Tuesday, December 17, 2013

Poverty Nation: How America Created a Low-Wage Work Swamp

NOTE: This has been posted in it's entirety from alternet.org’s page right here, I did this because something is restricting me from sharing the link in another way.

Poverty Nation: How America Created a Low-Wage Work Swamp

For decades, both parties supplanted a push for higher wages with well-intended public aid. The result: calamity.

money thing
Photo Credit: Boule/Shutterstock.com

December 16, 2013 |  

2013 is the year many Americans discovered the crisis of the working poor. It turns out it’s also the crisis of the welfare poor. That’s tough for us: Americans notoriously hate welfare, unless it’s called something else and/or benefits us personally. We think it’s for slackers and moochers and people who won’t pull their weight.

So we’re not sure how to handle the fact that a quarter of people who have jobs today make so little money that they also receive some form of public assistance, or welfare – a proportion that’s much higher in some of the fastest growing sectors of the workforce. Or that 60 percent of able-bodied adult food-stamp recipients are employed.

Fully 52 percent of fast-food workers’ families receive public assistance – most of it coming from Medicaid, food stamps and the Earned Income Tax Credit — to the tune of $7 billion annually, according to new research from the University of California-Berkeley’s Labor Center and the University of Illinois.

McDonald’s workers alone receive $1.2 billion in public aid, the study found. This is an industry, by the way, that last year earned $7.44 billion in profits, paid their top execs $52.7 million and distributed $7.7 billion in dividends and stock buyback. Still, “public benefits receipt is the rule, rather than the exception, for this workforce,” the study concluded.

Then there’s Wal-Mart, which as Salon’s Josh Eidelson recently reported, boasted to a Goldman Sachs conference that “over 475K” of its 1.3 million workers make more than $25,000 a year – which lets us infer that almost 60 percent make less.

Democrats on the House Committee on Education and the Workforce estimated that the giant low-cost retail chain benefits from many billions in public-assistance funding; one Wisconsin “superstore” costs taxpayers at least $1 million a year in public assistance to workers’ families. Remember, too, that six members of the Walton family own as much wealth as 48 million Americans combined.

But it’s not just fast food and Wal-Mart: One in three bank tellers receives public assistance, the Committee for Better Banks revealed last week, at a cost of almost a billion dollars annually in federal, state and local assistance. That’s right: One of the nation’s most profitable, privileged and high-prestige industries, banking, pays a sector of its workers shockingly low wages and relies on taxpayers to lift them out of poverty. In New York alone, 40 percent of bank tellers and their family members receive public assistance, costing $112 million in state and federal benefits.

Bank CEOs get multi-million dollar bonuses as profits soar, while millions of tellers are so poor they get welfare. Something’s wrong with that.

Revulsion at subsidizing profitable corporations that pay poverty-level wages is helping fuel a wave of long-overdue organizing and protest on behalf of low-wage workers, from the fast-food strikes that have swept the country to Wal-Mart protests this holiday season. Taxpayers recoil at the notion, but so do many workers themselves. “I thought I could make it on my own. That didn’t happen,” Wal-Mart worker Aubretia Edick, who makes $11.70 an hour and still gets public assistance, told the Huffington Post. That’s why she joined a one-day strike. “Wal-Mart doesn’t pay my salary,” she said. “You pay my salary.”

The U.S. now has the highest proportion of low-wage workers in the developed world,according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. One in four make less than two-thirds of the median wage, which is the same proportion that rely on public aid. It’s becoming more widely accepted that the spread and persistence of low-wage work is behind rising income inequality and reduced social mobility. What’s less well known is the role Democrats have played in creating this trap.

In his widely admired speech on income inequality Dec. 4, President Obama seemed to share all of these concerns.

“We know that there are airport workers, and fast-food workers, and nurse assistants, and retail salespeople who work their tails off and are still living at or barely above poverty,” he said.

Based largely on that speech, and some West Wing whispers, Politico announced Friday “President Obama turns left.” But outside of saying again that it’s time to raise the minimum wage, the president hasn’t yet put much meat on a “left” agenda for low wage workers.

