ilwaiting
04-09 11:46 AM
Yes you are correct. Employee has nothing to do with the Abuse. More over most of the employers have nothing to do with the abuse as well. Lawmakers must get their facts straight before imposing such foolish laws.
Pete, I am myself a manager at a leading company and do not fit into the typical "consultant" profile.
That does not mean I want more shackles on myself because I feel someone is abusing the system. If someone (employers) are abusing the system, go after them - why do you want to go after the employee who, in a lot of cases, has nothing to do with the abuse?
In fact, if this bill passed in its current form, it will probably not affect me but I will still oppose the bill - why, because it goes against my fundamental belief of freedom of movement. If the senators want to reform the system, may I ask
1. Why prevent H1Bs from joining legitimate consulting companies such as Deloitte, IBM, BCG etc
2. Why should H1B's pay Social security and medicare when they are "temporary" and do not get a dime back?
Think of the bigger picture and then about your own objectives - I am sure you are a well educated person and you will understand the consequences of arbitrary decision making based on vested interests.
Pete, I am myself a manager at a leading company and do not fit into the typical "consultant" profile.
That does not mean I want more shackles on myself because I feel someone is abusing the system. If someone (employers) are abusing the system, go after them - why do you want to go after the employee who, in a lot of cases, has nothing to do with the abuse?
In fact, if this bill passed in its current form, it will probably not affect me but I will still oppose the bill - why, because it goes against my fundamental belief of freedom of movement. If the senators want to reform the system, may I ask
1. Why prevent H1Bs from joining legitimate consulting companies such as Deloitte, IBM, BCG etc
2. Why should H1B's pay Social security and medicare when they are "temporary" and do not get a dime back?
Think of the bigger picture and then about your own objectives - I am sure you are a well educated person and you will understand the consequences of arbitrary decision making based on vested interests.
wallpaper bedroom wallpaper ideas.
GC_Geek
08-02 10:26 AM
I read this thread ONLY to not to miss any single word from US, no wonder.. his advises are indirectly helping many others like me in getting more understanding about what we are doing..
Long live UN(even chain smoke cant distroy you ;) )
Coming to my situatation,
I came in July 2000, got job in Nov 2000. in 2002, I left for India to help my Dad who was hospitalized for Cancer. I came back in Dec'02 and have been on the payroll till today without fail.
Once when I am applying for a H4 for my spouse, the US consulate at India issued a 221(g) to give the details about "Why the employee was paid less then the LCA promised wages?" In fact the officer didnt check all of the paperwork submitted, I had shown that I used FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act) to assisit my Dad. My spouse went on the next day, pulled out the same letters and my Dad's hospital bills and Doctor letters etc and shown, and got the Visa approved..
So, folks who got their payroll significantly showing the gaps, please show the real reason, if you start covering up something, you will end up in the Original poster's spouse of this thread.
Once again, thanks UN...
-Geek...
first i'll tell a brief story.
I am a chain smoker. my brother is a ph.d who researches cancer. He told me I would die one day of cancer (thanked him for that advice). I told him that you gotta die one day.
he is the only person who had this comeback. He said that is what everyone says until they are on their death bed.
now; why is this story relevant? How comfortable are you in arguing this. I remember a long time ago a person had this query; and he responded that he was on medical leave. USCIS came back and asked for verification with medical records. Others tried to get letters from their employers saying they had extended absences, etc. but employers won't give the letters because they think they will be on hook for payment of wages to you if they give such a letter.
It is not an easy thing to overcome or argue as one may think.
Long live UN(even chain smoke cant distroy you ;) )
Coming to my situatation,
I came in July 2000, got job in Nov 2000. in 2002, I left for India to help my Dad who was hospitalized for Cancer. I came back in Dec'02 and have been on the payroll till today without fail.
Once when I am applying for a H4 for my spouse, the US consulate at India issued a 221(g) to give the details about "Why the employee was paid less then the LCA promised wages?" In fact the officer didnt check all of the paperwork submitted, I had shown that I used FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act) to assisit my Dad. My spouse went on the next day, pulled out the same letters and my Dad's hospital bills and Doctor letters etc and shown, and got the Visa approved..
So, folks who got their payroll significantly showing the gaps, please show the real reason, if you start covering up something, you will end up in the Original poster's spouse of this thread.
Once again, thanks UN...
-Geek...
first i'll tell a brief story.
I am a chain smoker. my brother is a ph.d who researches cancer. He told me I would die one day of cancer (thanked him for that advice). I told him that you gotta die one day.
he is the only person who had this comeback. He said that is what everyone says until they are on their death bed.
now; why is this story relevant? How comfortable are you in arguing this. I remember a long time ago a person had this query; and he responded that he was on medical leave. USCIS came back and asked for verification with medical records. Others tried to get letters from their employers saying they had extended absences, etc. but employers won't give the letters because they think they will be on hook for payment of wages to you if they give such a letter.
It is not an easy thing to overcome or argue as one may think.
neverbefore
09-30 01:44 AM
Folks, it is indeed sad that perfect is turning out to be the enemy of good here, metaphorically speaking.
Surely if the powers-that-maybe turn out to be antagonistic to highly skilled legal foreign workers in this country, it is a given that they are likely to turn this country into a place where none of us ever wanted to be.
America has always been about opportunity for the smart and hard workers regardless of their background. It has attracted people because they saw their future brighter here. Take that away and not much else gets left behind.
I have been in this country for 6 years now and still do not have more than a toehold here despite having put in my tax dollars which in some small fraction have helped pay for what some (who knows) people born here required help with getting. Moreover, if allowed to remain here, my project will yield for this country and the world a device that will help people save their eyesight.
"The highly skilled legal working community is an asset, Mr Obama and Mr Durbin. We carry tremendous calorific value for this country. You will make a smart move by promoting and encouraging what has already been legal in this country of yours: immigration of skilled foreigners.
As you might have noticed, a huge chunk of your support base is made up of young and energetic students and professionals. They are with you only because they trust you to remain sincere to the welfare of this country. I am positive that you will not let myopic opinions and interests cloud your long-term vision and will reach out to embrace new partners for further advancement of this country, for really, it is not about wealth preservation but about wealth creation."
Surely if the powers-that-maybe turn out to be antagonistic to highly skilled legal foreign workers in this country, it is a given that they are likely to turn this country into a place where none of us ever wanted to be.
America has always been about opportunity for the smart and hard workers regardless of their background. It has attracted people because they saw their future brighter here. Take that away and not much else gets left behind.
I have been in this country for 6 years now and still do not have more than a toehold here despite having put in my tax dollars which in some small fraction have helped pay for what some (who knows) people born here required help with getting. Moreover, if allowed to remain here, my project will yield for this country and the world a device that will help people save their eyesight.
