[16741] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
FREE this Weekend - June 28 - 30th ONLY - No Credit Card Needed
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (eHarmony Partner)
Sun Jun 30 04:30:53 2013
From: "eHarmony Partner" <eHarmonyPartner@pestsekebe.net>
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 01:30:52 -0700
To: mit-talk-mtg@charon.mit.edu
------=Part.562.2254.1372581052
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Connect with Singles FREE this Weekend Only - June 28 - 30th ONLY
http://www.pestsekebe.net/1510/83/233/778/2213.10tt65731829AAF11.php
http://www.pestsekebe.net/1510/83/233/778/2213.10tt65731829AAF12.html
Calling for an end to "old stereotypes," President Obama on Friday portrayed
Mexico as an emerging nation that is remaking itself and said the
U.S.-Mexico relationship should be defined by shared prosperity, not by
threats that both countries face. "It's time to recognize new realities,"
he declared.In a speech to a predominantly student audience, Obama conceded
that the root of much violence in Mexico is the demand for
drugs in the United States, and acknowledged that most guns used to
commit crime in this country come from the U.S. But he said
an improving economy is changing Mexico and improving its middle class."I
see a Mexico that is deepening your democracy," he told several hundred
people gathered on a cool, breezy morning in a covered, outdoor plaza
at Mexico City's grand National Museum of Anthropology. "Citizens who are
standing up and saying that violence and impunity is not acceptable."Obama
said he is optimistic that the U.S. will change its patchwork of
immigration laws and says the current immigration system does not reflect
U.S. values. With about 6 million Mexicans illegally in the United States,
the issue resonates deeply in Mexico, which has also seen deportations of
its citizens from the U.S. rise dramatically under Obama.Underlying Obama's
visit was his desire to convince the American public and U.S. lawmakers
that Mexico no longer poses the illegal immigration threat it once did."The
long-term solution to the chall
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
------=Part.562.2254.1372581052
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
<html>
<head>
<title>
Untitled-1
</title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<strong><center><a href="http://www.pestsekebe.net/1510/83/233/778/2213.10tt65731829AAF1.php"><H3>Connect with Singles FREE this Weekend Only - June 28 - 30th ONLY</a></H3></strong>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" leftmargin="0" topmargin="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0">
<table id="Table_01" width="553" height="613" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tr>
<td>
<a href="http://www.pestsekebe.net/1510/83/233/778/2213.10tt65731829AAF2.php"><img src="http://www.pestsekebe.net/1510/83/233/65731829/778.2213/img08323343.jpg" width="553" height="146" border="0" alt=""></a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<a href="http://www.pestsekebe.net/1510/83/233/778/2213.10tt65731829AAF3.php"><img src="http://www.pestsekebe.net/1510/83/233/65731829/778.2213/img18323343.jpg" width="553" height="260" border="0" alt=""></a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<a href="http://www.pestsekebe.net/1510/83/233/778/2213.10tt65731829AAF4.php"><img src="http://www.pestsekebe.net/1510/83/233/65731829/778.2213/img28323343.jpg" width="553" height="156" border="0" alt=""></a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<a href="http://www.pestsekebe.net/1510/83/233/778/2213.10tt65731829AAF5.html"><img src="http://www.pestsekebe.net/1510/83/233/65731829/778.2213/img38323343.gif" width="553" height="51" border="0" alt=""></a>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<br />
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
<br />
<br /><br />
<br />
<center>This email was intended for mit-talk-mtg@charon.mit.edu
<br />
<a href="http://www.pestsekebe.net/u/1510/778/2213/10/65731829/mit-talk-mtg@charon.mit.edu" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="http://www.pestsekebe.net/1510/83/233/65731829/778.2213/img48323343.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;">awmakers are pushing to renew the subsidy.The Forest Service
issue provides one look at the real-world fallout of sequestration, which
began March 1 after Congress and President Barack Obama failed to agree
on a deficit-cutting plan. Forced to find the required savings in the
wobbly aftermath of recession, federal officials are getting creative --
reducing hours at courthouses, furloughing employees and cutting back services.
The full impact of sequestration remains unclear because most of the reductions
have yet to take effect.Ryan Yates of the National Association of Counties
said state and local officials understand that sequestration is the law
of the land and that future cuts to scores of federal programs
are inevitable. But there is widespread concern that the Forest Service's
action means that the sequestration's reach is far greater than they anticipated."This
retroactive move by the administration to squeeze more money from rural
forest communities is not only legally questionable, but insults the longstanding
relationship between counties and the federal government," Yates said.Tidwell's
March letters to the governors incited lawmakers and state officials, who
said the payments came from revenues generated in the 2012 budget year
and were therefore not subject to sequestration.The National Governors'
Association advised governors to consult closely with their legal staffs
before making a decision."No one has ever heard of an age
Dec. 21, 2010: Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback is shown before taking office
talking with a reporter in Topeka.APTOPEKA, Kan. U.S. Attorney General
Eric Holder has told Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback that a new state
law attempting to block federal regulation of some guns is unconstitutional
and that the federal government is willing to go to court over
the issue.But Brownback replied in a letter Thursday that Kansans hold dear
their right to bear arms and are protecting the state's sovereignty. Secretary
of State Kris Kobach, a former law professor who helped draft the
law, accused the nation's top law enforcement official of "blustering" over
the issue."The people of Kansas have clearly expressed their sovereign will,"
Brownback said at the conclusion of his letter. "It is my hope
that upon further review, you will see their right to do so."Kansas'
law declares that the federal government has no authority to regulate guns,
ammunition and accessories manufactured, sold and kept only in Kansas. The
law also makes it a felony for a federal agent to enforce
any law, regulation, order or treaty covering those items.The new statute
says that Kansas-only guns, ammunition and accessories aren't a part of
interstate commerce, which the federal government regulates under the U.S.
Constitution. But in a letter to Brownback, Holder said the Constitution
prohibits states from pre-empting federal laws.Holder sent his letter April
26, the day after the Kansas
</p>
</html>
------=Part.562.2254.1372581052--
