Nukes for Gamma Mangos

Date: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 5:16 PM

<<<<< JOB DESTRUCTION NEWSLETTER No. 1610 -- 12/13/2006 >>>>>

Congress passed the US-India nuclear cooperation initiative last weekend.
It's a very bad trade deal that was going to be made worse when John
Boehner (R-OH) tried to tack an H-1B increase on the bill. Fortunately
Beohner's backdoor attempt was blocked by Sen. Biden (D-DE).

Lou Dobbs asked the correct question last week:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0612/06/ldt.01.html

And the United States Congress could be on the verge
of a deal to give India our nuclear technology in return
for mangos and a few other products. What in the world
is this administration thinking? What in the world is
this Congress thinking?

In March Bush told Manmohan Singh how anxious he was to trade nuclear
materials for mangos: "And, oh, by the way, Mr. Prime Minister, the United
States is looking forward to eating Indian mangos."

President Bush will sign the bill on Monday, December 18th.

Apparently the Bush family has a voracious appetite for mangos. Click on
this link to see how Laura Bush makes "Smoked Shrimp with Mango Salsa".
Yummy!

http://www.whitehouse.gov/firstlady/initiatives/recipes-1.html

If shrimp and salsa isn't your thing, how about relaxing with a cup of
Laura's mango tea:

http://www.reasontofreedom.com/lovely-tea-at-white-house-with-laura.html

If those two don't get you salivating, the mango ice cream that's a regular
on the White House menu will surely woo you. Vicente Fox was very
impressed!

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/sept01/2001-09-06-state-dinner.htm

If you ever get a chance to eat one of Laura's delicious treats, it's
probably better not to dwell on the fact that Indian mangos will have to be
bombarded with gamma radiation before they can be exported to the U.S.
Irradiation of food is controversial but that didn't deter the USDA from
rubber stamping an approval that allows for the nuking of Indian mangos so
that they can be imported. Click this link to find out more:

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?contentidonly=true&contentid=2006/03/0063.xml

This agreement is all about nuclear technology and mangos, but the press
seems to be downplaying the mango part of the trade deal. The Washington
Post article included below is a good one, but where are the mangos???

I included two more articles, one by the SF Chronicle that claims that
there is widespread support for the deal. That's followed by an article
that doesn't sound very supportive to me. I follow that one with an article
from the India press that shows even in India there is opposition. What the
heck is the Chronicle talking about?

Since the mainstream media refuses to provide the American public all the
information needed about this agreement, I decided to do an educational
video of the whole mess. You can see Part 1 by clicking on either of these
links:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-593671990349029468&q=h-1b&hl=en

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgukFLIzOCw

The Center for American progress put a more serious video on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dc9Y9YoU_XY

ATTENTION: YOU CAN CONTRIBUTE TO THE NEW VIDEO

The first mango video is a tough act to follow, but I'm going to try. I'm
working on Part 2 -- and that's where you come in.

For those of you that are artistically or creatively inclined, I would be
happy to incorporate your graphics or animations in the video. I will send
those that are interested a few suggestions for the format and encoding
schemes so that we are compatible. An FTP account will be provided if you
have large files to upload.

I have some great video footage to incorporate from Lou Dobbs and CSPAN. If
any of you record other news clips about the nukes for mangos, please send
them to me. I'm sure next week there will be at least some TV coverage of
Bush's maniacal new agreement.

Articles Used

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/12/AR2006121201299.html
Bush to sign India nuclear deal into law on Monday

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/12/10/MNGAHMSTF51.DTL&type=politics
Widespread support for U.S.-India nuclear deal

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/12/india_deal.html
A Nonproliferation Disaster

http://www.indolink.com/displayArticleS.php?id=121306083238
The Indo US Nuclear Civilian Deal: Dictate Or Deal?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/12/AR2006121201299.html

Bush to sign India nuclear deal into law on Monday

Reuters
Tuesday, December 12, 2006; 11:49 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush will sign into law on
Monday a civil nuclear cooperation deal that allows the United States to
sell nuclear technology to India, the White House said.