"The highly skilled legal working community is an asset, Mr Obama and Mr Durbin. We carry tremendous calorific value for this country. You will make a smart move by promoting and encouraging what has already been legal in this country of yours: immigration of skilled foreigners.
As you might have noticed, a huge chunk of your support base is made up of young and energetic students and professionals. They are with you only because they trust you to remain sincere to the welfare of this country. I am positive that you will not let myopic opinions and interests cloud your long-term vision and will reach out to embrace new partners for further advancement of this country, for really, it is not about wealth preservation but about wealth creation."
2011 Bedroom Ideas Wallpaper
unitednations
03-25 02:53 PM
UN,
Any stories of AOS applicants porting to self employment under AC21, that you could share with us?
Given your explanation on risks involved with porting to a small company, I wonder how self employment plays out in an AC21 scenario.
Thanks very much, as always.
I know many people think about it but they don't have the kahunas to actually execute it. I am not aware of anyone who has tried it and was open about it with uscis.
In my case when my 485 was pending I went self employment route. I had to give updated g-325a to show employmnet history and I put it right there for officer to see at local office interview. He actually made an astonishing face and I told him that it was allowed and 485 was pending and I can do what I wish during this time. I also told him that I was not my ac21 employer I was just doing this while 485 was pending and I was porting to another job after my 485 was approved. I gave him offer letter and company tax returns from the ac21 employer that I hadn't joined yet.
Any stories of AOS applicants porting to self employment under AC21, that you could share with us?
Given your explanation on risks involved with porting to a small company, I wonder how self employment plays out in an AC21 scenario.
Thanks very much, as always.
I know many people think about it but they don't have the kahunas to actually execute it. I am not aware of anyone who has tried it and was open about it with uscis.
In my case when my 485 was pending I went self employment route. I had to give updated g-325a to show employmnet history and I put it right there for officer to see at local office interview. He actually made an astonishing face and I told him that it was allowed and 485 was pending and I can do what I wish during this time. I also told him that I was not my ac21 employer I was just doing this while 485 was pending and I was porting to another job after my 485 was approved. I gave him offer letter and company tax returns from the ac21 employer that I hadn't joined yet.
more...
unitednations
08-03 08:25 PM
Here is my case details
In US from Feb 2000 - till date
PD :Aug 2002
I140 approved on Aug 2004 (no rfe)
I485 rcpt :sep 2005 pending for approval...
worked with Company A and 2002,2003 w2's are way too low 9k and 25k. Went to home country for vacation 3 times on 2004, 2005.
my 2000,2001, 2004,2005,2006 till looks okie.. I dont have any other overstay or other issue.
Applied I485 on
2005. I guess my attorney filed my 2003 w2 with my i485 petion.
I chaged from company A to company B on 2005
Will im in trouble? UN or somebody can please help?
You should be ok. don't know why your attorney would have proactively send in the 2003 w2 when it hurts more then it helps. Looks like you were one of the unlucky few who didn't get approval in early july.
In US from Feb 2000 - till date
PD :Aug 2002
I140 approved on Aug 2004 (no rfe)
I485 rcpt :sep 2005 pending for approval...
worked with Company A and 2002,2003 w2's are way too low 9k and 25k. Went to home country for vacation 3 times on 2004, 2005.
my 2000,2001, 2004,2005,2006 till looks okie.. I dont have any other overstay or other issue.
Applied I485 on
2005. I guess my attorney filed my 2003 w2 with my i485 petion.
I chaged from company A to company B on 2005
Will im in trouble? UN or somebody can please help?
You should be ok. don't know why your attorney would have proactively send in the 2003 w2 when it hurts more then it helps. Looks like you were one of the unlucky few who didn't get approval in early july.
riva2005
04-08 01:11 PM
Guys you are unnecessarily raking your brain over this. This is a blatant anti immigrant anti eb green card bill disguised as h1 reform. The people who wrote this bill are the same people who were carrying placards saying "legal immigrants welcome, no to illegal immigration". Now do you really believe them? Even Jeff sessions was one of them and he is the number one opposer of legal eb immigrants.
Pitha,
You're going in the right direction. But a slight correction here.
These guys...Sessions, Grassley etc dont really support or oppose anything on principle. Its not like they have made up their mind about what they think is right or wrong for the country. They are responding to their campaign contributors. Plain and simple.
I can cite 2 such examples:
Firstly, Senator Dianne Feinstein. She was against Amnesty. Thru and thru. Now, the spinach and lettuce growers lobbied her. Suddenly, she supported and sponsored Agjobs bill. And what does Agjobs bill have in it? Mini-Amnesty, but only limited to agricultural workers. And this change of heart didnt even take 6 months. Elected officials tend to be very flexible when you are suffering from weight of heavy and burdensome cash in your pockets that needs to be relieved.
Another example, our own dear Senator Chuck Grassley from the State of Iowa. He is strong opponent of Amnesty. Believes in the rule of law. Always opposed to legalizing the illegals ... except when he doesnt. When does he not oppose legalization? When is co-sponsors Agjobs bill with Sen. Dianne Feinstein? You see, Iowa isnt exactly the Silicon Priarie if Bay Area is the silicon valley so he dunt give damn about them damn H1B scum. But Iowa does grow quite a bit of corn. And suddenly the corn has become a cash-rich crop due to Ethanol. So the farmers of Iowa had a heavy burden of the extra cash in their pockets. Senator Chuck Grassley relieved that extra weight of cash from corn growers and chose to co-sponsor the Agjobs bill that gives Amnesty to agricultural workers.
This is the data from the Federal Election commission that tracks money in politics and www.opensecrets.org where there is a more user-friendly way to find out the same data of who gives money to whom in politics and lobbying.
Senator Dianne Feinstein : 2005-2006 PAC Contributions
Based on data released by the FEC on Monday, February 19, 2007.
Obtained from www.opensecrets.org : http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/memberprofile.asp?cid=N00007364&cycle=2006&expand=A07
TOTAL Agribusiness $97,000
Crop Production & Basic Processing $47,000
American Cotton Shippers Assn $1,000
Blue Diamond Growers $3,000
Calcot Ltd $1,500
California Avocado Proponent $1,000
California Citrus Mutual $3,000
California Cotton Growers Assn $500
California Grape & Tree Fruit League $1,500
California Rice Industry Assn Fund $1,000
Farmers' Rice Cooperative $8,000
Florida Crystals $1,000
Louisiana Rice PAC $1,000
National Assn of Wheat Growers $1,000
National Cotton Council $1,000
National Potato Council $1,000
Nisei Farmers League $2,000
Producers Rice Mill Inc $1,000
Raisin Bargaining Assn $3,500
Riceland Foods $1,000
Southern Minn Beet Sugar Co-op $4,000
Sun-Maid Growers of California $2,000
Sunkist Growers $1,000
USA Rice Federation $2,000
Western Growers Assn $1,000
Western Pistachio Assn $4,000
Total Agricultural Services/Products $17,000
American Assn of Nurserymen $2,000
American Veterinary Medical Assn $2,000
California Westside Farmers Inc $1,000
Farm Credit Council $6,000
Friant Water PAC $2,000
National Council of Farmer Co-ops $1,000
Nestle Purina PetCare $1,000
Society of American Florists $2,000
Senator Chuck Grassley : 2005-2006 PAC Contributions
Based on data released by the FEC on Monday, February 19, 2007.
