looneytunezez
06-23 02:31 PM
Work Visa Solution: H1B Visa, H1B Visa Sponsor, Visa Jobs, Green Card, Immigration Attorney | MyVisajobs.com (http://www.myvisajobs.com/)
....yep, thats the one! :) :D
....yep, thats the one! :) :D
wallpaper Red rose ← a plants drawing
.JPG "Sketched a red rose from a")
gcformeornot
04-28 11:55 AM
___________
Macaca
07-22 05:39 PM
Empty Promises (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/53_8/editorial/19419-1.html), July 18, 2007
As Senate Democrats were preparing to go to the mattresses over Iraq voting procedures and as Republicans threatened to stop all activity over a judicial appointment, it's worth recalling what Senate leaders were promising at the outset of the 110th Congress.
On Jan. 4, incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) declared on the floor that "last November, the voters sent us a message - Democrats and Republicans. The voters are upset with Congress and the partisan gridlock. The voters want a government that focuses on their needs. The voters want change. Together, we must deliver that change."
Minutes later, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) observed that "the challenges ahead will not be met if we do nothing to overcome the partisanship that has come to characterize this body over the past several years. A culture of partisanship over principle represents a grave threat to the Senate's best tradition as a place of constructive cooperation. It undermines the spirit and the purpose of this institution. And we must do something to reverse its course."
Six months on, the Senate has devolved into a nonstop brawl. The House, where leaders made let's-work-together promises of their own, also is a cauldron of partisanship, but at least there the rules permit a majority to rule.
But together, they've been able to pass just three pieces of significant legislation - a hike in the minimum wage, expansion of stem-cell research funding and a supplemental appropriation to fund the Iraq War. Only the first was directly signed into law. The second was vetoed by President Bush. The third was vetoed then passed.
Partisan warfare and inaction on issues from health care to immigration to energy - even lobbying and ethics reform, once the top priority for this Congress - has reduced respect for the legislative branch to its lowest level ever. Respect for the presidency is not much higher.
Who's to blame? Senate Democrats accuse Senate Republicans of "obstructionism" - systematic refusal to grant unanimous consent so that bills can be voted upon. Senate Republicans blame Reid for invoking cloture to stifle full debate and the offering of amendments.
The level of rancor is escalating now because Democrats are frustrated that Republicans are insisting on a 60-vote threshold on Iraq War amendments - as though Democrats in the past have not used the 60-vote requirement when it suited them. Republicans are threatening to create procedural chaos and allow little or no action on the floor if Democrats block a single appellate court nominee.
In January, Senators of both parties gathered in the Old Senate Chamber in what McConnell described as "a small act of bipartisanship" that he hoped would lead to a restoration of the Senate's reputation. Now, perhaps, Senators should regather there and contemplate their current level of public esteem.
As Senate Democrats were preparing to go to the mattresses over Iraq voting procedures and as Republicans threatened to stop all activity over a judicial appointment, it's worth recalling what Senate leaders were promising at the outset of the 110th Congress.
On Jan. 4, incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) declared on the floor that "last November, the voters sent us a message - Democrats and Republicans. The voters are upset with Congress and the partisan gridlock. The voters want a government that focuses on their needs. The voters want change. Together, we must deliver that change."
Minutes later, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) observed that "the challenges ahead will not be met if we do nothing to overcome the partisanship that has come to characterize this body over the past several years. A culture of partisanship over principle represents a grave threat to the Senate's best tradition as a place of constructive cooperation. It undermines the spirit and the purpose of this institution. And we must do something to reverse its course."
Six months on, the Senate has devolved into a nonstop brawl. The House, where leaders made let's-work-together promises of their own, also is a cauldron of partisanship, but at least there the rules permit a majority to rule.
But together, they've been able to pass just three pieces of significant legislation - a hike in the minimum wage, expansion of stem-cell research funding and a supplemental appropriation to fund the Iraq War. Only the first was directly signed into law. The second was vetoed by President Bush. The third was vetoed then passed.