Congress gave final approval on Saturday to the legislation which the Bush
administration and its allies say will expand ties with the world's largest
democracy and open up billions of dollars in trade for U.S. companies.

Critics say the legislation, which helps clear the way for India to buy
U.S. nuclear reactors and fuel, will undermine efforts to curb the spread
of nuclear weapons.

But congressional sponsors said the legislation included some restraints,
such as requiring the president to stop U.S. exports of nuclear materials
if India tested another nuclear device as it did in 1998.

India said it views the nuclear cooperation deal as a big step forward but
it was wary of conditions attached to it by Congress.

"The government has taken note of certain extraneous and prescriptive
provisions in the legislation," India's Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee
told parliament.

The deal reversed 30 years of U.S. policy that had opposed nuclear
cooperation with India because the country developed nuclear weapons in
contravention of international standards and never signed the
Non-Proliferation Treaty.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/12/10/MNGAHMSTF51.DTL&type=politics

NEWS ANALYSIS
Widespread support for U.S.-India nuclear deal
Trade and strategic gains outweigh proliferation worry
- Somini Sengupta, New York Times
Sunday, December 10, 2006

(12-10) 04:00 PST New Delhi -- Ask the champions of the landmark nuclear
deal with India that President Bush is expected to sign into law this week
why only that country will be allowed into the world's nuclear club while
others are denied, and a common reason you will hear is this: Unlike those
others, India will be a responsible nuclear citizen.

But beyond simple goodwill, unique commercial and strategic imperatives
have driven a bipartisan swell of support for the deal, even though New
Delhi steadfastly rejects the global nonproliferation treaty and advances a
nuclear weapons program.

The nuclear accord opens the door, for the first time in more than 30
years, for New Delhi to buy fuel, reactors and other technology to expand
its civilian nuclear program.

Nicholas Burns, the U.S. undersecretary of state for political affairs,
called it the "symbolic center" of a sweeping new relationship with India.
K. Subrahmanyam, a foreign-policy analyst and one of the best-known Indian
advocates of the nuclear partnership, called it a "litmus test for the
future of India-U.S. relations."

In a statement Saturday, Bush hailed the agreement. "I am pleased that our
two countries will soon have increased opportunities to work together to
meet our energy needs in a manner that does not increase air pollution and
greenhouse gas emissions, promotes clean development, supports
nonproliferation, and advances our trade interests," he said.

The economic incentives for the United States are huge.

As India gradually opens its vast market, American companies stand to make
a great many gains, from investments in Indian real estate to selling
soybean oil and fighter planes.

There is also New Delhi's growing strategic value in a rapidly changing
Asia.

"We see India as important for both intrinsic and extrinsic reasons," said
Ashley Tellis, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace and a former adviser to Burns. "Intrinsic because it's a large
country growing very rapidly, it's a market for American goods, and a
country with which we share common values. Extrinsically, India is a
growing power in the context of where Asia is evolving."

That contentious legislation has enjoyed so much bipartisan support is
revealing. Neither Democrats nor Republicans, it seems, think that the
opportunity can be passed up.

"India can be an important partner on a range of issues, from combatting
the threat of terrorism and proliferation to promoting democracy and
regional security," Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said by e-mail late Friday
from Washington. "Cooperation on the civilian nuclear front can move this
essential partnership forward."

The Heritage Foundation, a conservative research group, described India as
"a vibrant democracy with a rapidly growing economy," and predicted that
good relations with New Delhi "will provide a stabilizing influence in
Asia."

The two countries are poised to expand their range of counterterrorism
operations. Just this year, in two major military deals unthinkable a few
years ago, India bought a used U.S. naval vessel and six military
helicopters; together they are worth nearly $90 million.

India is also in the market to buy as many as 126 new fighter planes, and
U.S. manufacturers are eager to fill the order -- a deal that could total
as much as $6 billion. If they win the contract, the United States could
well supplant Russia and Israel as India's biggest military supplier.

Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., who in January will become chairman of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, described the nuclear bill as implicit
recognition of India's long-term value to the United States.