It would also be nice for Obama to recognize: The fact that so many Americans “work their tails off and are still living at or barely above poverty,” receiving public assistance, is not just an unhappy accident. It’s the result of public policy supported by many Democrats — and he hasn’t done much to change or challenge it. In fact, the chair of Obama’s Council of Economic Advisors has made the most spirited defense of it.

The truth is, a bipartisan consensus emerged in the 1990s, that a job, practically any job, was better than long-term public assistance for so-called “able-bodied” adults, including mothers with young children. It led to controversial 1996 welfare reform legislation that had ramifications way beyond the realm of welfare.

Republicans demanded work from welfare recipients; (most) Democrats went along, but demanded new support for low-wage workers: an expanded Earned Income Tax Credit, wider Medicaid and food stamp eligibility, new (though not nearly sufficient) child care subsidies. (As an Illinois state senator, Obama was critical, but later endorsed the deal.) The new support programs also helped millions of low-wage workers who never relied on welfare; as wages continued to stagnate and even decline, more people became eligible.

But as labor advocates began to realize and protest the extent to which employers were relying on taxpayers to support their workforce a decade ago, some liberals told them not to worry about it. Responding to an earlier wave of organizing against Wal-Mart’s labor practices, President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisors chair, Jason Furman, wrote a hugely influential 2005 paper, “Wal-Mart: A Progressive Success Story.” (Eight years later, it sounds like he was trolling us.) The former Clinton economic advisor argued that the big box chain’s low prices helped poor people, and that its employees’ reliance on public assistance wasn’t a bug but a feature of progressive social policy.

Furman credited President Clinton with presiding over “the transformation of our social safety net from a support for the indigent to a system that makes work pay… expansions in support for low-income workers, including a more generous Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and efforts to ensure that children did not lose their Medicaid if their parents took a low-paid job.” Essentially, Wal-Mart employees’ reliance on such programs represented good social democratic policy, Furman argued.And in a memorable exchange with Barbara Ehrenreich in Slate, he chided Wal-Mart’s progressive critics for “playing on the atavistic anti-welfare, anti-government, anti-tax instincts of some conservatives.” (Leave it to a Clinton-era Democrat to blame progressives for the well-established “atavistic anti-welfare instincts” of the right.)

Although Furman’s Wal-Mart paper is eight years old, it was widely cited as a reason for progressives to question his appointment as CEA chair earlier this year (though progressive economists from Jared Bernstein to Paul Krugman endorsed his selection). Just a few months ago, when the Washington, D.C., City Council passed a bill requiring non-union big-box retailers to pay a $12.50 minimum wage, Wal-Mart emailed reporters Furman’s piece in defense.

Interestingly, I’ve never seen Furman defend or qualify or update the paper, even in the face of a new wave of anti-Wal-Mart organizing. I wasn’t entirely comfortable using an eight-year-old paper to stand in for his views, so I asked White House communications officials if he would talk to me about it. I got no reply.

As a social democrat, I don’t think Furman is wrong to defend the role of social programs in making life better for low-wage workers. Lots of progressives believe we should detach health insurance from employment entirely, for instance, and make it a universal benefit supported by higher corporate and top-rate taxes plus sliding-scale individual contributions. Throughout the developed world, workers at almost every level can rely on government-funded health care, childcare, job training and retraining, and even (at lower wage levels) wage supplements.

But it’s not punitive Calvinism or welfare-shaming to question the extent to which it’s now a given that low-wage workers are going to have to rely on food stamps and other public assistance, often for a long time, perhaps permanently. By not also demanding regular minimum wage hikes or putting muscle behind union organizing, Democrats have helped create a vast low-wage labor pool that hovers just above the poverty line, and sometimes still below it, thanks to public assistance, and lacks the economic and political muscle to improve their wages and working conditions. This can’t be good for anyone.

In fact, the notion that so many millions of people work so hard and are still poor enough to receive public aid is galvanizing: it helps make vivid that low wages, not lack of effort or “dependency,” are part of what’s shrinking the middle class. Not just taxpayers but low-wage workers themselves think rising out of poverty with the help of food stamps and Medicaid and the EITC should only be a temporary victory on the way to a solid place in the labor market where work is fairly compensated.