Partisan warfare and inaction on issues from health care to immigration to energy - even lobbying and ethics reform, once the top priority for this Congress - has reduced respect for the legislative branch to its lowest level ever. Respect for the presidency is not much higher.
Who's to blame? Senate Democrats accuse Senate Republicans of "obstructionism" - systematic refusal to grant unanimous consent so that bills can be voted upon. Senate Republicans blame Reid for invoking cloture to stifle full debate and the offering of amendments.
The level of rancor is escalating now because Democrats are frustrated that Republicans are insisting on a 60-vote threshold on Iraq War amendments - as though Democrats in the past have not used the 60-vote requirement when it suited them. Republicans are threatening to create procedural chaos and allow little or no action on the floor if Democrats block a single appellate court nominee.
In January, Senators of both parties gathered in the Old Senate Chamber in what McConnell described as "a small act of bipartisanship" that he hoped would lead to a restoration of the Senate's reputation. Now, perhaps, Senators should regather there and contemplate their current level of public esteem.
2011 Sketched a red rose from a
lazycis
09-25 09:31 AM
Not a problem.
more...
sanz
02-25 11:20 AM
how true is that .. whenevr spillover happens it happens
Macaca
12-11 08:23 PM
Bush Adviser Is Seen as Force in Spending Impasse (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/11/washington/11gillespie.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG | NY Times, Dec 11, 2007
WASHINGTON, Dec. 10 � Ed Gillespie made a name for himself in 1994 as a sharp-tongued pitchman for the Contract With America, the conservative Republican manifesto that catapulted his boss, Dick Armey, to power. But when Republicans shut down the government in a spending clash with President Bill Clinton, Mr. Gillespie warned it was the wrong battle to pick.
�He understands the limits of what you can expect people to buy,� Mr. Armey explained.
Now, after a stint as Republican National Committee chairman and a lobbying career that made him a multimillionaire, Mr. Gillespie is back in government as a street fighter and salesman for conservative ideas and the politician behind them � in this case, President Bush. Once again, he is in the thick of a budget fight between the White House and Congress.
But this time, he is driving the confrontation.
As the clock ticks toward a Congressional recess, with Democrats struggling to wrap 11 major spending bills into one and Mr. Bush threatening to veto the huge package, Republicans see the hand of Mr. Gillespie at work. As counselor to the president, a job he took in July, Mr. Gillespie is trying to write a new narrative for Mr. Bush, one that casts him in the role of fiscal conservative, sharpening the contrast between him and Democrats while repairing his tattered image with the Republican base.
On Mr. Gillespie�s watch, the president�s speeches have grown shorter, his language punchier. When Mr. Bush threatens to veto a �three-bill pileup� or likens Congress to �a teenager with a new credit card,� Gillespie-watchers all over Washington say they can hear the new counselor�s voice.
�Ed believes that one of the reasons the Republicans lost is because we had lost our way on spending,� said Pete Wehner, a former policy analyst for Mr. Bush who left the White House this spring. �He worked for Dick Armey; I think he�s a small government conservative, and I think he believes Democrats and their spending habits are a target-rich environment.�
And Democrats have provided targets, by waiting until two months into the new fiscal year to finish their appropriations work. Mr. Bush has already vetoed Democratic measures on children�s health and Iraq war spending, and a water resources bill � all the while complaining lawmakers are wasting taxpayers� money, and scolding them like errant schoolchildren who forgot to turn in their homework.
�Listening to this, it has Ed Gillespie�s fingerprints on it,� said John Feehery, a Republican strategist. �It�s shaping the message to pick the right fights � with a smile.�
After two decades in Washington building up contacts on both sides of the aisle, Mr. Gillespie knows well the importance of the smile.
He also knows when he has to take the high road, and when he does not. In 2004, as party chairman, Mr. Gillespie was nicknamed Mr. Bush�s �pit bull� for his relentless attacks on Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts.
Mr. Gillespie rarely gives on-the-record interviews � he declined to talk for this article � and he is almost never seen on television. And careful listeners to Mr. Bush will note that the president paints �Congress,� and not �Democrats� as the villain � another Gillespie hallmark.