Obtained from www.opensecrets.org : http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/memberprofile.asp?cid=N00001758&cycle=2006&expand=P
Total Agribusiness $34,500
Crop Production & Basic Processing $1,000
Dairy $5,000
Poultry & Eggs $1,000
Livestock $1,000
Agricultural Services/Products $14,500
Food Processing & Sales $8,000
Forestry & Forest Products $4,000
Pitha,
You're going in the right direction. But a slight correction here.
These guys...Sessions, Grassley etc dont really support or oppose anything on principle. Its not like they have made up their mind about what they think is right or wrong for the country. They are responding to their campaign contributors. Plain and simple.
I can cite 2 such examples:
Firstly, Senator Dianne Feinstein. She was against Amnesty. Thru and thru. Now, the spinach and lettuce growers lobbied her. Suddenly, she supported and sponsored Agjobs bill. And what does Agjobs bill have in it? Mini-Amnesty, but only limited to agricultural workers. And this change of heart didnt even take 6 months. Elected officials tend to be very flexible when you are suffering from weight of heavy and burdensome cash in your pockets that needs to be relieved.
Another example, our own dear Senator Chuck Grassley from the State of Iowa. He is strong opponent of Amnesty. Believes in the rule of law. Always opposed to legalizing the illegals ... except when he doesnt. When does he not oppose legalization? When is co-sponsors Agjobs bill with Sen. Dianne Feinstein? You see, Iowa isnt exactly the Silicon Priarie if Bay Area is the silicon valley so he dunt give damn about them damn H1B scum. But Iowa does grow quite a bit of corn. And suddenly the corn has become a cash-rich crop due to Ethanol. So the farmers of Iowa had a heavy burden of the extra cash in their pockets. Senator Chuck Grassley relieved that extra weight of cash from corn growers and chose to co-sponsor the Agjobs bill that gives Amnesty to agricultural workers.
This is the data from the Federal Election commission that tracks money in politics and www.opensecrets.org where there is a more user-friendly way to find out the same data of who gives money to whom in politics and lobbying.
Senator Dianne Feinstein : 2005-2006 PAC Contributions
Based on data released by the FEC on Monday, February 19, 2007.
Obtained from www.opensecrets.org : http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/memberprofile.asp?cid=N00007364&cycle=2006&expand=A07
TOTAL Agribusiness $97,000
Crop Production & Basic Processing $47,000
American Cotton Shippers Assn $1,000
Blue Diamond Growers $3,000
Calcot Ltd $1,500
California Avocado Proponent $1,000
California Citrus Mutual $3,000
California Cotton Growers Assn $500
California Grape & Tree Fruit League $1,500
California Rice Industry Assn Fund $1,000
Farmers' Rice Cooperative $8,000
Florida Crystals $1,000
Louisiana Rice PAC $1,000
National Assn of Wheat Growers $1,000
National Cotton Council $1,000
National Potato Council $1,000
Nisei Farmers League $2,000
Producers Rice Mill Inc $1,000
Raisin Bargaining Assn $3,500
Riceland Foods $1,000
Southern Minn Beet Sugar Co-op $4,000
Sun-Maid Growers of California $2,000
Sunkist Growers $1,000
USA Rice Federation $2,000
Western Growers Assn $1,000
Western Pistachio Assn $4,000
Total Agricultural Services/Products $17,000
American Assn of Nurserymen $2,000
American Veterinary Medical Assn $2,000
California Westside Farmers Inc $1,000
Farm Credit Council $6,000
Friant Water PAC $2,000
National Council of Farmer Co-ops $1,000
Nestle Purina PetCare $1,000
Society of American Florists $2,000
Senator Chuck Grassley : 2005-2006 PAC Contributions
Based on data released by the FEC on Monday, February 19, 2007.
Obtained from www.opensecrets.org : http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/memberprofile.asp?cid=N00001758&cycle=2006&expand=P
Total Agribusiness $34,500
Crop Production & Basic Processing $1,000
Dairy $5,000
Poultry & Eggs $1,000
Livestock $1,000
Agricultural Services/Products $14,500
Food Processing & Sales $8,000
Forestry & Forest Products $4,000
more...
dpp
05-16 11:06 AM
How wonderful that congress is finally introducing constructive bills to prevent 'consultants' mainly (but not only) from India from clogging up the H-1B visa system for honest skilled workers. The H-1B program is clearly intended for people WHO HAVE A SOLID FULL-TIME JOB OFFER AT THE TIME OF FILING THE APPLICATION. The whole body-shopping/visa abuse phenomenon is just disgusting. I wouldn't cry if any and all kinds of 'consultancy' activity were banned from the H-1B program. Someone stated that then they 'might as well lower the cap to 10.000/year'. Obviously not true. This bill clears out the infested issues of people illegally taking up visas on false premises. Good work!
Part of the title of this thread reads 'even H-1 renewal will be impossible'. That is just priceless. No, H-1B renewal will be impossible IF YOU ARE NOT HERE BASED ON HONEST CIRCUMSTANCES. Anyone with trouble renewing H-1Bs after this bill should get a real job or leave if they are not up to that task.
These are all base-less statements.
H1B program in not just designed for lazy full-time in-house foreign nationals. If an employer who can pay minimum wage (or more) given by DOL, they can recruit H1 and sponsor the visa.
Do you know that 70-80% of H1Bs are on working on Consulting basis to complete the short-term/long-term assignments. They are the bread and butter of US IT business, not the full-time H1bs working in-house, who again takes a consultant to complete his job.
May be some are abusing the law, but you have no right to say all of them are like that. Good and Bad will be there in any field/society/law. So, for that do not blame everybody working in that.
I know several full-time H1Bs working in-house , but depends on outside consultants to do each and every work and they take the salary every month for doing nothing. So, with that i cannot say all full-time H1Bs are lazy and don't update their skills. There are exceptions to everything.
Consultants are not like that, they work hard every hour and get paid just for the time they worked.
