[7845] in linux-announce channel archive
When You Think You’ve Seen EVERYTHING, try this...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (PSlearning)
Wed Sep 4 19:04:05 2013
From: "PSlearning" <PSlearning@xiifehmicak.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 16:04:01 -0700
To: linuxch-announce.discuss@charon.mit.edu
Reply-To: <bounce-71675797@xiifehmicak.com>
------=Part.154.1019.1378335841
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
PayPal Insider Discovers Lucrative Home Business...
http://www.xiifehmicak.com/2132/79/184/737/1405.10tt71675797AAF13.php
Unsub- http://www.xiifehmicak.com/2132/79/184/737/1405.10tt71675797AAF8.html
on members, they
said, now appear to view al-Nusra more warily.In public comments Tuesday,
Dempsey said the U.S. could provide weapons that might make the rebels
more "militarily effective."But, he warned, it's not clear "whether the
military effect would produce the kind of outcome I think that not
only members of Congress but all of us would desire, which is,
you know, an end to the violence, some kind of political reconciliation
among the parties and a stable Syria."However, a U.S. official said military
planners believe that it would be possible to vet the rebel fighting
forces and that those under Free Syrian Army chief Gen. Salim Idriss
and the Supreme Military Council are seen as independent of al-Nusra.The
official said the military planners also believe that Idriss' forces would
be prime candidates to receive arms, if and when Obama makes the
decision to start providing lethal assistance.Arming the rebels could take
any number of paths. If ordered, the U.S. military could provide the
weapons to rebel groups, or the Pentagon could use the State Department
as an intermediary and transfer the weapons through those channels. Under
a more covert scenario, the CIA could secretly provide the arms.At the
Pentagon on Wednesday, press secretary George Little said there are discussions
underway on how to bolster humanitarian assistance and how to engage even
more closely with the opposition forces."We're fully cognizant of the role
that
March 23, 2013: In this file photo provided by the Vatican paper
L'Osservatore Romano, Pope Francis, right, and Pope emeritus Benedict XVI
meet in Castel Gandolfo. Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi
said Tuesday April 30, 2013 that retired Pope Benedict XVI is moving
into his new retirement home in the Vatican gardens on Thursday. Benedict
has been living at the papal residence in Castel Gandolfo, in the
hills south of Rome, ever since he resigned on Feb. 28AP/Osservatore RomanoVATICAN
CITY Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI comes home on Thursday to a
new house and a new pope, as an unprecedented era begins of
a retired pontiff living side-by-side with a reigning one inside the Vatican
gardens.All eyes will be on Benedict's physical state as he is welcomed
by Pope Francis at his new retirement home, a converted monastery tucked
behind St. Peter's Basilica. The last time he was seen by the
public March 23 Benedict appeared remarkably more frail and thin
than when he left the Vatican on his final day as pope
three weeks earlier.The Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, has
acknowledged Benedict's post-retirement decline but insists the 86-year-old
German isn't suffering from any ailment and is just old."He is a
man who is not young: He is old and his strength is
slowly ebbing," Lombardi said this week. "However, there is no special illness.
He is an old man who is healthy."Since his Feb. 28 resignation,
Benedict has bee
------=Part.154.1019.1378335841
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
<html>
<strong><center><a href="http://www.xiifehmicak.com/2132/79/184/737/1405.10tt71675797AAF9.php"><H3>PayPal Insider Discovers Lucrative Home Business...</a></H3></strong>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" />
<title>Profit Siege</title>
<style>
DIV.unsub {width:800px; text-align:center; margin: 0 auto;}
</style>
</head>
<body topmargin="10" leftmargin="0" rightmargin="0" bottommargin="0" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<a href="http://www.xiifehmicak.com/2132/79/184/737/1405.10tt71675797AAF9.php"><img src="http://www.xiifehmicak.com/2132/79/184/71675797/737.1405/img07918443.jpg"></a>
<DIV class="unsub">
<br>
<a href="http://www.xiifehmicak.com/2132/79/184/737/1405.10tt71675797AAF3.html">Update Preferences</a><br><br>P.O.Box 38628, North Vancouver, BC, V7M 3N1, Canada
</DIV>
<br />
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
<br />
<br /><br />
<br />
<center>This email was intended for linuxch-announce.discuss@charon.mit.edu
<br />
<a href="http://www.xiifehmicak.com/u/2132/737/1405/10/71675797/linuxch-announce.discuss@charon.mit.edu" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="http://www.xiifehmicak.com/2132/79/184/71675797/737.1405/img17918443.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;">fuse to comply
with the requirements for legalization.The trade of legalization for enforcement
looks good for conservatives if one considers what proponent Sen. Marco
Rubio calls de facto amnesty. If there is no deal, border crossings
will persist and there will be no crackdown on those here who
do not break other laws. Certainly not under President Obama and almost
assuredly under any president. The political clout of Hispanic voters is
now so great as to make such things impossible.Republicans do not like
the status quo, neither politically nor practically. Democrats, meanwhile,
love the political posture of the debate and can mostly live with
a system that achieves most of their aims for permissive immigration by
default.Conservatives like Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions and Heritage Foundation
honcho Jim DeMint are doing their best to sink the legislation, but
as long as the discussion remains mostly focused on undocumented workers
and those living in the shadows, their efforts are doomed. Maybe they
can scuttle this legislation, but the next bill on offer will certainly
be more liberal.Conservatives stood athwart the 1964 Civil Rights Act on
the reasonable grounds that the measure was unconstitutional. But their
principled opposition did not stop the law and helped erase a century
of standing for Republicans as the party of racial equality.But when illegal
immigrants are accused of helping terrorists and authorities say the system
di
d not even prevent one of the accused bombers from re-entering the
country as a student despite flunking out of school, it drives conservatives
up a wall. After all, why should security measures that might protect
innocent lives be contingent on an immigration bargain? Why should Democrats
be able to withhold their support for better security and enforcement?The
answer, of course, is that all that is required of Democrats to
win is for them to do nothing. Like the NRA on mass
shootings, Democrats need only for nothing to happen in order to get
their way. Republicans find the status quo intolerable now, Democrats are
willing to wait knowing that the longer they wait, the more advantageous
the eventual plan will be to their interests.And Now, A Word From
CharlesBenghazi happened a long time ago. That's the definition of chutzpah.
This administration has stonewalled every inquiry and delayed its answers
and not released names and told all kinds of stories, and they
are saying it is an old story.-- Charles Krauthammer on Special Report
with Bret Baier.Chris Stirewalt is digital politics editor for Fox News,
and his POWER PLAY column appears Monday-Friday on FoxNews.com. Catch Chris
Live online daily at 11:30amET at http:live.foxnews.com.
</p>
</html>
------=Part.154.1019.1378335841--