�He�s a smart, shrewd operator,� said Representative Rahm Emanuel, the chairman of the House Democratic caucus, who was a senior adviser to Mr. Clinton during the 1995 budget fight. But while Mr. Emanuel said he has �nothing but respect for Ed,� he argued that, after seven years of runaway Republican spending, even a master strategist like Mr. Gillespie will have trouble remaking Mr. Bush�s image.
�He�s $4 trillion too late,� Mr. Emanuel said.
At 46, Mr. Gillespie is part of a core of newcomers who are seeing Mr. Bush through the end of his presidency as his Texas inner circle breaks up. Unlike his predecessor, Dan Bartlett, who spent his entire adult life working for Mr. Bush, Mr. Gillespie not a presidential intimate, but neither is he a stranger.
In 2000, he was a member of the Gang of Six, a group of strategists for the Bush-Cheney campaign. That same year, he joined with Jack Quinn, a former White House counsel to Mr. Clinton, to found Quinn Gillespie & Associates, his lobbying firm. He earned a reported $4.75 million when he sold his share of the firm to join the White House, but he could easily pass through Washington�s revolving door yet again, earning even more after Mr. Bush leaves office.
Mr. Gillespie�s critics say he traded on his contacts to get rich. �He�s so entwined with the Bush money machine,� said Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen, a watchdog group.
But his admirers say he has not forgotten his roots. His father, an Irish immigrant, ran a mom-and-pop grocery store and later a bar in their hometown, Browns Mills, N.J. Mr. Gillespie spent his college years serving drinks and sweeping floors � experiences that, friends say, shape his work in the White House.
Mr. Gillespie has been deeply involved in Mr. Bush�s so-called �kitchen table agenda,� of issues like consumer safety and rising mortgage rates.
�Ed�s got a pulse on what average Americans think about,� said David Hobbs, a Republican lobbyist and a Gillespie friend.
The week before Mr. Gillespie officially took over as counselor, Mr. Bush�s immigration bill collapsed on Capitol Hill � and with it, any real hope of bipartisan cooperation. One senior White House official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Mr. Gillespie wasted little time.
�It went down in defeat, and he was moving on to the next thing,� this official said. �The next thing was Iraq and the budget.�
On Iraq, Mr. Gillespie took advantage of the Congressional recess in August to schedule a series of presidential speeches. At the time, Republicans like Senators Pete V. Domenici of New Mexico and Richard G. Lugar of Indiana were expressing deep misgivings about the war, so much so that even some White House officials thought they would lose Republican support in September. But in the end, Republicans stuck with Mr. Bush.
On the budget, Mr. Gillespie looked back to the Republican defeat of 1995. �We saw how Clinton did it, using the power of the presidency,�� Mr. Hobbs said.
Mr. Armey said Mr. Gillespie had argued that his party would lose because the public believed Republicans were antigovernment, �so therefore it is credible to argue Republicans shut government down.�
He said Mr. Gillespie�s strategy was to �understand the public�s already conceived disposition,� and create a story line around it.
That strategy was on full display in the Rose Garden last week, as Mr. Bush tapped into another preconceived notion, that lawmakers are lazy. The president opened his remarks by tweaking Democrats on the 30-second pro forma sessions they held to prevent him from making recess appointments over the Thanksgiving Day holiday.
�If 30 seconds is a full day,� Mr. Bush said, �no wonder Congress has got a lot of work to do.�
It was positively Gillespie-esque.
WASHINGTON, Dec. 10 � Ed Gillespie made a name for himself in 1994 as a sharp-tongued pitchman for the Contract With America, the conservative Republican manifesto that catapulted his boss, Dick Armey, to power. But when Republicans shut down the government in a spending clash with President Bill Clinton, Mr. Gillespie warned it was the wrong battle to pick.
�He understands the limits of what you can expect people to buy,� Mr. Armey explained.
Now, after a stint as Republican National Committee chairman and a lobbying career that made him a multimillionaire, Mr. Gillespie is back in government as a street fighter and salesman for conservative ideas and the politician behind them � in this case, President Bush. Once again, he is in the thick of a budget fight between the White House and Congress.
