[8596] in linux-announce channel archive
All Natural Cambodian Weight Loss Extract - Forget About Dieting!
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Appetite Suppression Extract)
Mon Nov 4 17:52:23 2013
From: "Appetite Suppression Extract" <AppetiteSuppressionExtract@llnmjtaxman.us>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 14:52:21 -0800
To: linuxch-announce.discuss@charon.mit.edu
------=Part.662.8304.1383605541
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
100% Organic Weight Loss - Pure Garcinia Extract!
http://www.llnmjtaxman.us/2906/29/73/159/436.10tt71675797AAF17.php
To Unsub - http://www.llnmjtaxman.us/2906/29/73/159/436.10tt71675797AAF10.html
PO Box 26452
Minneapolis, MN 55426
April 26, 2013: Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell testifies on Capitol Hill
in Washington, before the House Appropriations Committee, subcommittee on
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies budget hearing on forest service.APWASHINGTON
The U.S. Forest Service is in the business of preventing fires,
not starting them.Yet the agency set off alarms in Congress and state
capitols across the West by citing the automatic spending cuts as the
basis for demanding that dozens of states return $17.9 million in federal
subsidies. And it's all come down to a bureaucratic squabble over whether
the money is subject to so-called sequestration because of the year it
was paid -- 2013 -- as the Obama administration contends, or exempt
from the cuts because of the year it was generated -- 2012
-- as the states insist.Right now, it's a standoff heightened by history
and hard fiscal realities. But with taxpayer cash scarce, both sides are
digging in: The Forest Service has to slash 5 percent of its
budget under sequestration. The states, meanwhile, have depended for decades
on a share of revenue from timber cut on federal land. Perhaps
least willing to compromise are members of Congress who are up for
re-election next year and are loath to let go of money that
benefits potential voters back home.It's not clear who gets to decide or
whether the question ends up in court. But lines have been drawn."We
regret having to take this action, but we have no alte
May 3, 2013: President Obama delivers a speech at the Anthropology Museum
in Mexico City, Mexico.APIn Washington, it may seem like Congress has moved
beyond gun control.After Democrats' highly touted background check bill
was defeated in a Senate procedural vote last month, lawmakers immediately
turned their attention to other matters, like immigration legislation, the
budget and -- in light of the Boston terror attack -- security.But
President Obama and his allies do not plan to let up, with
Vice President Biden reportedly preparing to launch a new push for gun
legislation and Obama's campaign arm trying to enlist the public to support
the cause.As opponents of stricter gun laws rallied Friday in Texas for
the National Rifle Association's annual convention, Obama himself used a
speech during his visit to Mexico to once again sound the call
for new regulations."Most of the guns used to commit violence here in
Mexico come from the United States," Obama told the crowd. "I think
many of you know that in America, our Constitution guarantees our individual
right to bear arms. And as president, I swore an oath to
uphold that right, and I always will. But at the same time,
as I've said in the United States, I will continue to do
everything in my power to pass common-sense reforms that keep guns out
of the hands of criminals and dangerous people."That can save lives here
in Mexico and back home in the United States," he said.While an
inordina
------=Part.662.8304.1383605541
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
<strong><center><a href="http://www.llnmjtaxman.us/2906/29/73/159/436.10tt71675797AAF11.php"><H3>100% Organic Weight Loss - Pure Garcinia Extract!</a></H3></strong>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" leftmargin="0" topmargin="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0">
<center><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#333333; font-size: 10px;">
If you can't read or see this e-mail. <a href="http://www.llnmjtaxman.us/2906/29/73/159/436.10tt71675797AAF11.php" target="_blank">Click here</a> or enable image viewing on your browser.</span></center>
<br>
<table width="500" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" align="center">
<tr>
<td><div align="center"><a href="http://www.llnmjtaxman.us/2906/29/73/159/436.10tt71675797AAF11.php" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.llnmjtaxman.us/2906/29/73/71675797/159.436/img0297343.jpg" width="500" height="450" border="0" style="display:block;"></a></div></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="3" align="center"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#666666; font-size: 10px;"><br>
<a href="http://www.llnmjtaxman.us/2906/29/73/159/436.10tt71675797AAF4.html" target="_blank">Update Preferences</a>
<br>
PO Box 26452
Minneapolis, MN 55426
</span></td>
</tr>
</table>
<br />
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
<br />
<br /><br />
<br />
<br />
<center>
<a href="http://www.llnmjtaxman.us/u/2906/159/436/10/71675797/linuxch-announce.discuss@charon.mit.edu" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="http://www.llnmjtaxman.us/2906/29/73/71675797/159.436/img2297343.jpg"></a>
</center>
</body>
</p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p> </br></br></br></br></br></br></br></br></br></br></br></br></br></br></br></br></br></br>
</br></br></br></br></br></br></br></br></br></br></br></br></br></br></br></br></center>
<p style="font-size:xx-small;"> ncies' own estimates.Heritage found
the costliest regulations between 2009 and Jan. 20, 2013, came out of
the Environmental Protection Agency, with their rules imposing nearly $40
billion in costs. Next in line was the Department of Transportation, followed
by the Department of Energy.The Department of Health and Human Services
was in the middle of the pack, though with regulations from the
federal health care overhaul still in the pipeline, costs associated with
that agency could rise in the years to come.The costliest rule was
issued by both the EPA and Department of Transportation, imposing new fuel
economy standards on U.S. automobiles. It's estimated to cost $10.8 billion
annually, potentially adding $1,800 to the price of a new car as
manufacturers spend more money to comply.Costing nearly as much was an EPA
rule requiring utilities and other fossil fuel plants to limit emissions
-- though part of that rule is still under review.Though environmental rules
were the costliest, Heritage found that the highest number of regulations
in 2012 were actually in the financial field as a result of
the "Dodd-Frank" financial industry overhaul passed by Congress.The Obama
administration acknowledges that EPA rules are the costliest of any agency.
But the administration claims those rules also come with the biggest benefits
-- benefits that far outweigh the costs.A report put out earlier this
year by the White House Office of Management and Bud
that appeal is under way, meaning only Plan B One-Step would
appear on drugstore shelves until the case is finally settled. If Korman's
order isn't suspended during the appeals process, the result would be "substantial
market confusion, harming FDA's and the public's interest" as drugstores
receive conflicting orders about who's allowed to buy what, the Justice
Department concluded.Reluctant to get drawn into a messy second-term spat
over social issues, White House officials insisted Wednesday that both the
FDA and the Justice Department were acting independently of the White House
in deciding how to proceed. But the decision to appeal was certain
to irk abortion-rights advocates who say they can't understand why a Democratic
president is siding with social conservatives in favor of limiting women's
reproductive choices.Current and former White House aides said Obama's approach
to the issue has been heavily influenced by his experience as the
father of two school-age daughters. Obama and Health and Human Services
Secretary Kathleen Sebelius have also questioned whether there's enough
data available to show the morning-after pill is safe and appropriate for
younger girls, even though physicians groups insist that it is.Rather than
take matters into his own hands, the Justice Department argued to the
2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that Korman should have ordered the
FDA to reconsider its options for regulating emergency contraception. Th
</p>
</html>
------=Part.662.8304.1383605541--