I’m certainly not demonizing public assistance. We still spend a pittance helping low-wage workers compared to the social support enjoyed by their counterparts in other prosperous nations. Progressives are rightly proud of a recent study that found anti-poverty programs do indeed lift people out of poverty – roughly a quarter of Americans would live below the poverty line without social support, as opposed to a still dismal 16 percent today. That should obliterate Reagan’s ugly canard that “We fought a war on poverty, and poverty won.”

But every dollar taxpayers spend subsidizing corporations paying poverty wages is a dollar not spent on early childhood programs, building universities or funding college education. Yes we need safety nets, but we also need ladders of opportunity. The government spending that built the post WWII middle class invested in education and research, and it was backed by the New Deal’s most effective anti-poverty initiative: the Wagner Act, which eased labor union organizing.

Today, we’ve got a threadbare safety net, but those ladders of opportunity are even more rickety and unreliable. We’re just not building them anymore – and that’s why we’re facing a crisis of income inequality and a stalling of the social mobility that used to be the heart of the American dream.

President Obama seemed to recognize at least some connection between the proliferation of low-wage work and the crisis of income inequality in his landmark Dec. 4 speech. Decrying the rising number of jobs paying poverty-level wages, he declared “it’s well past the time to raise a minimum wage that in real terms right now is below where it was when Harry Truman was in office,” and added that “it’s time to ensure our collective bargaining laws function as they’re supposed to so unions have a level playing field to organize for a better deal for workers and better wages for the middle class.” He also pledged to rebuild the “ladders of opportunity” that launched his family and millions of others, including mine, from the working to the middle class. Given the far-right swing of the Republican party, however, he’s not likely to be able to make much of that happen.

Which brings me to the other problem with low-wage workers being forced to depend on public assistance: they’re sadly vulnerable to political scapegoating and backlash politics. Rep. Paul Ryan calls the safety net a “hammock,” which is horrifying when we know so many people are working at least one and maybe two jobs and still remaining poor. Mitt Romney inveighed against the 47 percent of Americans who pay no federal income taxes, which includes millions of low-wage workers on the earned income tax credit, even though the EITC was a Republican idea, signed into law by President Gerald Ford and expanded by both Presidents Bush.

But Republicans aren’t pushing to raise the minimum wage or make it easier for low-wage workers to organize unions. Their answer is to pull the safety net out from under these workers without building ladders that let them climb. And with sequestration and food stamp cuts, they’re getting their way.

Right now the best answer is an invigorated labor movement on behalf of low-wage workers, and it’s bracing to see it develop. On one level, it’s surprising it’s taken so long. Many low-wage jobs have the advantage of being place-based; they can’t move to the developing world. Drones are not going to deliver your McDonald’s hamburgers any time soon, and Wal-Mart can’t sell everything online, or else it would. The ranks of bank tellers have already been decimated by ATMs and online banking; those who still have jobs are needed.

But it would also be important for more people – more Democrats – to acknowledge the role policy has played in creating this swamp of low-wage work made slightly less miserable with public aid. As income inequality has widened, America’s trademark social mobility has declined. The crisis of low-wage work is increasingly recognized as part of what’s widening inequality and slowing social mobility. In the fifth year of his presidency, Obama is getting better at describing the problem, but he needs to do more to back the workers who are trying to press for solutions.

AGAIN: This has been posted in it's entirety from alternet.org’s page right here, I did this because something is restricting me from sharing the link in another way.
If anyone has a problem with me posting this, contact me and I will remove the post if the request to do so was given with authority through  the original authors.

