joe
Lieberman, just went to the classified briefing and came out, and
Senator Collins said that she is more convinced than ever, even after
this classified briefing, that the process that led to this port deal
was flawed.
She also called it a rush to judgment. That's a quote from her and said
there was not a quote, painstaking, thorough analysis in the early
stages of this actual analysis. She also stress she has confidence now
in the new 45-day review moving forward. But said that she thinks it
could be a new result that results from that 45-day review.
She also said that the assurances letter that the administration has
been pointing to basically is flawed and too weak. Take a listen to what
she said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. SUSAN COLLINS, (R) HOMELAND SEC. CMTE. CHMN: At the end of this
afternoon of briefings, I am more convinced than ever that the process
was truly flawed. That the national security and homeland security
implications of this proposed transaction were such that a 45-day formal
investigation as called for under the law should have been undertaken.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HENRY: Now Senator Lieberman also said this cannot be what he called a
45-day review for better P.R., public relations, instead he says that
this is review now needs to convince what he called a skeptical Congress
that this deal is worth moving forward on.
DOBBS: Remarkable developments, this story itself taking remarkable
twists and turns. We appreciate it, Ed Henry. Keep us up to date as
always.
Senator Carl Levin, a fierce critic of the Dubai ports deal, is the
ranking member of the Senate Armed Service Committee, as I say, joining
us from Capitol Hill. He was in today's Senate hearings on the port
deal. Good to have you with us, Senator.
SEN. CARL LEVIN (D-MI), RANKING MEMBER, ARMED SERVICES CMTE: Lou, good
being with you.
DOBBS: We just heard from Senator Collins, the leader, the Committee
Chairman of Homeland Security, she is not rolling over for this
administration. She is not falling into line.
LEVIN: Well I admire her if a lot of reasons. This is an additional one.
She is apparently going to stake out a position of independence from
this administration. I think that's critically important in the fact
that apparently the Republican leadership here are accepting a statement
that, well, we're going to close the deal on this transfer of ownership
but there's going to be a 45-day investigation.
If they close the deal, the way they now say they are going to do, that
just completely changes the status quo.
DOBBS: We should be clear, close the deal means that Dubai Ports World
would take ownership in this transaction of Peninsular & Oriental
Steamship Navigation, the company that has the contract, in 21 or 22
ports, six of the operational terminals in six major U.S. ports,
logistics contracts in those other. That makes the 45-day review a farce
at best.
LEVIN: It sure looks like it's just papering over the issue until they
can go through the motions of this review. If it's a real review, that's
fine. But now it's even more unlikely it will be a real investigation
because the actual ownership has been transferred.
They would have to unravel that ownership and according to the law they
have to go to court to do it. The administration would actually have to
go to a federal court to undo what is apparently they are going to allow
to be done in the next few days. That seems to me to be totally
unacceptable.
DOBBS: Senator Levin, this administration in all fairness to the
previous administration, put great emphasis on commerce, on
international trade, as we have reported here tonight. The world is
awash in American dollars. Our debtors, our creditors, excuse me, are
buying up now hard assets instead of investing all of that money in our
securities markets, our capital markets. Are we going to see a change
here in direction?
It's remarkable I have to ask this question four years after September
11 with our young men and women dying in Iraq and Afghanistan, but are
we going to see an awakening, a concern for the national security and
the national interest that overwhelms this mad rush to commercial
interests?
LEVIN: We can only hope so when the Secretary of the Treasury talks
about the importance of investment in the United States.
DOBBS: Was that not incredible?
LEVIN: I tell you I throw up my arms and say wait a minute. How do you
in the same breath, in the same room, talk about the need for investment
when you're also talking about the security of the United States and
some of our most vulnerable assets which are our ports. I am amazed that
they'll even discuss it at the same time.
It should have no place in this whole debate. The question is, is there
going to be a possibility of a weakening of our security by transferring
ports to foreign governments. That's the issue. And we ought to focus on
it and abide by our law.
DOBBS: Do you think the U.S. Senate will?
LEVIN: Not after today's statements by the leadership. I think it's a
lot less likely. If we do not insist this sale be put on hold until this
investigation is complete, it seems to me it's a done deal.
DOBBS: Senator Carl Levin, good to have you here. Thank you.
Its 10:00 PM, March 1st. I was just listening to Rep. Sanders
address the following committee on C-SPAN. The actual hearing occurred
today at 2:00 PM:
*****
House Financial Services Cmte. Subcommittee hearing on CFIUS Process
http://www.c-span.org/videoarchives.asp?CatCodePairs=,&ArchiveDays=100
Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-OH) chairs a subcommittee level hearing of the
House Financial Services Cmte. on the CFIUS Process. The Committee on
Foreign Investment in the United States is responsible for reviewing the
Dubai Ports World deal. The UAE company will request a full 45-day CFIUS
review.