Do not start the argument of dividing H1Bs. If you want, goto anti-immigrant sites and join with them. They will ditch you too someday.
Support IV.
Part of the title of this thread reads 'even H-1 renewal will be impossible'. That is just priceless. No, H-1B renewal will be impossible IF YOU ARE NOT HERE BASED ON HONEST CIRCUMSTANCES. Anyone with trouble renewing H-1Bs after this bill should get a real job or leave if they are not up to that task.
These are all base-less statements.
H1B program in not just designed for lazy full-time in-house foreign nationals. If an employer who can pay minimum wage (or more) given by DOL, they can recruit H1 and sponsor the visa.
Do you know that 70-80% of H1Bs are on working on Consulting basis to complete the short-term/long-term assignments. They are the bread and butter of US IT business, not the full-time H1bs working in-house, who again takes a consultant to complete his job.
May be some are abusing the law, but you have no right to say all of them are like that. Good and Bad will be there in any field/society/law. So, for that do not blame everybody working in that.
I know several full-time H1Bs working in-house , but depends on outside consultants to do each and every work and they take the salary every month for doing nothing. So, with that i cannot say all full-time H1Bs are lazy and don't update their skills. There are exceptions to everything.
Consultants are not like that, they work hard every hour and get paid just for the time they worked.
Do not start the argument of dividing H1Bs. If you want, goto anti-immigrant sites and join with them. They will ditch you too someday.
Support IV.
2010 ideas for decorating a hallway
prioritydate
08-05 06:24 PM
<20. If it itches, it will be scratched. We do that.>
ROTFLMAO.... :D:D:D
ROTFLMAO.... :D:D:D
more...
javadeveloper
08-02 12:35 PM
245k and 245i are two different things.
245i was sort of an amnesty. If person overstay their i-94 cards for any length of time they can still adjust status to lawful permanent resident as long as they pay the $1,000 penalty.
Main criteria of 245i is that you had to have an immigrant petition (i-130) or a labor cert filed on behalf of you before April 30, 2001. If you meet this criteria then overstaying or being out of status doesn't matter. However; even if you were eligible for 245i and you had overstayed by more then six months and you left the country then you wouldn't be allowed back in and if they somehow allowed you back in; you wouldn't be able to adjust status because the 3/10 year bars kick in.
Thanks UN
245i was sort of an amnesty. If person overstay their i-94 cards for any length of time they can still adjust status to lawful permanent resident as long as they pay the $1,000 penalty.
Main criteria of 245i is that you had to have an immigrant petition (i-130) or a labor cert filed on behalf of you before April 30, 2001. If you meet this criteria then overstaying or being out of status doesn't matter. However; even if you were eligible for 245i and you had overstayed by more then six months and you left the country then you wouldn't be allowed back in and if they somehow allowed you back in; you wouldn't be able to adjust status because the 3/10 year bars kick in.
Thanks UN
hair bedroom wallpaper ideas.
Macaca
02-27 07:18 PM
Democrats Should Read Kipling (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/18/opinion/18kristol.html?ref=opinion) By WILLIAM KRISTOL | NYT, Feb 18
Browsing through a used-book store Friday � in the Milwaukee airport, of all places � I came across a 1981 paperback collection of George Orwell�s essays. That�s how I happened to reread his 1942 essay on Rudyard Kipling. Given Orwell�s perpetual ability to elucidate, one shouldn�t be surprised that its argument would shed light� or so it seems to me � on contemporary American politics.
Orwell offers a highly qualified appreciation of the then (and still) politically incorrect Kipling. He insists that one must admit that Kipling is �morally insensitive and aesthetically disgusting.� Still, he says, Kipling �survives while the refined people who have sniggered at him seem to wear so badly.� One reason for this is that Kipling �identified himself with the ruling power and not with the opposition.�
�In a gifted writer,� Orwell remarks, �this seems to us strange and even disgusting, but it did have the advantage of giving Kipling a certain grip on reality.� Kipling �at least tried to imagine what action and responsibility are like.� For, Orwell explains, �The ruling power is always faced with the question, �In such and such circumstances, what would you do?�, whereas the opposition is not obliged to take responsibility or make any real decisions.� Furthermore, �where it is a permanent and pensioned opposition, as in England, the quality of its thought deteriorates accordingly.�
If I may vulgarize the implications of Orwell�s argument a bit: substitute Republicans for Kipling and Democrats for the opposition, and you have a good synopsis of the current state of American politics.
Having controlled the executive branch for 28 of the last 40 years, Republicans tend to think of themselves as the governing party � with some of the arrogance and narrowness that implies, but also with a sense of real-world responsibility. Many Democrats, on the other hand, no longer even try to imagine what action and responsibility are like. They do, however, enjoy the support of many refined people who snigger at the sometimes inept and ungraceful ways of the Republicans. (And, if I may say so, the quality of thought of the Democrats� academic and media supporters � a permanent and, as it were, pensioned opposition � seems to me to have deteriorated as Orwell would have predicted.)
The Democrats won control of Congress in November 2006, thanks in large part to President Bush�s failures in Iraq. Then they spent the next year seeking to ensure that he couldn�t turn those failures around. Democrats were �against� the war and the surge. That was the sum and substance of their policy. They refused to acknowledge changing facts on the ground, or to debate the real consequences of withdrawal and defeat. It was, they apparently thought, the Bush administration, not America, that would lose. The 2007 Congressional Democrats showed what it means to be an opposition party that takes no responsibility for the consequences of the choices involved in governing.
So it continues in 2008. The director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Gen. Michael Hayden, the director of national intelligence, the retired Vice Admiral Mike McConnell, and the attorney general, the former federal judge Michael Mukasey, are highly respected and nonpolitical officials with little in the way of partisanship or ideology in their backgrounds. They have all testified, under oath, that in their judgments, certain legal arrangements regarding surveillance abilities are important to our national security.
Not all Democrats have refused to listen. In the Senate, Jay Rockefeller, chairman of the Intelligence Committee, took seriously the job of updating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in light of technological changes and court decisions. His committee produced an impressive report, and, by a vote of 13 to 2, sent legislation to the floor that would have preserved the government�s ability to listen to foreign phone calls and read foreign e-mail that passed through switching points in the United States. The full Senate passed the legislation easily � with a majority of Democrats voting against, and Senators Obama and Clinton indicating their opposition from the campaign trail.
But the Democratic House leadership balked � particularly at the notion of protecting from lawsuits companies that had cooperated with the government in surveillance efforts after Sept. 11. Director McConnell repeatedly explained that such private-sector cooperation is critical to antiterror efforts, in surveillance and other areas, and that it requires the assurance of immunity. �Your country is at risk if we can�t get the private sector to help us, and that is atrophying all the time,� he said. But for the House Democrats, sticking it to the phone companies � and to the Bush administration � seemed to outweigh erring on the side of safety in defending the country.