Wednesday, November 13, 2013

Full Movie Post - UFOTV® Presents : ANCIENT ILLUMINATI - Riddles In Stone

Francis Bacon has always been influential in politics between America and England. It has been said that he started what we now know as the Illuminati along with The Rosicrucian Enlightenment and The Freemasons.
It has been said that he had his hand in the layout of  streets in Washington DC, Boston and Philadelphia along with other locations to follow paths of mystical powers. Also that he was very influential in the designing of the United States government.
Another fascinating fact about him would be what is known as his pen-name “Shakespeare”. The Greek goddess Athena wore a helmet and carried a spear and the term “Shake Spear” was strongly associated with her name. It was for that reason that Bacon chose that name and he paid William Shakespeare to publically accept the responsibility as authorship of the Shakespeare writings.
You should be able to recognize Athena along with Apollo because they are the statues sitting on the roofs of most court houses in America and state buildings alike.

The reason I am posting this video is because it goes into great detail to explain all of what I just talked about above and it offers much-much more.

The video I first posted is good but it is not the one I had intended to post.
This one is the one with the info on Francis Bacon in it.

Click on bottom right corner in player to view full screen.

Tuesday, November 12, 2013

Mirror Lake “On the good side”.

I posted this as a share for all those Mirror Lakers out there & Marc B.
Marc comes from Mirror Lake too, but he’s on the Wrentham side an that aint the good side.
Wrentham side aint all that bad though, cause we let em come down to our good side and we let them hang out with us on the good side…
BTW: Lea an Jullianne were from the good side too, Carol lived on the good side for a while. I was on the good side until they chased me out and beer always tasted better when you drank it on the good side.

Sunday, November 10, 2013

Enemy Of The State (1998) stream or download info.

Enemy of the state

★★★★★☆☆☆  7.2/10
Stars: Will Smith, Gene Hackman, Jon Voight
Robert dean is a mild-mannered lawyer who works in Washington D.C. He is on the trail of a kingpin named Pintero. Meanwhile, a politician named Thomas Reynolds is negotiating with Congressman Phillip Hammersley about a new surveillance system with satellites. But, Hammersley declines, that is when Reynolds had Hammersley killed, but this murder was caught on tape, and this person was being chased by Reynolds' team of NSA agents, the guy must ditch the tape, so he plants it on Dean (unbeknownst to Dean). Then, the NSA decides to get into Dean's life. That is when Dean's life began to fall apart all around him, with his wife and job both gone. Dean wants to find out what is going on. Then, he meets a man named "Brill" who tells him that Dean has something that the government wants. That is when Dean and Brill formulate a plan to get Dean's life back and turn the Tables on Reynolds.

Click on lower right box to view in full screen.

Download options are listed below, but the Youtube version is 720P and audio quality is good. I recommend you just get the Ant downloader for Mozilla Firefox, or Internet Explorer or for you Google users get Freestudio free Youtube downloader.

megafiles – Full Speed
epicshare – Full Speed
project-free-upload – Full Speed
nirafile – Full Speed
putlocker – Full Speed

Repost for example,,, [How our grandparents ate to stay healthy]

What Can We Learn From How Grandma and Grandpa Used To Eat? New

Support Local Food! Please Share...








Article Tags


Waking Times

Every successive generation seems to be getting sicker, with more illness and disability. This despite government claims that the science of diet has mostly improved from just 50 years ago. These claims are far from the reality the modern world and its population experiences. Our grandparents used to make their own butter, cook with lard, fry their foods, drink full cream milk and they still looked so healthy while living so heartily. How did they do it? For starters they ate less, but their food was also healthier. Today we cut carbs, remove fat, cook less, eat more, consume genetically modified, artificially sweetened, processed foods and spend most of our time sitting. See the difference?

The trend becomes unmistakable once fat intake increases for a population.

Once that number passes 30%: countries with higher average fat intake have the longest life expectancies. Fat intake has been transformed in modern day to low fat or no fat, high sugar and processed carbohydrates.

Grandfather-of-12 John Golding, who runs a family farm outside Grafton in northern New South Wales, says food was scarce when he was growing up.

We ate less for sure because the food had to go around a big family. There were seven or nine kids in every family so you didn’t eat much at all. There were no ‘seconds’. We didn’t overeat and you’d restrict your bread intake because otherwise you’d run out. It was all healthy food. We always had a huge vegetable garden so we had cauliflowers growing in the winter time.