3/1/2006: WASHINGTON, DC: 4 hr. 15 min.
*****
If you have a chance you really owe it to yourself to listen to some
of this. The link (above) is not currently working and I cannot yet
find the transcript so let me paraphrase what Sanders asked the CFIUS
members.
Sanders asked members of CFIUS, the traitors that OK'd the UAE Port
deal, the following question:
'Two years before "911" we received information that Bin Laden had been
sighted in Afghanistan/Pakistan. Apparently he was at a hunting reserve
entertaining high ranking rulers of the UAE, so the decision was
ultimately made not to take Bin Laden out (e.g., treat him with extreme
prejudice . . . kill him). Did the CFIUS committee make sure that none
of these UAE leaders is now directly or indirectly involved with the UAE-owned
company that will be in charge of the ports?
The question was directed at CFUIS member Robert Kimmitt, Deputy
Secretary, U.S. Department of Treasury. Amazingly Kimmitt had to reply
that he would find the information and get back to the panel. How could
they have OK's this port deal, with the UAE, without considering this
and many other factors?
There is no way that this deal should EVER go through. Furthermore we
need to insulate all US property from and further foreign ownership.
All property, not just "national security assets. And we also need to
determine how much foreign ownership has already taken place under the
auspices of CFIUS, over the last 30 years. CFIUS is part of a shadow
government as far as I am concerned because it is totally outside our
system of checks and balances. The very idea that such an important
deal could get by both Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield is nearly beyond
belief. Frankly, I'm not buying it.
If this deal goes through it is time to gather up our weapons and take
this country back from this secretive foreign domination which is
hollowing out the dreams of millions of working Americans.
I am seriously thinking of staging a demonstration in from of Ford Motor
in Dearborn in the next couple weeks. Here's a possible sign design
which fleshes out some of the important issues:
THIS COUNTRY IS NOT FOR SALE:
No Way on UAE Ports
No More CFIUS
No More Legal or Illegal Immigration
No More H1B jobs in America
No More foreign ownership of US Assets
No More EB-5 Visas
I'm thinking of staging this on a Saturday in Dearborn Michigan
Michigan Avenue Between Southfield and Evergreen
Parking at the Centennial Library
Anyone interested in attending should send me an email with the
following subject:
Port Protest. Send to newagecitizenx@comcast.net.
Yours in Freedom,
Professor Hemp
http://www.newagecitizen.com/
Just one Box Car
[To the Tune of "Just One Kiss"]
Just one box car
That' all it took, took, took
Cause it's Cargo was a thermo nuclear bomb
Just one box car
In a UAE run Port, Port, Port
And our Economy blows right to Kingdom Come
Just One Box Car, That's all it Took
Just One Box Car, That's all it Took
Just One Box Car, That's all it Took
Bang!
I also want to let people know that Lou Dobb's has not yet contacted me
regarding Sen. Carl Levin's curious behavior. On one hand he appears to
be questioning the UAE Port Deal. On the other hand I was at an Arab
Trade Summit (12/05/2006) where he was a guest speaker in support of UAE
trade. Hopefully, Lou Dobb's will check out the program itinerary,
posted at the website (http://www.newagecitizen/) where both Levin and
Dingle are listed as guest speakers.
Finally a germ of a solution . . .
In the spirit of thinking outside of the sand box:
We are in the midst of one of the greatest betrayals of the American
people since the Federal Reserve Banks (Note: These are actually private
owned banks, that are controlled by global financial interests, that get
to print US currency and get interest] implemented the Great Depression
in 1929.
The question is really . . . who is going to get screwed this time. The
current answer is "you and I" if we don't do something about it.
And so here is my 5 step solution.
(1) Create a "American People's Reserve" to replace the Federal Reserve
(2) Print enough money to pay off all of our domestic and foreign
creditors.
(3) Allow one month for every American to put all of their money into
the banks
(4) On D-Day all American held bank money will be multiplied by 100. So
if you have a dollar you now have 100 dollars.
(5) Once step 4 has been transacted multiply all wages by 100.
Whalah!!!! No more debt. No more foreign ownership. Oh happy day.
Of course this isn't probably going to happen without a lot of your
help. In fact given the docility of the American worker it probably
won't happen at all. It may not even be a smart idea.
What will probably happen instead, is a further colonization of the US
by foreigners who are buying up this country through CFIUS deals
and with EB-5 Visas which also grant them citizenship for their
efforts. You and I, average working Americans, will be both
figuratively and literally SCREWED.
Stop walking around with you Eyes Wide Shut!!!