To govern is to choose, a Democrat of an earlier generation, John F. Kennedy, famously remarked. Is this generation of Democrats capable of governing?
An Old Hand Goads Democrats to Get Tough on Ethics (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/20/AR2008022002831.html?hpid=sec-politics) By Mary Ann Akers And Paul Kane | WP, Feb 21
Browsing through a used-book store Friday � in the Milwaukee airport, of all places � I came across a 1981 paperback collection of George Orwell�s essays. That�s how I happened to reread his 1942 essay on Rudyard Kipling. Given Orwell�s perpetual ability to elucidate, one shouldn�t be surprised that its argument would shed light� or so it seems to me � on contemporary American politics.
Orwell offers a highly qualified appreciation of the then (and still) politically incorrect Kipling. He insists that one must admit that Kipling is �morally insensitive and aesthetically disgusting.� Still, he says, Kipling �survives while the refined people who have sniggered at him seem to wear so badly.� One reason for this is that Kipling �identified himself with the ruling power and not with the opposition.�
�In a gifted writer,� Orwell remarks, �this seems to us strange and even disgusting, but it did have the advantage of giving Kipling a certain grip on reality.� Kipling �at least tried to imagine what action and responsibility are like.� For, Orwell explains, �The ruling power is always faced with the question, �In such and such circumstances, what would you do?�, whereas the opposition is not obliged to take responsibility or make any real decisions.� Furthermore, �where it is a permanent and pensioned opposition, as in England, the quality of its thought deteriorates accordingly.�
If I may vulgarize the implications of Orwell�s argument a bit: substitute Republicans for Kipling and Democrats for the opposition, and you have a good synopsis of the current state of American politics.
Having controlled the executive branch for 28 of the last 40 years, Republicans tend to think of themselves as the governing party � with some of the arrogance and narrowness that implies, but also with a sense of real-world responsibility. Many Democrats, on the other hand, no longer even try to imagine what action and responsibility are like. They do, however, enjoy the support of many refined people who snigger at the sometimes inept and ungraceful ways of the Republicans. (And, if I may say so, the quality of thought of the Democrats� academic and media supporters � a permanent and, as it were, pensioned opposition � seems to me to have deteriorated as Orwell would have predicted.)
The Democrats won control of Congress in November 2006, thanks in large part to President Bush�s failures in Iraq. Then they spent the next year seeking to ensure that he couldn�t turn those failures around. Democrats were �against� the war and the surge. That was the sum and substance of their policy. They refused to acknowledge changing facts on the ground, or to debate the real consequences of withdrawal and defeat. It was, they apparently thought, the Bush administration, not America, that would lose. The 2007 Congressional Democrats showed what it means to be an opposition party that takes no responsibility for the consequences of the choices involved in governing.
So it continues in 2008. The director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Gen. Michael Hayden, the director of national intelligence, the retired Vice Admiral Mike McConnell, and the attorney general, the former federal judge Michael Mukasey, are highly respected and nonpolitical officials with little in the way of partisanship or ideology in their backgrounds. They have all testified, under oath, that in their judgments, certain legal arrangements regarding surveillance abilities are important to our national security.
Not all Democrats have refused to listen. In the Senate, Jay Rockefeller, chairman of the Intelligence Committee, took seriously the job of updating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in light of technological changes and court decisions. His committee produced an impressive report, and, by a vote of 13 to 2, sent legislation to the floor that would have preserved the government�s ability to listen to foreign phone calls and read foreign e-mail that passed through switching points in the United States. The full Senate passed the legislation easily � with a majority of Democrats voting against, and Senators Obama and Clinton indicating their opposition from the campaign trail.
But the Democratic House leadership balked � particularly at the notion of protecting from lawsuits companies that had cooperated with the government in surveillance efforts after Sept. 11. Director McConnell repeatedly explained that such private-sector cooperation is critical to antiterror efforts, in surveillance and other areas, and that it requires the assurance of immunity. �Your country is at risk if we can�t get the private sector to help us, and that is atrophying all the time,� he said. But for the House Democrats, sticking it to the phone companies � and to the Bush administration � seemed to outweigh erring on the side of safety in defending the country.
To govern is to choose, a Democrat of an earlier generation, John F. Kennedy, famously remarked. Is this generation of Democrats capable of governing?
An Old Hand Goads Democrats to Get Tough on Ethics (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/20/AR2008022002831.html?hpid=sec-politics) By Mary Ann Akers And Paul Kane | WP, Feb 21
more...
brij523
07-07 09:50 PM
1) Contact Senator office. Which you did!! But have you called all the Senator from your state. Keep matter confidential between Senator office.
2) Which center has your application? If it is Nebraska, then you can talk to an Immigration Officer by dialing these sequence of number
1-800-375-5283, press 1..2..2..6..1..your case number..1..
wait for the automated status message then. select.3..4
3) Take Infopass appointment to meet an officer. Take all immigration paper. Tell your problem. Hope you get some help
4) Call customer service - 1-800-375-5283 and talk to rep.
Best of luck
2) Which center has your application? If it is Nebraska, then you can talk to an Immigration Officer by dialing these sequence of number
1-800-375-5283, press 1..2..2..6..1..your case number..1..
wait for the automated status message then. select.3..4
3) Take Infopass appointment to meet an officer. Take all immigration paper. Tell your problem. Hope you get some help
4) Call customer service - 1-800-375-5283 and talk to rep.
Best of luck
hot hallway decorating ideas
nojoke
01-03 04:05 PM
You are right. And so it is imperative that before that happens, the perpetrators and their handlers are hunted down, exposed and punished, in a credible and transparent manner.
Pakistanis should want to know who is trying to provoke India, and risking a war in the subcontinent, and why.
What apology?
I am not responsible for the actions of those people. Imagine if after 9/11, an American asked you to apologize for the actions of the 19 'Brown men' (I am assuming here that you are a south asian male) who killed 3000 Americans, how silly do you think that situation would be. If cockroaches from my house take a dump in your kitchen, don't ask me to apologize for that.
If you cannot take actions on these terrorists and keep giving reasons for not handing over the terrorists, you don't have any credibility to give us advice. You don't even feel that your country men are responsible and you ask us to modify our behavior. How about going and doing something to change your country first? Meanwhile we will ponder if war is the only option left, because nothing else seems to be working...