Science Says Calorie Restriction Increases Life Span

In Unhappy Meals, a piece for The New York Times Magazine, best-selling author Michael Pollan says we can all cut back.

The scientific case for eating a lot less than we currently do is compelling. ‘Calorie restriction’ has repeatedly been shown to slow aging in animals, and many researchers (including Walter Willett, the Harvard epidemiologist) believe it offers the single strongest link between diet and cancer prevention.

“Once one of the longest-lived people on earth, the Okinawans practiced a principle they called ‘Hara Hachi Bu’: eat until you are 80 percent full.”

Organisms from yeast to rodents to humans all benefit from cutting calories. In less complex organisms, restricting calories can double or even triple lifespan. In studies, animals on calorie restriction diets die at an advanced age without any diseases normally related to aging. In contrast, among animals on a standard diet, the great majority (94 percent) develop and die of one or more chronic diseases such as cancer or heart disease.

According to the results of two previous studies, reducing calories activates the silenced information regulator genes, which prolongs cell life.

Processed Foods A Culprit

Farmer John says he and his wife Ollie, who does most of the cooking, rarely ate processed food.

We didn’t have any packaged stuff at all. When Dad bought this farm after the war, we’d milk two or three cows so you’d make your butter and custards. We were reared also on fried scones. We loved fried scones. Instead of baking the scones, we’d fry ‘em. They were beautiful just with butter.

In Six Rules For Eating Wisely, a piece for TIME magazine, Pollan says we shouldn’t eat anything our great-great-great grandmother wouldn’t recognize as food.

Imagine how baffled your ancestors would be in a modern supermarket … (most items) aren’t foods – quite – they’re food products.

History suggests you might want to wait a few decades or so before adding such novelties to your diet, the substitution of margarine for butter being the classic case in point.

Their promise was that margarine would prevent disease. People around the globe questioned this advice, especially those who have valued butter for its life-sustaining properties for millennia. Today we know that butter is light years healthier than margarine ever could be.

My mother used to predict ‘they’ would eventually discover that butter was better for you. She was right: the trans-fatty margarine is killing us. Eat food, not food products.

John, 79, eats everything but grew up on staples of rice, rolled oats and potatoes.

When mum was rearing the five of us while dad was at the war she fed us on a lot of rice because that was cheap. I loved boiled rice with a bit of sugar on it, but now I don’t have sugar

Pollan says the western diet has shifted radically from whole to refined foods, complex to simple carbohydrates, leaves to seeds and from food culture to food science.

Food Culture Is Not What It Used To Be

Governments here and abroad have been cautioning the public for decades on the dangers of high fat diets. Their claims based on “their science” concluded that it was best to avoid fat because of its extra calories – and saturated fats raise the risk of heart disease. This low-fat mantra has been questioned for years by clinicians and nutritional scientists – not least because it has failed to halt the obesity epidemic. The fact is, high-fat diets lower blood sugar, improve blood lipids, and reduce obesity.

The sheer novelty and glamour of the Western diet, with its 17,000 new food products introduced every year, and the marketing muscle used to sell these products, has overwhelmed the force of tradition.
Nutritionism, which arose to help us better deal with the problems of the Western diet, has largely been co-opted by it, used by the industry to sell more food and to undermine the authority of traditional ways of eating.
You would not have read this far into this article if your food culture were intact and healthy; you would simply eat the way your parents and grandparents and great-grandparents taught you to eat.

Our grandparents also didn’t spend all day stuck at a desk or hours at night on the couch. They performed manual jobs and rode their horses everywhere at full gallop.

Food intolerances were unheard of back then and no-one, least of all John, feared carbs.

They also didn’t deprive themselves.

Despite becoming a fast food nation, John says his diet has improved with age.

Our diet’s changed a little bit. We don’t eat fat or drippin’.
problem these days is fast food. Bloody McDonald’s.
If people are getting big and fat, I don’t know why they keep eating. I can stand behind people (in line for meals) on a cruise and know what they’re going to order – greasy fish and chips.
If you want to give up something, I think it’s easy. Well it’s easy for me – it’s just determination.