Yours in Freedom,
Professor Hemp
http://www.newagecitizen.com/
The UAE Port Deal is also about preventing the Colonization of the
United States by Foreign Elite's
The UAE Port Deal is about both Security and derailing the Colonization
of the United States by Foreign Governments and People. Of course the
Corporate Controlled Media prefers that we relegate our energy to the
first, as they are cooking up the disinformation to inoculate the
malleable American public. What the Multination Elite fears is that we
just might start focusing on the second concern: the colonization of the
United States by Foreign Elites (Mid Eastern, Chinese, Indian, etc.).
I will expound on this shortly. But I think you will get a good idea as
to the subthemes from reading these two links:
When Americans No Longer Own America
by Thom Hartmann
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0227-20.htm
U.S. Reviewing 2nd Dubai Firm
Israeli Deal Also Faces Security Check
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/01/AR2006030102192.html
If these articles are not enough "good news" consider that this 45 "UAE
Port" Review may be nothing more than a Kabuki show (e.g., the sale is a
done deal despite 80% disapproval by scientific polls of American
workers).
I think what is interesting is the framing of the UAE Port Issue. They
are trying to say it is all about National Security and then go on to
argue that (1) even China owns vast berths within our harbors and (2)
those that are uncomfortable about the deal must be Islamophobic.
What they don't want to see is this issue framed in terms of a foreign
colonialization of the United States where American workers will find
themselves at the mercy of foreign born employers. If this reality
permeates the media, as it should, there just might be a small chance
that we can reclaim this republic
http://www.thestreet.com/funds/belowradar/10016126.html
By K.C. Swanson Staff Reporter
04/08/2002 07:06 AM EDT
It's starting to look like 401(k) plans will go down in history as a
costly failure. In fact, the abandonment of old-fashioned pension plans
is likely to leave many Americans poorer in their old age.
Evidence shows that as 401(k)s have taken hold, employees have lost
ground in their retirement savings -- even during one of the greatest
bull markets in history.
In the last 10 or 15 years, companies have increasingly pushed the
burden of managing pensions onto their workers. During the market's boom
years, workers rarely complained. Indeed, few regretted the
disappearance of defined-benefit plans in an era in which 401(k) plans
offered access to double-digit stock market gains.
Now it's clear that many employees either can't afford to make adequate
contributions or don't understand that they must. In 2001, fewer than 7%
of 401(k) participants contributed the maximum allowed amount to their
plans, according to Cerulli Associates, a fund consulting group.
Moreover, because the average U.S. worker has little training in
financial planning, some have assumed far too much risk, while others
have invested too cautiously -- and both moves damage long-term returns.
Granted, not everyone has lost out with 401(k) plans. Employees with
high incomes, financial know-how and an interest in investments stand to
benefit from a system of self-managed retirement accounts. But few
people fit that profile.
Retirement Savings: Facing a Shortfall
Surprising as it may seem after a decade of prosperity, Americans on the
verge of retirement actually have less money saved now than 15 years
ago. For those aged 47 to 64, inflation-adjusted median retirement
wealth -- including defined-contribution plans, defined-benefit plans
and the value of Social Security benefits -- actually fell by 11%
between 1983 and 1998, according to a study by New York University
economist Edward Wolff.
Yet for the same age group, average retirement wealth rose 4%. In other
words, over the last 15 years, wealthier people gained retirement
wealth, the less affluent lost it.
It's no coincidence that in the meantime, 401(k)s were elbowing out
defined-benefit plans as the retirement plan of choice. By 1998, well
over half of workers close to retirement owned a 401(k).
"401(k)s are good if you can accumulate a lot of money, but medium-wage
workers just haven't accumulated as much. Lower-income workers did much
better under [defined-benefit] plans," says Wolff.
Meet Your New Pay Cut, the 401(k)
Given their unimpressive track record, how did 401(k)s get to be so
popular in the first place? It helped that the plans became widespread
in the '90s, amid a period of double-digit stock market gains. Back
then, 401(k)s were touted as a means to access potential stock market
riches -- unlike defined-benefit plans, with their stodgy guaranteed
payouts.
401(k)s also offered portable benefits, letting workers take their
retirement funds with them if they changed jobs.
But at least as important as their appeal to workers was that 401(k)s
saved employers money. "401(k) plans in general are seen to be cheap
because the company doesn't have to make as large contributions," says
Annika Sunden, associate director for research at Boston College's
Center for Retirement Research.
Under a defined-benefit plan, a typical company might pay an average of
around 8% of its payroll into a pension account, with individual payouts
based on a retiree's salary and tenure at the firm. But with a 401(k), a
company could pay benefits of anywhere between 3% of payroll, if it
provides a match to employee contributions, to nothing at all.
By switching from defined-benefit plans to 401(k)s, companies have
effectively cut worker benefits. But there's little evidence that they
have simultaneously raised wages to offset that effect.