"We can talk about the various aspects of India's importance in the coming
decades -- as a counterweight to China, as a rising military power, as an
energy consumer, as an economic force, as a bulwark against terrorism and
extremism, as a cultural beacon throughout Asia and the world," he wrote by
e-mail. "We can parse the various ways in which India will be vitally
important -- but we can't seriously question that India will be vitally
important, and that's why I've been saying for years that there's no
bilateral relationship more important than the one between the U.S. and
India."

With the Indian economy growing at a steady clip of up to 8 percent in
recent years, India last month welcomed the largest U.S. trade delegation
to any country, including vendors of nuclear equipment.

Wal-Mart recently announced its long-awaited entry into the Indian retail
market. And Boeing has an $11 billion contract for 68 commercial airplanes
for India's booming airline industry.

The Americans are nudging India to relax rules in foreign investment,
notably in the banking sector. The U.S.-India Business Council, a lobby
group, predicted in a news release that the nuclear law would "yield a
bounty of opportunity for both our countries."

Many in India are already celebrating. On Saturday, the English-language
Hindustan Times newspaper boasted in a headline stretching across its front
page: "India gets to have its nuclear cake and eat it, too."

Generally prickly about any perceived slights to its sovereignty, the
Indian government had worried that Congress would attach conditions to the
nuclear bill that would influence Indian foreign policy or emasculate its
nuclear weapons program. One of those conditions, though not binding on New
Delhi, calls for Indian cooperation to contain Iran's nuclear weapons
buildup.

The Indian foreign ministry, in a statement Friday, welcomed the bill, but
made note of what it called "extraneous" requirements. "No legislation
enacted in a foreign country can take away from us the sovereign right to
conduct foreign policy determined solely by our national interests," it
said.

India and the United States have yet to see eye-to-eye on a host of foreign
policy issues, and they continue to have their own reasons to cozy up to
each other's foes.

India, for instance, has cultivated closer ties to the military junta in
Burma, also known as Myanmar, which Washington has consistently sought to
isolate. Human Rights Watch said last week that New Delhi had offered arms
and counterinsurgency training to the Rangoon government.

The Indians say they reserve the right to cultivate the relationships they
choose, and they naturally point to American affection for the government
in Pakistan.

"There has to be a certain amount of understanding; if you have got some
compulsions about Pakistan, we have got some compulsions about Myanmar,"
said Subrahmanyam, who is chairman of the Indian government's Task Force on
Global Strategic Developments. "We are living in a very complex world, in
which your interests and our interests are, at present, different. It will
take time for it to be harmonized. All we can say is the door has opened."

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/12/india_deal.html

A Nonproliferation Disaster

By Daryl G. Kimball, Joseph Cirincione

December 11, 2006

See Progress: Joseph Cirincione Discusses U.S.-India Nuclear Deal
(YouTube.com)

As the 109th Congress rushed to a close this past week, it jammed through a
controversial nuclear trade bill that blows a hole in the fabric of U.S.
nonproliferation law. The legislation makes an India-specific exemption to
decades-old rules restricting civil nuclear commerce with states, such as
India, that have refused to allow "full-scope" international safeguards
over all of their nuclear facilities.

In exchange, India says it will accept inspections for some nuclear
reactors, but will keep its extensive and secret nuclear weapons and
materials production complex off-limits. But these partial inspections are
all symbol, no substance.

Congress spurned provisions that would have required commitments from India
to restrain its production of nuclear weapons and nuclear bomb material.
The legislation also overlooks the U.S. obligation to uphold UN Security
Council Resolution 1172 of June 1998, which calls upon India and Pakistan
to join the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, stop nuclear weapons
deployments, and halt the production of nuclear bomb material.

From conception to passage, the new law threatens our global
nonproliferaton obligations. President Bush is expected to sign the deal
into law. If he does, then other countries involved with the global trade
in nuclear materials must work through the International Atomic Energy
Agency and the Nuclear Suppliers Group to fix what ails this flawed
U.S.-India nuclear deal.

