Monday, June 27, 2011

jersey shore ronnie punches mike

images hit show Jersey Shore, jersey shore ronnie punches mike. UPDATE – PHOTOS: Jersey Shore
  • UPDATE – PHOTOS: Jersey Shore

  • mrow
    07-07 10:34 PM
    Don't waste your time there. I too had applied for EAD renewal in March, and it expired in the end of June. Contacted the local office but they said they could'nt do anything. Got my 485 approval 2 weeks before our EADs expired! I had even contacted a senator out of desparation when the USCIS had pushed the EAD processing back by 6 months and with a mortgage payment, baby and with no unemployment benefits that would have been hell. Your best bet at this point is your senator and a good attorney. Don't worry about the attorney fees - it will be worth it in the end. Good luck, I feel for you.

    wallpaper UPDATE – PHOTOS: Jersey Shore jersey shore ronnie punches mike. 0 readersJersey Shore
  • 0 readersJersey Shore

  • mallu
    01-28 02:46 PM
    Why should anybody listen to this guy? This guy doesnt really represent the facts.

    The fact is that he is against IMMIGRATION of any form. I am sure he denies the fact that fore-fathers were immigrants and came from a distant land.

    That is surely amnesia. What to say, one of my desi coworker who who got his citizenship recently has started "Why we need more people" . When asked about his case, "mine was different, because of y2k etc there were great demand around 1999-2000".

    jersey shore ronnie punches mike. Finally, here is Ronnie with
  • Finally, here is Ronnie with

  • Better_Days
    12-28 03:28 AM
    Since more than a few hours have past since this thread was started, I can think that we can sleep in peace knowing that there won't be a war.

    Having said that, I am startled at the number of Indians who seem to be sold on the idea that war is the answer. I went over to an Indian friend of mine and was shocked at the type of coverage. It seemed so much like the US media before the Iraq invasion.

    Exactly what will India accomplish by squandering away the economic clout it has gathered? Yes India is a regional power and probably an emerging global power. Yes, in a long drawn out conflict, Indian will probably win. Happy now? But at what price? PLEASE, Indian is no US and Pakistan in no Iraq.

    Pak has nukes, but their delivery mechanism is not sound and before Pak launches any nukes, US will disarm them and even if a few are launched India had a very good anti missile shield which will intercept and destroy all warheads before it enters Indian air.

    What I need to know is that what %age of Indian population believes this and the whole "Chinese-made" nuke crap? Is it being spewed out on TV by arm-chair generals and defense analyst? This will explain why everyone is sold on the whole War idea. And this after the debacle that US finds itself in Iraq and Afghanistan?

    Does anyone understand the concept of a nuclear doctrine? I have been out of it for a while and I don't think that Pakistan has published its nuclear doctrine but it has been speculated upon. The general consensus is that, at least initially, Pakistan will use the nukes on its own territory. Both as a means to inflict casualties on advancing Indian troops and as a means of area denial as neither army is equipped to fight large scale battles in a NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) theater. Forget Pakistan but do you have any idea what the fallout do to the fertile agricultural land in India? And this is not even considering that the Pakistani leadership may decide to go down in a blaze of glory and launch strategic strikes against major population centers.

    War is no answer and should not (and probably will not) happen.

    Disclaimer: I am a Pakistani. While I am in IT, at one point in time I was considering a career in Strategic Studies and was serious enough that I started applying at various colleges. Had to drop the idea as I could not secure funding.

    2011 0 readersJersey Shore jersey shore ronnie punches mike. Mike finally gets rid of the
  • Mike finally gets rid of the

  • Macaca
    12-28 07:12 PM
    Blending the Rules as We Go Along ( By ANAND GIRIDHARADAS | New York Times

    I wanted it to be right after breakfast when I asked Priya to marry me. The other elements were still forming, but that one felt important: a proposal to know together a thousand moments as simple and whole as this moment on a quiet Sunday morning.

    I gave a prologue, then asked. She cried, then answered. A ring was worn. And, in less time than it takes to mow a lawn, we had rewritten our fates � our fate � forever. Done deal.

    Or so we thought.

    In the coming days, we were reminded of what it means to belong to a tribe of people that straddles multiple cultures and multiple degrees of technological involvement � and, as a consequence, holds a rich variety of opinions about an engagement. We received an education in the nuances of doing a very old thing in these new globalized, digitized times.