Moreover, in line with the faltering economy, companies have cut the
amount of money they contribute to worker plans. "401(k)'s are
profit-sharing plans. People have forgotten that. When profits decline,
company contributions decline as well," says David Wray, president of
the Profitsharing/401(k) Council of America, an employer trade
association. In a survey of 909 member companies, the council found that
their average contributions to 401(k) plans dropped from 3.3% of payroll
in 1999 to 2.5% in 2000. Contributions declined further in 2001, though
no specific number has been released yet.
The bottom line: Many employees with 401(k)'s aren't saving enough money
to retire. A survey by the Employee Benefit Research Institute found
that among workers aged 40 to 59, 39% reported savings of less than
$50,000. Less than one-fourth have saved $100,000 or more.
Such low totals are not a reflection, however, of declining
contributions. Despite the down market, contributions to 401(k)s
increased 10% from 1999 to 2000, according to Cerulli. The firm projects
that contributions grew another 10.1% in 2001, though the information
hasn't been made official.
But partly because of the down market, the average 401(k) account
balance declined 0.1% in 2001, according to the ICI.
Social Security Won't Pick Up the Slack
Some folks may be betting that Social Security will come to their aid in
retirement. Indeed, almost half of current retirees 60 and older say
Social Security is the biggest share of their income.
But the federal program is not likely to be able to pick up the slack in
the future. Already, payouts are on the decline. In the 15-year period
ending in 1998, the value of Social Security benefits to households with
people aged 47 and over declined 11%. Among the reasons: average hourly
wages have declined in that period, as have the average hours worked.
Also, fewer people are married, and married people reap bigger Social
Security benefits.
Moreover, with the very structure of Social Security up for debate, it
seems risky for younger workers to expect generous benefits when they
reach old age.
As it stands, of course, the tenuous footing of Social Security in the
future has grabbed all the attention. But it's becoming clear that many
Americans also haven't put enough money aside in their private
retirement accounts, the other key component of retirement security.
And unlike the '90s, today there's no soaring stock market to give
anyone reason to think insufficient retirement funds could go the
distance. "I think the stock market hype really clouded this [retirement
savings] issue," says Wolff. "The boom largely benefited the rich, but
it hasn't really filtered down that much."
You also might want to check
out these books for further perspective, or at least check out the
reviews:
The Case Against the Global
Economy: And for a Turn Toward the Local
by Jerry Mander, Edward Goldsmith
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0871568659/ref=pd_rhf_f_1/103-0044256-2449479?v=glance&s=books&no=*&st=*
In the Absence of the Sacred:
The Failure of Technology and the Survival of the Indian Nations
by Jerry Mander
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0871565099/ref=pd_bxgy_text_1/103-0044256-2449479?v=glance&s=books&st=*
"New Agenda for America" - Brand
New Addition to our website!
"New Agenda for America" will
become a slogan for referring to the set of policy positions that NAC
will be promoting in the coming years. It refers to a disturbing
trend whereby our elected representatives appear to be increasingly at
odds with the values of the founding fathers of this country (e.g.,
Washington, Franklin, Jefferson) and the American people.
To get this off the ground I
am creating a frames based page which will allow my visitors to both
understand the rational behind New Age Citizen as well as the
preliminary agenda for "New Agenda for America." I will place a link to
this at the top right hand corner of the homepage for now. You can
take a quick look by clicking below:
New Agenda for America
I'm interested to here your
initial feedback on this new addition to the website.
Also, please read this article if you have not already done so. Very
illuminating stuff.
http://www.newagecitizen.com/PDF/braindrain.pdf
Please support our efforts to allow a form of Marijuana
Re-Legalization where personal cultivation is neither taxed or regulated
by any government agencies. For more information please read the
following articles regarding the Marijuana Re-Legalization Policy (MRP)
Project:
Editorial
Overview
To navigate through the rest of the
website please proceed to the "Site Navigation Center":
NAVIGATION CENTER
We encourage those, that agree
with our goals, to support our efforts by purchasing the NAC Multi-media
CD which comes with a annual membership to New Age Citizen. Click
below to get more information:
Introduction to the New Age Citizen Disk Web
To simplify the ordering process
please print yourself off an order form by clicking on the hover button
below..
[Please
Note: (1) You need to have the free
Adobe
Acrobat Reader installed before you can print the order form; (2) This
form also has occasional problems when viewed through the AOL browser.
If it takes more that 2 minutes to bring up the form we suggest using the
Internet Explorer (IE) browser].
Thanks for your Activism and Support,
Professor Hemp,
Editor of New Age Patriot Magazine(1989 - 1997)
Webmaster for New Age Citizen (2000 - End of the Drug War)
Dirty
Secret #1: The American Worker is tired of being sold out by our
Corporations and Politicians.