Playing Nuclear Favorites

Put simply, the U.S.-India nuclear trade legislation would grant India the
benefits of being a member of the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty without
requiring it to meet all of the responsibilities expected of responsible
states. By making a special exemption for a favored ally, the approach will
make it even more difficult to enforce existing rules with states such as
Iran and North Korea and convince other states to accept tougher
nonproliferation standards in the years ahead.

India has been outside the international nuclear mainstream since it
improperly used Canadian and U.S. peaceful nuclear assistance to conduct
its 1974 nuclear bomb test, refused to sign the nuclear Nonproliferation
Treaty, and conducted additional nuclear tests in 1998. India made its
choice and, as a result, it has been cut off from most U.S. civilian
nuclear assistance since 1978 and most international assistance since 1992.

Georgetown School of Foreign Service Dean Robert Gallucci warned of the
dangers in his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
earlier this year:

"If we do this deal, ask how we will avoid offering a similar one to Brazil
or Argentina if they decide on nuclear weapons acquisition, or our treaty
ally South Korea. Dozens of countries around the world have exhibited good
behavior in nuclear matters, and have the capability to produce nuclear
weapons but choose not to, at least in part, because of the international
norm against nuclear weapons acquisition reinforced by a policy we would
now propose to abandon. If we do this, we will put at risk a world of very
few nuclear weapons states, and open the door to the true proliferation of
nuclear weapons in the years ahead."

Republicans and Democrats bear equal blame for this disaster. Leaders of
both parties rejected amendments that would have conditioned civil nuclear
trade with India on its joining with the United States and other
nuclear-weapon states in capping the production of more nuclear bomb
material. Nor does the bill require the president to certify that U.S.
civil nuclear assistance is not, in any way, aiding Indias bomb program.

Its Money That Matters

Business and political interests trumped the national security interests of
the United States. The results? More Indian bombs; less global restraint.

Almost immediately, foreign nuclear fuel supplies to India will free up the
countrys existing limited domestic capacity of uranium for both energy
and weapons to be singularly devoted to arms production in the future. That
could mean that India could increase its current production capacity from
six to 10 additional nuclear bombs a year to several dozen per year. India
already has enough material for some 60 to 100 nuclear bombs. Pakistan is
sure to match that capability; China may reconsider its fissile production
halt for weapons.

The final legislation does require that existing U.S. trade restrictions
cannot be lifted until and unless the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group
agrees by the consensus necessary to change its rules. The NSG currently
prohibits trade with states that are not members of the nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty and do not allow safeguards over all their nuclear
facilities: India, Israel, and Pakistan.

But under pressure from the White House and Indian Government lobbyists,
conferees dropped a Senate provision that would have barred the United
States from supporting changes to NSG rules that would also allow
international nuclear trade with Israel and Pakistan. That would mean the
unraveling of the Nonproliferation Treaty altogether.

Weakening the Anti-Iran Front

Some baldly assert that the deal is worth the high costs because it would
draw India within the U.S. sphere of influence. Such talk is fanciful given
Indias fiercely independent political history and interest in preserving
good relations with China, Russia, and even Iran on its own terms.

Indias support for efforts to deal with Irans advancing nuclear
program has been spotty. Yet, the final bill does not even require
Indias support for U.S. and international efforts to contain and if
necessary, sanction Iran for its nuclear safeguards violations and defiance
of UN Security Council resolutions, as a Senate-passed amendment would have
done. Instead, the administration must simply deliver annual reports on
whether India is supporting efforts to contain Irans nuclear and missile
programs.

There are a few good points added to the bill, over administration
objections, such as a requirement that the International Atomic Energy
Agency and India must negotiate, and that the IAEA Board must approve an
agreement for permanent safeguards for Indias additional civil reactors.
This should make it more difficult for India to make the safeguards
contingent on the continuation of foreign fuel supplies, another exception
that would undermine the global safeguards system.

Still, the Congress and the administration have committed a major
nonproliferation error. It will now be up to other states to weigh in and
to fix the deep flaws in the arrangement.
If Washington and New Delhi, as expected, conclude a formal agreement for
nuclear cooperation and the IAEA approves a permanent safeguards plan with
India, then other members of the Nuclear Supplier Group will have a chance
to veto or modify the arrangement.