But this time, he is driving the confrontation.
As the clock ticks toward a Congressional recess, with Democrats struggling to wrap 11 major spending bills into one and Mr. Bush threatening to veto the huge package, Republicans see the hand of Mr. Gillespie at work. As counselor to the president, a job he took in July, Mr. Gillespie is trying to write a new narrative for Mr. Bush, one that casts him in the role of fiscal conservative, sharpening the contrast between him and Democrats while repairing his tattered image with the Republican base.
On Mr. Gillespie�s watch, the president�s speeches have grown shorter, his language punchier. When Mr. Bush threatens to veto a �three-bill pileup� or likens Congress to �a teenager with a new credit card,� Gillespie-watchers all over Washington say they can hear the new counselor�s voice.
�Ed believes that one of the reasons the Republicans lost is because we had lost our way on spending,� said Pete Wehner, a former policy analyst for Mr. Bush who left the White House this spring. �He worked for Dick Armey; I think he�s a small government conservative, and I think he believes Democrats and their spending habits are a target-rich environment.�
And Democrats have provided targets, by waiting until two months into the new fiscal year to finish their appropriations work. Mr. Bush has already vetoed Democratic measures on children�s health and Iraq war spending, and a water resources bill � all the while complaining lawmakers are wasting taxpayers� money, and scolding them like errant schoolchildren who forgot to turn in their homework.
�Listening to this, it has Ed Gillespie�s fingerprints on it,� said John Feehery, a Republican strategist. �It�s shaping the message to pick the right fights � with a smile.�
After two decades in Washington building up contacts on both sides of the aisle, Mr. Gillespie knows well the importance of the smile.
He also knows when he has to take the high road, and when he does not. In 2004, as party chairman, Mr. Gillespie was nicknamed Mr. Bush�s �pit bull� for his relentless attacks on Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts.
Mr. Gillespie rarely gives on-the-record interviews � he declined to talk for this article � and he is almost never seen on television. And careful listeners to Mr. Bush will note that the president paints �Congress,� and not �Democrats� as the villain � another Gillespie hallmark.
�He�s a smart, shrewd operator,� said Representative Rahm Emanuel, the chairman of the House Democratic caucus, who was a senior adviser to Mr. Clinton during the 1995 budget fight. But while Mr. Emanuel said he has �nothing but respect for Ed,� he argued that, after seven years of runaway Republican spending, even a master strategist like Mr. Gillespie will have trouble remaking Mr. Bush�s image.
�He�s $4 trillion too late,� Mr. Emanuel said.
At 46, Mr. Gillespie is part of a core of newcomers who are seeing Mr. Bush through the end of his presidency as his Texas inner circle breaks up. Unlike his predecessor, Dan Bartlett, who spent his entire adult life working for Mr. Bush, Mr. Gillespie not a presidential intimate, but neither is he a stranger.
In 2000, he was a member of the Gang of Six, a group of strategists for the Bush-Cheney campaign. That same year, he joined with Jack Quinn, a former White House counsel to Mr. Clinton, to found Quinn Gillespie & Associates, his lobbying firm. He earned a reported $4.75 million when he sold his share of the firm to join the White House, but he could easily pass through Washington�s revolving door yet again, earning even more after Mr. Bush leaves office.
Mr. Gillespie�s critics say he traded on his contacts to get rich. �He�s so entwined with the Bush money machine,� said Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen, a watchdog group.
But his admirers say he has not forgotten his roots. His father, an Irish immigrant, ran a mom-and-pop grocery store and later a bar in their hometown, Browns Mills, N.J. Mr. Gillespie spent his college years serving drinks and sweeping floors � experiences that, friends say, shape his work in the White House.
Mr. Gillespie has been deeply involved in Mr. Bush�s so-called �kitchen table agenda,� of issues like consumer safety and rising mortgage rates.
�Ed�s got a pulse on what average Americans think about,� said David Hobbs, a Republican lobbyist and a Gillespie friend.