If I cannot convince you to agree to hand over Dawood Ibrahim, how do you think Pakistan government will be convinced even if the evidence is provided against the culprits? There are always reasons to justify your actions. Even if we succeed to convince your government, it will say ' there is no extradition treaty. So let us talk on signing one first. And BTW, the treaty is signed after the Bombay incident, so we cannot extradite people for past crimes. And we cannot prosecute them because they didn't break pakistan law.' That is why I said 'we cannot wake up people pretending to be sleeping'. If you want to be sincere, start taking the first step. Hand over Ibrahim.
Pakistanis should want to know who is trying to provoke India, and risking a war in the subcontinent, and why.
What apology?
I am not responsible for the actions of those people. Imagine if after 9/11, an American asked you to apologize for the actions of the 19 'Brown men' (I am assuming here that you are a south asian male) who killed 3000 Americans, how silly do you think that situation would be. If cockroaches from my house take a dump in your kitchen, don't ask me to apologize for that.
If you cannot take actions on these terrorists and keep giving reasons for not handing over the terrorists, you don't have any credibility to give us advice. You don't even feel that your country men are responsible and you ask us to modify our behavior. How about going and doing something to change your country first? Meanwhile we will ponder if war is the only option left, because nothing else seems to be working...
If I cannot convince you to agree to hand over Dawood Ibrahim, how do you think Pakistan government will be convinced even if the evidence is provided against the culprits? There are always reasons to justify your actions. Even if we succeed to convince your government, it will say ' there is no extradition treaty. So let us talk on signing one first. And BTW, the treaty is signed after the Bombay incident, so we cannot extradite people for past crimes. And we cannot prosecute them because they didn't break pakistan law.' That is why I said 'we cannot wake up people pretending to be sleeping'. If you want to be sincere, start taking the first step. Hand over Ibrahim.
more...
house Here is a gallery of ideas and
alisa
04-07 02:17 PM
Why is senator Durbin insisting upon providing American trained (and in some cases, even American educated) high-skilled individuals to low-cost competitors of America (India and China)?
I agree with you that the ability to file for 485 without a visa number would be a blessing for all of us.
What are we doing about this situation btw?
You will not be able to convince the lawmakers who introduced this draconian law to make any exemptions for h1 extensions. These people introduced this measure with a well thought out strategy to kill h1 without actualy saying they want to kill h1.
A good way to protect people already on h1 from these draconian laws is through the ability to file for 485 without priority date. Every passing day will only make it worse for people on h1 not just new h1 but also people already on h1 waiting for h1 extension or renewal or transfer.
I agree with you that the ability to file for 485 without a visa number would be a blessing for all of us.
What are we doing about this situation btw?
You will not be able to convince the lawmakers who introduced this draconian law to make any exemptions for h1 extensions. These people introduced this measure with a well thought out strategy to kill h1 without actualy saying they want to kill h1.
A good way to protect people already on h1 from these draconian laws is through the ability to file for 485 without priority date. Every passing day will only make it worse for people on h1 not just new h1 but also people already on h1 waiting for h1 extension or renewal or transfer.
tattoo wallpaper ideas for dining
nogc_noproblem
08-26 11:00 PM
This is awesome�����.
This is hilarious........
http://odeo.com/episodes/7076453
This is hilarious........
http://odeo.com/episodes/7076453
more...
pictures wallpaper ideas for dining
jungalee43
09-28 12:39 PM
I am not US citizen and who becomes president or who the American people vote for is none of my business.
But I can't resist writing here because it is going to affect my life in a great way.
Sen. Obama's appeal of change is definitely attractive. But would he walk the talk?
He mentioned American values in the debate. All of us i.e. the EB immigrants came here on the invitation of American Employers to help American corporations and economy. I came here little over 8 years ago, not only on the invitation but on the insistence of the American employers. I paid taxes from day 1 and followed every law in letter and spirit.
My then colleagues, who were not invited, stayed back in India and have become Vice Presidents and Presidents of the companies. And they earn equal or more than what I earn here and have exactly same or better life style as I do, including the cars that I drive here. But I am stuck with the same job description and title that was assigned to me 8 years ago and all my retirement money in now with US government and none in India.
Then I've realized that once the EB immigrants, invited by the American employers, enter the GC loop, they are chosen by US immigration system to discriminate on the basis of their country of birth. People born in Timbuktu clear all the three stages of green card in 5 to 15 months. But for people born in India, this journey is simply put, 'endless'. I am myself in the last stage of green card for last five years for the only reason that I was born in India.
If Sen. Obama is really going to bring change, he’ll have to answer these core issues in the immigration system. What is broken is the respect for US values that he talked about. There is discrimination built in the system. There is no fairness, no equality and most of all no justice.
And if his fellow Sen. Durbin calls the shots in next senate then it is all over for us and may be for American employers also. If I am asked to write 100 reasons why CIR2007 failed, I would write Durbin-Grassley provisions on EB immigration from no.1 through 50. That would be followed by the disastrous points based system from position 51 through 75. (My former boss, a great maintenance manager in a huge company in India migrated to Australia under points based system. The last I heard of him was that he was a taxi driver at Sidney airport.)
If a scenario happens where Sen. Durbin calls shots in senate, Sen. Obama would be turning back on his promise of change. To bring change he may have to take the current senate democratic leadership head on. His best chances are with Republican Senate and Democratic House.
I am really really worried but still I wish all the very best to Sen. Obama.
But I can't resist writing here because it is going to affect my life in a great way.
Sen. Obama's appeal of change is definitely attractive. But would he walk the talk?
He mentioned American values in the debate. All of us i.e. the EB immigrants came here on the invitation of American Employers to help American corporations and economy. I came here little over 8 years ago, not only on the invitation but on the insistence of the American employers. I paid taxes from day 1 and followed every law in letter and spirit.
My then colleagues, who were not invited, stayed back in India and have become Vice Presidents and Presidents of the companies. And they earn equal or more than what I earn here and have exactly same or better life style as I do, including the cars that I drive here. But I am stuck with the same job description and title that was assigned to me 8 years ago and all my retirement money in now with US government and none in India.
Then I've realized that once the EB immigrants, invited by the American employers, enter the GC loop, they are chosen by US immigration system to discriminate on the basis of their country of birth. People born in Timbuktu clear all the three stages of green card in 5 to 15 months. But for people born in India, this journey is simply put, 'endless'. I am myself in the last stage of green card for last five years for the only reason that I was born in India.
If Sen. Obama is really going to bring change, he’ll have to answer these core issues in the immigration system. What is broken is the respect for US values that he talked about. There is discrimination built in the system. There is no fairness, no equality and most of all no justice.
And if his fellow Sen. Durbin calls the shots in next senate then it is all over for us and may be for American employers also. If I am asked to write 100 reasons why CIR2007 failed, I would write Durbin-Grassley provisions on EB immigration from no.1 through 50. That would be followed by the disastrous points based system from position 51 through 75. (My former boss, a great maintenance manager in a huge company in India migrated to Australia under points based system. The last I heard of him was that he was a taxi driver at Sidney airport.)