    The first hint of engagement Babel came in a phone call to Priya�s grandparents in New Delhi, minutes after the proposal. Joy filled their voices when they heard our news; blessings poured forth, punctuated by the colonial remnant �all the best, all the best.�

    Her Nana, though, could not let the conversation end without asking a question:

    �But, Priya, how exactly does one get engaged?�

    The bride-to-be said something about a question being asked and a ring being given, and that was that. What we didn�t appreciate then was that, in India, it doesn�t count as an engagement when two impressionable young people make a decision all by themselves.

    Calling India to say that you have gotten engaged, but without any family present, without any rites having occurred, is like claiming to have clapped with one hand.

    Thanksgiving time soon came, and the two of us went to Washington, where our six parents live. Two celebrations of our engagement were planned: a dinner at Priya�s mother and stepfather�s home, the other a tea at my parents� place.

    Our new family traces its roots to cow worshipers in Benares and cow slaughterers in South Dakota, to Chennai in south India, to a piece of the Punjab that is now in Pakistan, to Iowa, to New Jersey and to a hamlet called Blaxall in Britain. We count among us those who worship the multitudinous Hindu deities, the lone Christian one and no divinity at all. We are speakers of English, Hindi, Punjabi, Tamil, French and Spanish. Many of us bear the passport of a country in which we were not born.

    All of which is wonderful until you have to choose an engagement ritual.

    After some debate and soul-searching, we decided to invent our own rites. We lit candles. We held hands. We told stories. We traded gifts. We laughed. We ate.

    But, back in India, there was still some confusion. Priya�s grandparents, 10 and a half time zones ahead of us, were aching to hear our voices on the night of that first Washington celebration. My grandparents phoned several times during the tea at my parents� home four days later. The way they saw it, this was the engagement � this coming together of families at the home of a certified adult. The earlier thing, as they saw it, was more like a sweet gesture.

    So, two weeks after we got engaged by our own definition, my grandparents congratulated me for getting engaged. Priya�s Indian cousins BlackBerry-messaged her they were delighted to be able, at long last, to congratulate her � now that it was �official.� Other relatives wrote seeking pictures of our �engagement ceremony.� We tried to explain that we hadn�t had one. But in this definitional spat, we were clearly outnumbered.

    When, today, is an engagement valid in the eyes of the world? Is it, according to the Western contractual idea, when two people declare their commitment to each other in private? Or when love mingles with economics in the giving of a ring, the first step in a gradual entangling of fortunes? Is it when two families gather and drink and toast? Or when a certain traditional ritual is done � or, in our case, a new ritual?

    Or is it when you change your Facebook relationship status?

    We had been so consumed with family, and with the intricacies of the Indian and American rules of engagement, that we ignored our virtual tribe. We had called some friends on the phone immediately after it happened, and e-mailed some others. But then the celebrations of the nonvirtual world took off, and we were absorbed into that love and tumult, and our engagement went unrecorded by the digital sphere.

    Just when we thought we had satisfied every possible definition of engagement, marking it in ways suitable to ourselves, our parents and our extended clans, Priya�s stepsister brought up Facebook. Why hadn�t we updated our relationship status to proclaim the engagement? It was peculiar, this omission: The absence of a Facebook update could be read as the presence of something amiss. What were we trying to hide?

    Relationship statuses, like ideas, have derived their authority from different sources over the millenniums: A relationship could be valid if properly certified by the ancient rituals; or valid if faithful to the words of the holy texts; or valid if codified in a contract recognized by the correct governmental agency; and now, in 2010, valid if etched into one�s �Info� tab on Facebook.

    We promptly made things right. As it turns out, we were Facebook-engaged around the time that the site�s creator, Mark Zuckerberg, was named Time magazine�s Person of the Year. We made it �official� for the third time, our union ordained by this new minister of the universe.

    At last, the engagement is properly established before our American, Indian and virtual tribes � and, now, before the readers of this newspaper. The wedding looms, and with it another inevitable contest of definitions.

    I can already hear the question forming: �But how exactly does one get married?�


    jersey shore ronnie punches mike. Ronnie Ortiz-Magra
  • Ronnie Ortiz-Magra

  • WantGCQuick
    06-08 10:11 AM
    I think nowadays you can get great deals in suwanee area, but in alpharetta area (ATLANTA) which is couple of exits towards the city on 400 highway.. are still selling for 400K..I am talking about 3000 sq ft, houses.. I got a quote for 420K with basement 3070 sqft.. with decent upgrades...
    and these homes are closely built compared to the ones in suwanee area..