For NSG states concerned about the fragility of the nonproliferation system
and the adverse impact of the India nuclear deal, this is the time for them
to stand up in defense of their security priorities and the future of the
nuclear nonproliferation system.

See Progress: Joseph Cirincione Discusses U.S.-India Nuclear Deal
(YouTube.com)

Daryl G. Kimball is executive director of the Arms Control Association.
Joseph Cirincione is Senior Vice President for National Security at the
Center for American Progress.

Visit http://www.armscontrol.org/projects/india/ for more information and
resources on the U.S.-Indian nuclear deal.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

http://www.indolink.com/displayArticleS.php?id=121306083238

The Indo US Nuclear Civilian Deal: Dictate Or Deal?
By: Dr Suvrokamal Dutta

The United States of America hailed the Nuclear Civilian Deal Agreement
terming it historic. President Bush said "I am pleased that our two
countries will soon have increased opportunities to work together to meet
our energy needs in a manner that does not increase air-pollution and
greenhouse gas emissions, promotes clean development, supports
non-proliferation, and advances our trade interests."

www.puremail.com
The Indian Prime Minister said in parliament on similar lines on march 7th
2006, "The resumption of civilian nuclear energy cooperation would
demonstrate that we have entered a new and more positive phase of our ties,
so that we can finally put behind us years of troubled relations in the
nuclear field".

The country's top nuclear scientists have expressed concern over the
passing of the recent nuclear civilian deal by the American Congress .The
concerns are quite legitimate. The scientists have pointed out the
provision of the deal seeks to cap India's right to conduct atomic tests.
The former Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) Chairman M R Srinivasan now a
Member of the AEC, expressed concern over the provision in the "Henry J.
Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006
which states that the US would terminate civilian nuclear cooperation if
India were to conduct a nuclear test". This is something which no
government of a sovereign nation can take as it clearly dictates in which a
countrys foreign policy should move.

"It is impossible to have a minimum credible deterrent without conducting
nuclear tests. But the bill indicates that the cooperation will be
terminated if this is done," former Atomic Energy Commission Chairman P K
Iyengar said. For the Indian nuclear program to continue in a peaceful
manner future test for having a minimum deterrent would be required. On top
of that United States should not dictate us as to what we should do with
our peaceful nuclear program.

The Indian External Affairs minister says, "India need not worry about the
legislation passed by the US Congress as it is meant for the US lawmakers.
India is obliged only to the bilateral agreement (123 Agreement),"He
further stated in the parliament, "I would like to inform the House that
the US Administration has categorically assured us that this legislation
enables the United States to fulfill all of the commitments it made to
India in the July 18 and March 2 Joint Statements and that this legislation
explicitly authorizes civil nuclear cooperation with India in a manner
fully consistent with those two Statements. We fully expect the July 18
Statement and the March 2 Separation Plan to be reflected in the text of
the 123 Agreement".

However question arises which both the CPI (M) and the BJP has pointed out
rightly that there cannot be sea changes in the 123 agreement from what has
been passed by the American Congress.

The Bharatiya Janata Party has demanded that the Government reject the
"Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act
of 2006," passed by the U.S. Congress instead of "accepting the humiliating
conditionalities contained in it." The former Union Minister, Yashwant
Sinha said, "final product is now before us and it does not look good. The
Act passed by the U.S. legislature leaves us in no doubt that the purpose
of the deal is to bilaterally impose on India conditionalities which are
worse than those in the NPT [Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty] and the CTBT
[Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty]. This is why a slim four-page bill is now a
41-page document,"

The Communist Party of India (Marxist) has said that the United States'
legislation on the nuclear deal was "not acceptable," and asked the
Manmohan Singh Government to discontinue talks with the George Bush
administration, as the law contradicted most significant assurances given
by the Prime Minister to Parliament. The statement of the Polit Bureau
said, "Obviously, the U.S. administration is bound by the provisions of its
Act while negotiating this agreement. This cannot be accepted by India, as
it negates the most significant, if not all, assurances given by the Prime
Minister to Parliament. Thus, further negotiations on this score must not
proceed.''