Here’s to that!

Michael Pollan’s nine principles of healthy eating:

1. Eat food… Don’t eat anything your great-great-grandmother wouldn’t recognize as food.
2. Avoid even those food products that come bearing health claims. Don’t forget that margarine, one of the first industrial foods to claim that it was healthier than the traditional food it replaced, turned out to give people heart attacks.
3. Especially avoid food products containing ingredients that are a) unfamiliar, b) unpronounceable c) more than five in number – or that contain high-fructose corn syrup. None of these characteristics are necessarily harmful in and of themselves, but all of them are reliable markers for foods that have been highly processed.
4. Get out of the supermarket whenever possible. You won’t find any high-fructose corn syrup at the farmer’s market; you also won’t find food harvested long ago and far away. What you will find are fresh whole foods picked at the peak of nutritional quality. Precisely the kind of food your great-great-grandmother would have recognized as food.

5. Pay more, eat less. There’s no escaping the fact that better food – measured by taste or nutritional quality (which often correspond) – costs more, because it has been grown or raised less intensively and with more care.

6. Eat mostly plants, especially leaves … By eating a plant-based diet, you’ll be consuming far fewer calories, since plant foods (except seeds) are typically less” energy dense” than the other things you might eat.

7. Eat more like the French. Or the Japanese. Or the Italians. Or the Greeks. Confounding factors aside, people who eat according to the rules of a traditional food culture are generally healthier than we are. Any traditional diet will do: if it weren’t a healthy diet, the people who follow it wouldn’t still be around.

8. Cook. And if you can, plant a garden. The culture of the kitchen, as embodied in those enduring traditions we call cuisines, contains more wisdom about diet and health than you are apt to find in any nutrition journal. Plus, the food you grow yourself contributes to your health long before you sit down to eat it.

9. Eat like an omnivore. Try to add new species, not just new foods, to your diet. The greater the diversity of species you eat, the more likely you are to cover all your nutritional bases.

About the Author
Natasha Longo has a master’s degree in nutrition and is a certified fitness and nutritional counselor. She has consulted on public health policy and procurement in Canada, Australia, Spain, Ireland, England and Germany

Support Local Food! Please Share...








More articles you may like...

Children’s Vitamin contains Aspartame, GMOs & more...

Top 10 Foods to Enhance Fertility

14 Fruits and Vegetables to Always Buy Organic

10 American Foods that are Banned in Other Countries

Top 10 Ways to Prepare Kale

10 Symptoms of Gluten Intolerance

Blacklisted: GMO Supporting Food Companies to Avoid

8 Foods Even The Experts Won’t Eat

14 Steps to Cut Out Processed Food

What to Eat When You’re Broke

27 Reasons to Avoid Farmers Markets (Satire)

10 Causes Of Fibromyalgia Your Doctor May Not Know About

Quick Clean Eating: 40 Non-Processed Snacks for Busy Moms!

10 Signs You Have A Thyroid Problem

Monsanto-Free Seed Companies

10 Signs You Have Candida Overgrowth (and What to Do About It)

10 Signs You Have an Autoimmune Disease and How to Reverse It

20 Ways to Build a Whole Food Kitchen on a Budget

Monsanto and GMOs: What you need to know in 2 minutes

9 Signs of a Leaky Gut (and how to Heal it)

Top 10 Ways to Cook Broccoli

Hot Dog Cancer Risks

This is what your grocery store looks like without bees

Top 3 Healthy Non-GMO Cooking Oils

Children’s Vitamin contains Aspartame, GMOs & more...

Top 10 Foods to Enhance Fertility

14 Fruits and Vegetables to Always Buy Organic

10 American Foods that are Banned in Other Countries

Top 10 Ways to Prepare Kale

10 Symptoms of Gluten Intolerance










Take 2 minutes to help our project...?

Saturday, November 9, 2013

Vampirella post #3, Issues 1 through 5 in pdf, Kindle or flip-book online.