    The homes prices never came down in these areas!!

    jersey shore ronnie punches mike. Ronnie and Situation Fight
  • Ronnie and Situation Fight

  • Refugee_New
    01-06 02:27 PM

    It all depends on people's mind. You don't need to answer me, and I am sure you are pure by heart as my many muslim friends.

    It depends where your bias is. Are you (you means in general people, not you particularly) biased to religion or you are biased to humanity! When a christian or hindu gets killed, if it doesn't pain you as much when a muslim gets killed, you are more biased towards religion.

    People are biased towards religion often shelter under humanity sentences to prove their point. But quite ofter they become onesided. Like People were igniting fire crackers in Pakistan when Mumbai massacre happened. When one of them gets killed, they shout on name of humanity.

    My sympathies are with poor innocent kids of palestine got killed.

    But people should come out and unshelter terrorists who live in civilian facilities. Same as Dawood & Azhar Masood. People want to harbour them but them if other country takes military action to capture them and some civilians killed because they were in civilian area, it is bad to shout on name of humanity. BECAUSE IN THAT CASE THEY ARE REALLY NOT INNOCENT.

    It pained me a lot when terrorist struck Mumbai and i did condemn the mindless killing just like fellow Indian and Indian Muslim. Don't you think Muslims in India united and showed their unity and condemned Pakistan?

    Don't compare terrorists like Dawood and Masood Azhar with those who are elected democratically by people of their nation.


    jersey shore ronnie punches mike. jersey-shore-ronnie-mike-
  • jersey-shore-ronnie-mike-

  • unitednations
    03-26 08:04 PM
    With regards to h-1b processing; if you file an h-1b and you are silent as to the work location on the i-129 and you get an lca for your h-1b office location and then USCIS gives you an rfe for a client letter.

    You get a client letter in a different location and did not have an lca for that location prior to the receipt date of the h-1b filing then USCIS will deny the h-1b saying that it wasn't approvable when filed. Therefore, because of this USCIS is essentially saying that you are only getting h-1b approval for the work location specified in the petition when it was filed. It does not include a blanket approval to work at multiple locations.

    Therefore; one should always amend the h-1b for different work location. Everytime you amend; you have to pay uscis/lawyer fees and are at risk of getting rfe everytime.

    With regards to greencard. You don't have to work at the location required in the labor until the greencard gets approved. Most labors state job location is "various unanticipated locations across usa". If it has this statement then you are covered and don't have to locate to the office of the company; you can work in any location.

    If there is not such an annotation in the labor then to make it 100% legal you should go and work in the location covered by the labor. However, as the baltimore decision stated; you can use ac21 for a different locaiton with same employer. Therefore, if 485 is pending more then six months and greencard gets approved; you have essentially used ac21 without even knowing it.

    I do know a few cases where attorney did labor in location of where persons client was located. However, if person has shifted to another location then it would be impossible to justify it legally that you will go back there when greencard gets approved because that job would no longer exist.

    There are a lot of complexities involved in this. It just goes to show that on a whim; uscis can do a lot of things to make peoples lives miserable.

    2010 Finally, here is Ronnie with jersey shore ronnie punches mike. hit show Jersey Shore,
  • hit show Jersey Shore,

  • Sunx_2004
    07-11 12:23 PM
    I'll tell you how I did it:

    1) USCIS administrative appeals office decisions (can be found by navigating around USCIS.GOV

    2) USCIS memos/interpretations/policies (can also be found on uscis)

    3) Go to department of state web-site. Navigate around it and you will find links to their procedures and interpretations

    4) monitor the forums and see postings

    5) immigration portal used to have links or summaries to AILA liaision minutes with service centers

    6) people used to send me their rfe's, denials and what they lawyers did to get them into the mess. Basically learning how people got into a mess and what uscis did to catch them or to deny their cases

    7) go to and look for foreign labor certification; there are FAQ's on perm labors and h-1b

    8) go to and read the INA and CFR's


    If a person is used to reading laws and understanding the hierarchy and then intertwining uscis procedure along with the various service center procedure then you will start to get a clearer understanding.