If a scenario happens where Sen. Durbin calls shots in senate, Sen. Obama would be turning back on his promise of change. To bring change he may have to take the current senate democratic leadership head on. His best chances are with Republican Senate and Democratic House.
I am really really worried but still I wish all the very best to Sen. Obama.
dresses bedroom wallpaper ideas
Macaca
05-02 05:45 PM
Glass Half Full on Obama's New National Security Team (http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/8696/the-new-rules-glass-half-full-on-obamas-new-national-security-team) By THOMAS P.M. BARNETT | World Politics Review
President Barack Obama reshuffled his national security team last week, and the reviews were overwhelmingly positive. The White House proclaimed that this was the "strongest possible team," leaving unanswered the question, "Toward what end?" Obama's choices represent the continued reduction of the role of security as an administration priority. That fits into his determined strategy to reduce America's overseas military commitments amid the country's ongoing fiscal distress. Obama foresees a smaller, increasingly background role for U.S. security in the world, and these selections feed that pattern.
First, there is Leon Panetta's move from director of the Central Intelligence Agency to secretary of defense. When you're looking for $400 billion in future military cuts, Panetta's credentials apply nicely: former White House chief of staff and director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Bill Clinton, and 9-term congressman from defense-heavy California. But, truth be told, Panetta wasn't the president's first choice -- or his second, third, fourth or fifth.
According to my Pentagon sources, the job was initially offered to Hillary Clinton, who would have been a compelling candidate for the real task at hand: working to get more help from our European allies for today's potpourri of security hotspots, while reaching out to the logical partners of tomorrow -- like rising China, India, Turkey, South Africa and Brazil, among others. She would have brought an international star power and bevy of personal connections to those delicate efforts that Panetta will never muster. But Clinton has had enough of nonstop globe-hopping and will be gone at the end of Obama's first term.
Colin Powell, next offered the job, would have been another high-wattage selection, commanding respect in capitals around the world. But Powell demanded that his perennial wingman, Richard Armitage, be named deputy secretary, and that was apparently a no-go from the White House, most likely for fear that the general was set on creating his own little empire in the Pentagon. Again, too bad: Powell would have brought a deep concern for the future of U.S. national security that Panetta -- with the "green eye shades" mentality of a budget-crunching guy -- lacks.
Three others were then offered the job: Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed; former deputy secretary of defense and current Center for Strategic and International Studies boss John Hamre; and former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig, who was long rumored to be Obama's preferred brainiac to ultimately replace Gates. But Reed feared exchanging his Senate seat for a short stint in the Pentagon if Obama loses; Hamre had made too many commitments to CSIS as part of a recent fund-raising drive; and Danzig couldn't manage the timing on the current appointment for personal reasons.
All of this is to suggest the following: Panetta has been picked to do the dirty work of budget cuts through the remainder of the first term and nothing more. If Obama wins a second term, we may still see a technocrat of Danzig's caliber, such as current Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michelle Flournoy, or a major-league star of the Clinton/Powell variety. But for now, the SECDEF's job is not to build diplomatic bridges, but to quietly dismantle acquisition programs. And yes, the world will pick up on that "declinist" vibe.
Moving Gen. David Petraeus from commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan to director of the CIA has puzzled many observers, and more than a few have worried that this represents a renewed militarization of the agency. But here the truth is more prosaic: Obama simply doesn't want Petraeus as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, something conservatives have been pulling for. By shifting him to CIA, the White House neatly dead-ends his illustrious career.
As Joint Chiefs chairman, Petraeus could have become an obstacle to Obama's plans to get us out of Afghanistan on schedule, wielding an effective political veto. He also would have presented more of a general political threat in the 2012 election, with the most plausible scenario being the vice-presidential slot for a GOP nominee looking to burnish his national security credentials. As far as candidate Obama is concerned, the Petraeus factor is much more easily managed now.
Once the SECDEF selection process dropped down to Panetta, the White House saw a chance to kill two birds with one stone. Plus, Petraeus, with the Iraq and Afghanistan surges under his belt, is an unassailable choice for an administration that has deftly "symmetricized" Bush-Cheney's "war on terror," by fielding our special operations forces and CIA drones versus al-Qaida and its associated networks. If major military interventions are out and covert operations are in, then moving "King David" from ISAF to CIA ties off that pivot quite nicely.
The other two major moves announced by the White House fit this general pattern of backburner-ing Afghanistan and prioritizing budget cuts. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who partnered with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, now takes over the same post in Afghanistan. Crocker is supremely experienced at negotiating withdrawals from delicate situations. Moving CENTCOM Deputy Commander Gen. John Allen over to replace Petraeus in Afghanistan is another comfort call: Allen likewise served with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, when he was the key architect of the Sunni "awakening." Low-key and politically astute, Allen will be another quiet operator.
Obama has shown by his handling to date of the NATO-led Libyan intervention that he is not to be deterred from his larger goal of dramatically reducing America's global security profile, putting it more realistically in line with the country's troubled finances. What the president has lacked so far in executing that delicate maneuver is some vision of how America plans to segue the international system from depending on America to play global policeman to policing itself.
Our latest -- and possibly last -- "hurrah" with NATO notwithstanding, Obama has made no headway on reaching out to the world's rising powers, preferring to dream whimsically of a "world without nuclear weapons." In the most prominent case, he seems completely satisfied with letting our strategic relationship with China deteriorate dramatically while America funnels arms to all of Beijing's neighbors. And on future nuclear power Iran? Same solution.
It's one thing to right-size America's global security profile, but quite another to prepare the global security environment for that change. Obama's recent national security selections tell us he remains firmly committed to the former and completely uninterested in the latter. That sort of "apr�s moi, le deluge" mindset may get him re-elected, but eventually either he or America will be forced into far harder international adjustments.
President Barack Obama reshuffled his national security team last week, and the reviews were overwhelmingly positive. The White House proclaimed that this was the "strongest possible team," leaving unanswered the question, "Toward what end?" Obama's choices represent the continued reduction of the role of security as an administration priority. That fits into his determined strategy to reduce America's overseas military commitments amid the country's ongoing fiscal distress. Obama foresees a smaller, increasingly background role for U.S. security in the world, and these selections feed that pattern.
First, there is Leon Panetta's move from director of the Central Intelligence Agency to secretary of defense. When you're looking for $400 billion in future military cuts, Panetta's credentials apply nicely: former White House chief of staff and director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Bill Clinton, and 9-term congressman from defense-heavy California. But, truth be told, Panetta wasn't the president's first choice -- or his second, third, fourth or fifth.