I know what this looks like and that’s just not so. It looks like I had a kinky little thing goin for Vampirella and still do.
Well that can’t be possible, because back in 1969 I was only 8 years old. The as far as if I have a little kinky something goin on for her right now, “Damn Right I Do!”, but that was then an this is now.
Back then I only read Vampirella magazines for purely educational purposes. I wanted to learn what she looked like naked and that’s all that there was to it.

Anyway, with all that outta the way I found 2 issues of Issue #1. Wiki says it was released in Sept. of 69. The cover says October. As far as the 1974 issue #1 posted here and the March 1975 second issue, I can’t find out any more about them.

Issue #1, 1974. It has no month assigned to it. on the last page it advertises issue #2, due in March 1975.
This issue is 48 pages long and in full color.
Vampirella issue 1 - 1974
Download pdf version.
Download Kindle version.
Read online as a flip-book.

Other Vampirella Issue #1, October 1969
“I may be learning something here or I’m a little confused. Issue number 1 came out in 1974 with copyrights dated 1972, but another issue #1 was published in Nov. of 1969?”
Vampirella 02

Download pdf version.
Download Kindle version.
Read online as a flip-book.

Vampirella Issue #2 November 1969.

Vampirella issue 02 November 1969 

 Download pdf version
 Download Kindle version.  
Read online as a flip-book.

Vampirella Issue #3, January 1970.
Vampirella 3

Download pdf version.
Download Kindle version.
Read online as a flip-book.

Vampirella Issue #4, April 1970.
Vampirella 4
Download pdf version.
Download Kindle version.
Read online as a flip-book.

Vampirella Issue #5, June 1970.
Vampirella 5
Download pdf version.
Download Kindle version.
Read online as a flip-book.

Stageview has the movie [here] to download or watch streaming. In order to stream it you need to install their DivX web player/plugin. It’s harmless, but you can just download the film without bothering to install anything anyway.

Vampirella (1996) [DVD Quality]
Starring: Talisa Soto, Roger Daltrey, Richard Joseph Paul ...Vampirella
IMDB: Movie info.


I thought I had posted this on my site, not in the blog here but, but on my site. It turns out that I have put the full movie in both streaming version & download in this post "Vampirella [Full Post]", Stageview's might be higher quality but this one is hassle free.

Friday, November 8, 2013

Heavy Metal Magazines, year 1979 & related. Kindle & pdf downloads.

This post is dedicated to my Son David King Rice VII, born on December 4th, 1979.
I had been collecting all the issues of Eerie, Creepy, Vampirella, Heavy Metal and some of the other random Warren Publications magazines. Later in his and my life, starting when he was about 10 years old we collected together, but that’s not part of this story.

Rest in Peace my Son…

Issue, v03 #09 - Heavy Metal – January 1980.

Issue, v03 #07 - Heavy Metal - November 1979.
Heavy metal November 79
Download pdf version.
Download Kindle version.
View it as a flip book online.

Issue, v03 #05 – Heavy Metal - September 1979.
Heavy Metal Sept 79
Download pdf version.
Download Kindle version.
View it as a flip book online.

Issue, v03 #04 -Heavy Metal - August 1979.
Heavy Metal August 79
Download pdf version.
Download Kindle version.
View it as a flip book online.

Issue, v02 #12 - Heavy Metal – April 1979.
Heavy Metal April 79
Download pdf version.
Download Kindle version.
View it as a flip book online.

Vampirella Magizines in pdf “& Kindle” format (2nd post)

NOTE: I finally figured out a way to make sense of the issue numbers and dates relating (some months they didn’t have an issue), with that I went back and tried to start posting them in order. I started here with Oct. 77 and continued onto July 78, only because issues #68 & 69 are already in my first post.

Here are five more issues, please enjoy…

Issue # 64, Vampirella - October 1977 Vampirella October 77
Download pdf version.
Download Kindle version.
View it as a flip book online.

Issue # 65, Vampirella - December 1977
Vampirella December 77
Download pdf version. Download Kindle version. View it as a flip book online,

Issues 68 and 69 (April & May 1978) are on other post , Vampirella Magazines in pdf format (1st post).