The week before Mr. Gillespie officially took over as counselor, Mr. Bush�s immigration bill collapsed on Capitol Hill � and with it, any real hope of bipartisan cooperation. One senior White House official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Mr. Gillespie wasted little time.
�It went down in defeat, and he was moving on to the next thing,� this official said. �The next thing was Iraq and the budget.�
On Iraq, Mr. Gillespie took advantage of the Congressional recess in August to schedule a series of presidential speeches. At the time, Republicans like Senators Pete V. Domenici of New Mexico and Richard G. Lugar of Indiana were expressing deep misgivings about the war, so much so that even some White House officials thought they would lose Republican support in September. But in the end, Republicans stuck with Mr. Bush.
On the budget, Mr. Gillespie looked back to the Republican defeat of 1995. �We saw how Clinton did it, using the power of the presidency,�� Mr. Hobbs said.
Mr. Armey said Mr. Gillespie had argued that his party would lose because the public believed Republicans were antigovernment, �so therefore it is credible to argue Republicans shut government down.�
He said Mr. Gillespie�s strategy was to �understand the public�s already conceived disposition,� and create a story line around it.
That strategy was on full display in the Rose Garden last week, as Mr. Bush tapped into another preconceived notion, that lawmakers are lazy. The president opened his remarks by tweaking Democrats on the 30-second pro forma sessions they held to prevent him from making recess appointments over the Thanksgiving Day holiday.
�If 30 seconds is a full day,� Mr. Bush said, �no wonder Congress has got a lot of work to do.�
It was positively Gillespie-esque.
more...
chanduv23
10-16 03:47 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^
2010 info/red-rose-drawing.htm.
orphean
05-05 09:36 PM
Hi,
I recently (a couple of months ago) switched firms. I have a valid H-1B visa stamp from my prev employer (expiring in Aug 2009). My H-1B transfer was approved and I have a valid I-797.
Can I travel to London, for a week's vacation and re-enter with my prev employer's h-1b visa stamp and the new I-797? I've read that this is possible and that folks have done it.
I was wondering if there was any change to the rule or anything I should be aware about.
cheers
I recently (a couple of months ago) switched firms. I have a valid H-1B visa stamp from my prev employer (expiring in Aug 2009). My H-1B transfer was approved and I have a valid I-797.
Can I travel to London, for a week's vacation and re-enter with my prev employer's h-1b visa stamp and the new I-797? I've read that this is possible and that folks have done it.
I was wondering if there was any change to the rule or anything I should be aware about.
cheers
more...
headless_pnub
08-18 05:23 AM
Very impressive for your first try. Nice.
hair red and white rose tattoo
gc2
10-08 08:48 AM
take an infopass and ask for an update on your case. you need to take action to get your case up for approval.
contact your senator and state your case.
contact your senator and state your case.
more...
newuser
10-16 10:51 PM
Local State Chapters - Please update the activities as they happen so that members get to know about them
Setraheep - Thanks for the update
Setraheep - Thanks for the update
hot make your drawing complete
ita
07-24 05:30 PM
My attorney sent the EAD application to Nebraska SC.
Earlier my 485/EAD/AP were all sent to Texas Center.
Does anyone know if this is fine .. sending the renewal papers to Nebraska?
I'm also trying to find out from my attorney why they were sent to NSC and not TSC
Thank you.
Earlier my 485/EAD/AP were all sent to Texas Center.
Does anyone know if this is fine .. sending the renewal papers to Nebraska?
I'm also trying to find out from my attorney why they were sent to NSC and not TSC
Thank you.
more...
house Beautiful Red Rose Drawing - by MichArtPhoto on madeit
coralfl
04-09 01:05 PM
I renewed EAD twice using e-file. So far it was all smooth. Very first time I had paper filed and went for FP-ing. Since then renewed twice for myself and my wife - no FPing...got the card smoothly. Again this is USCIS .. someone might have had completely different experience...
tattoo lack and white rose drawing.
hibworker
06-08 03:02 PM
If you have a valid I-94 i.e. not expired, you can apply for another I-539 to F1 - make sure to make the application stronger than last time.