According to my Pentagon sources, the job was initially offered to Hillary Clinton, who would have been a compelling candidate for the real task at hand: working to get more help from our European allies for today's potpourri of security hotspots, while reaching out to the logical partners of tomorrow -- like rising China, India, Turkey, South Africa and Brazil, among others. She would have brought an international star power and bevy of personal connections to those delicate efforts that Panetta will never muster. But Clinton has had enough of nonstop globe-hopping and will be gone at the end of Obama's first term.
Colin Powell, next offered the job, would have been another high-wattage selection, commanding respect in capitals around the world. But Powell demanded that his perennial wingman, Richard Armitage, be named deputy secretary, and that was apparently a no-go from the White House, most likely for fear that the general was set on creating his own little empire in the Pentagon. Again, too bad: Powell would have brought a deep concern for the future of U.S. national security that Panetta -- with the "green eye shades" mentality of a budget-crunching guy -- lacks.
Three others were then offered the job: Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed; former deputy secretary of defense and current Center for Strategic and International Studies boss John Hamre; and former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig, who was long rumored to be Obama's preferred brainiac to ultimately replace Gates. But Reed feared exchanging his Senate seat for a short stint in the Pentagon if Obama loses; Hamre had made too many commitments to CSIS as part of a recent fund-raising drive; and Danzig couldn't manage the timing on the current appointment for personal reasons.
All of this is to suggest the following: Panetta has been picked to do the dirty work of budget cuts through the remainder of the first term and nothing more. If Obama wins a second term, we may still see a technocrat of Danzig's caliber, such as current Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michelle Flournoy, or a major-league star of the Clinton/Powell variety. But for now, the SECDEF's job is not to build diplomatic bridges, but to quietly dismantle acquisition programs. And yes, the world will pick up on that "declinist" vibe.
Moving Gen. David Petraeus from commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan to director of the CIA has puzzled many observers, and more than a few have worried that this represents a renewed militarization of the agency. But here the truth is more prosaic: Obama simply doesn't want Petraeus as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, something conservatives have been pulling for. By shifting him to CIA, the White House neatly dead-ends his illustrious career.
As Joint Chiefs chairman, Petraeus could have become an obstacle to Obama's plans to get us out of Afghanistan on schedule, wielding an effective political veto. He also would have presented more of a general political threat in the 2012 election, with the most plausible scenario being the vice-presidential slot for a GOP nominee looking to burnish his national security credentials. As far as candidate Obama is concerned, the Petraeus factor is much more easily managed now.
Once the SECDEF selection process dropped down to Panetta, the White House saw a chance to kill two birds with one stone. Plus, Petraeus, with the Iraq and Afghanistan surges under his belt, is an unassailable choice for an administration that has deftly "symmetricized" Bush-Cheney's "war on terror," by fielding our special operations forces and CIA drones versus al-Qaida and its associated networks. If major military interventions are out and covert operations are in, then moving "King David" from ISAF to CIA ties off that pivot quite nicely.
The other two major moves announced by the White House fit this general pattern of backburner-ing Afghanistan and prioritizing budget cuts. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who partnered with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, now takes over the same post in Afghanistan. Crocker is supremely experienced at negotiating withdrawals from delicate situations. Moving CENTCOM Deputy Commander Gen. John Allen over to replace Petraeus in Afghanistan is another comfort call: Allen likewise served with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, when he was the key architect of the Sunni "awakening." Low-key and politically astute, Allen will be another quiet operator.
Obama has shown by his handling to date of the NATO-led Libyan intervention that he is not to be deterred from his larger goal of dramatically reducing America's global security profile, putting it more realistically in line with the country's troubled finances. What the president has lacked so far in executing that delicate maneuver is some vision of how America plans to segue the international system from depending on America to play global policeman to policing itself.
Our latest -- and possibly last -- "hurrah" with NATO notwithstanding, Obama has made no headway on reaching out to the world's rising powers, preferring to dream whimsically of a "world without nuclear weapons." In the most prominent case, he seems completely satisfied with letting our strategic relationship with China deteriorate dramatically while America funnels arms to all of Beijing's neighbors. And on future nuclear power Iran? Same solution.
It's one thing to right-size America's global security profile, but quite another to prepare the global security environment for that change. Obama's recent national security selections tell us he remains firmly committed to the former and completely uninterested in the latter. That sort of "apr�s moi, le deluge" mindset may get him re-elected, but eventually either he or America will be forced into far harder international adjustments.
more...
makeup wallpaper ideas living room.
Vsach
08-08 08:09 PM
Hi,
In addition to what everyone else has recommended please contact Zoe Lofgren and seek help from Prakash the ombudsman and a personal meeting with Director Gonzales.
All the best!
VS
In addition to what everyone else has recommended please contact Zoe Lofgren and seek help from Prakash the ombudsman and a personal meeting with Director Gonzales.
All the best!
VS
girlfriend two kinds of wallpaper and
file485
07-08 11:02 AM
unitednations..!!
r u the same from immigrationportal.com.. !! people r looking out for u in this immigration greencard darkness..
r u the same from immigrationportal.com.. !! people r looking out for u in this immigration greencard darkness..
hairstyles bedroom design ideas, bedroom
nogc_noproblem
08-05 12:41 PM
Tourists in the Museum of Natural History ...
...were marveling at the dinosaur bones. One of them asks the blonde guard, 'Can you tell me how old the dinosaur bones are?'
The guard replies, 'They are 3 million, four years, and six months old.'
'That's an awfully exact number,' says the tourist. 'How do you know their age so precisely?'
The guard answers, 'Well, the dinosaur bones were three million years old when I started working here, and that was four and a half years ago!'
...were marveling at the dinosaur bones. One of them asks the blonde guard, 'Can you tell me how old the dinosaur bones are?'
The guard replies, 'They are 3 million, four years, and six months old.'
'That's an awfully exact number,' says the tourist. 'How do you know their age so precisely?'
The guard answers, 'Well, the dinosaur bones were three million years old when I started working here, and that was four and a half years ago!'
mbawa2574
05-28 08:21 AM
I think Indian Governernment should report this to WTO. America is creating conditions that are discriminatory and not business friendly. India should start cutting wings of American Companies selling goods in India. IT is our product and in case US people have problems with IT professionals from outside, they don't have any right to sell the goods to my people.
fcres
08-10 01:07 PM
since u r the primary applicant choose option 1
I don't know if there is a diff in rescheduling on the date of the appnt or before it. But if it was me, i would try to reschedule it before the appnt date by mailing the FP notice.
I don't know if there is a diff in rescheduling on the date of the appnt or before it. But if it was me, i would try to reschedule it before the appnt date by mailing the FP notice.
No comments:
Post a Comment