The agreement will place a cap on India's nuclear program and will
compromise not just India's weapons program but also the country's foreign
policy. The goalposts which the Indian Prime Minister had spoken off in the
Indian Parliament have shifted and the nuclear bill barters away India's
right to explode a nuclear bomb. Another major concern which the Indian
scientists have is that inspectors from the US will have access to India's
nuclear facilities. This could be very dangerous for your strategic
concerns as there is every chance of our nuclear secrets getting out and
falling into the hands of the American establishment and this can be very
dangerous for us in the long run. The very existence of our independent
nuclear program would come under question. India cannot afford to have its
nuclear program controlled by the Americans like that of Pakistans

Another major concern is the fear that highly radioactive spent fuel will
pile up if India is not allowed to recycle. On this issue the CPI (M) had
to say this. "A major issue is that the civilian nuclear cooperation
entails the right of India to sale of enriched fuel and reprocessing
technique. The law provides for imposing restrictions and trade regimes,
barring access to dual use nuclear technology. Thus India will be denied
its full nuclear cycle." The BJP held the opinion that "the Act militated
against full civil nuclear cooperation with India, the certification and
reporting requirements continued to be rigorous and there was no assurance
of uninterrupted fuel supplies for the civilian reactors. In fact, India
could not reprocess the used fuel nor could it ship it back to the U.S.
unless its Congress approved the reshipment".

This clause of the act is a major irritant for total cooperation in the
nuclear field between the two countries as it negates the issue of equal
parity. If accepted by India our nuclear program would get dependant of the
supply of nuclear fuel by the United States .As the supply of nuclear fuel
would depend on the whims and fancies of the US administration. The CPI (M)
pointed this out in very clear terms when it said, "on the annual good
conduct certification by the U.S. President the agreement would be in
perpetuity, there was a possibility of the screws being tightened, if a
Democrat, having different views on nuclear non-proliferation, came to
power"

On a similar note the BJP pointed out "the certification and reporting
requirements continued to be rigorous and there was no assurance of
uninterrupted fuel supplies for the civilian reactors. India was forbidden
from nuclear testing, even of the kind permitted by the CTBT, and the
weapons program would be subjected to intrusive U.S. scrutiny. "The deal is
more unequal than ever before. The principle of parity, on which the Prime
Minister had placed so much emphasis, stands abandoned". The nuclear
scientists of India have also pointed out that India will only get a
limited supply of nuclear fuel and not a lifetime supply.

With objections being raised from all quarters the government of India
should do a serious rethink on the whole deal itself. It should make the
stand of India very clear to President Bush. The government of India argues
that the agreement between India and the USA would be based on the "123
agreement" as such we should not be bothered about their internal
legislation. The other four more agreements to follow were the Indian
Safeguard Agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the
"123 Agreement" for bilateral cooperation with the U.S., the new guidelines
of the Nuclear Suppliers Group and the Additional Protocol, also with the
IAEA. As the BJP and the CPI (M) have rightly pointed out the other four
agreements will flow from this Act.

The clause in relation to Iran is also a direct interference in our foreign
policy. The CPI (M) has rightly pointed out "The agreement is between India
and the United States and not for Iran. Even the preamble goes beyond
nuclear cooperation and there is an attempt to bind India to U.S. strategic
interests in the name of partnership."

The looking into the overall pact as of now it seems to be highly insulting
for India to accept it in its present form. It would be prudent enough for
the Indian Government to tell the Bush administration a point or two. To
accept the deal in its present form would be suicidal for India She cannot
afford to do this, as this would be at the expense of our age-old
independent foreign policy. We cannot accept such dictation from Uncle Sam
and company .Let us be clear on this once for all.

Newsletter Homepage:
http://www.JobDestruction.com/shameh1b/JobDestructionNews.htm

Support this Newsletter and www.JobDestruction.com by donating:
www.zazona.com/Donations.htm

To Be removed from this mailing list, reply to this
email with UNSUbSCRIBE in the subject window

Back to archives