If your I-94 is applied, you have no choice but to leave the country and get F1 visa in your home country and come back.
If your I-94 is applied, you have no choice but to leave the country and get F1 visa in your home country and come back.
more...
pictures Red Rose. lt;lt; Previous Image | Main Gallery
The_Smiths
01-15 11:17 AM
Hello,
I obtained an EAD using my OPT just to be able to work in the U.S. while my fiancee completes her degree (I graduated in December 06 and she will do so in May 07). Since we will get married after she graduates, and will file for adjustment of status, we thought there would be no problem in my ability to work without any interruption.
However, it seems that filing for adjustment of status invalidates your OPT, therefore you wouldn't be able to continue working until you get your new EAD.
Does that mean I would have to stop working for 90 days or so after I get married? (Remember I'm on an F-1 as I think you can keep working if on an H-1B)
If so, is there any way to minimize this problem?
Thanks.
I obtained an EAD using my OPT just to be able to work in the U.S. while my fiancee completes her degree (I graduated in December 06 and she will do so in May 07). Since we will get married after she graduates, and will file for adjustment of status, we thought there would be no problem in my ability to work without any interruption.
However, it seems that filing for adjustment of status invalidates your OPT, therefore you wouldn't be able to continue working until you get your new EAD.
Does that mean I would have to stop working for 90 days or so after I get married? (Remember I'm on an F-1 as I think you can keep working if on an H-1B)
If so, is there any way to minimize this problem?
Thanks.
dresses red rose-bad crimson Arrow
msadiqali
10-06 01:32 AM
Finally some movement from GCC states to satisfy their peoples wishes
The demise of the dollar - Business News, Business - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/the-demise-of-the-dollar-1798175.html)
The demise of the dollar - Business News, Business - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/the-demise-of-the-dollar-1798175.html)
more...
makeup Animated Drawing :Customize in
chanduv23
12-25 07:38 PM
My wife is going for h1b stamping in Chennai on Jan 17th. She converted from H4 to H1 and and is doing her first year residency in a community hospital in New York. We have all required documentation. Letter from Hosp, 797, 129, LCA, offer letter, ECFMG certification, USMLE transcripts, degree, school transcripts.
In addition, I am asking her to take utility bills and bank certificates and paystubs.
As she was in h4 for 2 years, would the VO be asking her for my stuff like, my w2s, my paystubs etc????
Has anyone gone through this? Any specific questions related to residency? Does she need to take information about the hospital like brochures, etc.... does a visa interview for a Physician focus on the hospital and its operations????
In addition, I am asking her to take utility bills and bank certificates and paystubs.
As she was in h4 for 2 years, would the VO be asking her for my stuff like, my w2s, my paystubs etc????
Has anyone gone through this? Any specific questions related to residency? Does she need to take information about the hospital like brochures, etc.... does a visa interview for a Physician focus on the hospital and its operations????
girlfriend rose cursor pack rose
mrudul_hr
07-19 12:04 PM
No, the H1 6 yrs period will apply only when for the period when your Payrolls where generated using H1 visa.
hairstyles royalty-red rose pink die,
smithshn
05-07 09:01 AM
Program is the instance of the form.
It is indirectly inherited of your form.
And it is the class of itself.
It is indirectly inherited of your form.
And it is the class of itself.
jasmin45
07-31 08:43 PM
Can admins move this post to appropriate forum.. this is floating arould in September 13th rally one... should be in GC related forum.
sdckkbc
09-23 05:12 PM
My Original PERM labor certificate was lost in mail so we filed my I-140 without the PERM LC and asked USCIS to obtain the certificate from DoL. USCIS got the labour certificate from DoL and sent the original LC to us as an RFE to get my employer's and my signature on the perm certificate. My employer by mistake signed the labor certificate where I was supposed to sign :(. We have now covered his sign with white paint and I would be signing at correct place and sending back to USCIS. Do you think any white ink or over writing on original PERM certificate would matter in adjudication of my 140?