    All of the information is public. Don't rely on what your friend told you as they usually only know what someone else told them.

    I had a non compete agreement when I left my employer and couldn't work for one year. During that year; I had nothing to do other then watch tv and watch the portal. No matter how small a question was asked/posted I researched it through all the sources I mentioned above.

    Finally; don't do what you think is right or "gut feeling"...

    Research it; research it and research it some more. Sometimes what you read at first glance; you make a conclusion to your own benefit without understanding all the other laws/policies/procedures that override it.



    jersey shore ronnie punches mike. Sammy, Mike and Ronnie Jersey
  • Sammy, Mike and Ronnie Jersey

  • Macaca
    02-15 05:34 PM
    San Francisco's Democrat ( and_outlooks) WSJ Editorial, Feb 15

    Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats appear to have decided that November's election is a distraction from their effort to simply pull the plug on a sitting President. How else to explain what is happening in the House this week?

    Democrats voted yesterday, for the first time in decades, to hold two White House officials in contempt of Congress. Hours later it emerged that Ms. Pelosi has apparently decided not to vote on the warrantless wiretap bill passed by the Senate days ago. This means that the Protect America Act -- which conferred Congressional support to wiretapping suspected al Qaeda terrorists -- will expire at midnight today.

    We admit to wondering earlier this week whether Congress's interrogating Roger Clemens was the best use of the Representatives' time. On the evidence, the country will be safer if the House takes up tilting at windmills.

    Speaker Pelosi says that letting the Protect America Act evaporate is no big deal. But the Director of National Intelligence told Congress last summer that the Administration lost two-thirds of its terrorist-surveillance capacity after it agreed to go to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and a judge there required a finding of probable cause to listen in on terrorists abroad.

    There are in fact enough Blue Dog Democratic votes in the House to pass the Senate bill, which had Democratic support there as well. But Ms. Pelosi instructed House Intelligence Committee Chairman Sylvester Reyes to begin negotiations with the Senate on a compromise bill. This effectively tosses the entire surveillance program into a kind of limbo, with all players uncertain about its practical authority.

    This was of a piece with the remarkable contempt vote against White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former Counsel Harriet Miers, which passed 223 to 32, as Minority Leader John Boehner led the Republican delegation out of the chamber. The pretext for this historic moment? The fight over the fired U.S. Attorneys. Remember that?

    This is the scandal that vanished because there was nothing to it. U.S. Attorneys are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the President; he can fire any -- or even all -- of them if he sees fit. This nonscandal seemed to fade into the mists after it hastened the departure of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Ms. Pelosi asserts that this virtually never-used contempt vote is necessary to ensure "oversight" of the executive.

    Mr. Bolten and Ms. Miers, however, refused under orders from the President and on the advice of the Solicitor General, on the principle that the President's advisers should be free to give advice to the President without being called before Congress to explain themselves. Democratic Presidents to the horizon have made this claim.

    Every time he speaks, Barack Obama promises to overcome "bitter partisanship and petty bickering." Good luck with that. The House Speaker from San Francisco is obviously running her own campaign to gain control of the White House. The needs of the party's Presidential candidates appear to be a distraction from this.

    The House Strikes Back ( By Dan Froomkin |, Feb 15

    hair Mike finally gets rid of the jersey shore ronnie punches mike. Ronnie jersey shore ronnie and mike fight. Picture - Ronnie Ortiz-Magro,
  • Ronnie jersey shore ronnie and mike fight. Picture - Ronnie Ortiz-Magro,

  • CreatedToday
    01-06 04:31 PM
    If this senior Hamas leader could send his son as a suicide bomber to kill innocent civilians in Israel, what stops him from using others' kids as shield?

    If its true, why media is not showing how Hamas is hiding behind schools and mosques? Its a big lie and this is what they say in order to justify the killing. Also what rockets you are talking about? Those 7000 rockets that killed 4 people? I agree Hamas must stop their mindless and useless rocket attack.


    jersey shore ronnie punches mike. Jersey Shore picture gallery
  • Jersey Shore picture gallery

  • nojoke
    05-03 02:33 AM
    NAR has been constantly changing their prediction. They predicted that we will be having growth in the later part of this year. Now they changed their tune. It is now 24% down. Nextmonth they will say 35% down. NAR is a joke

    hot Ronnie Ortiz-Magra jersey shore ronnie punches mike. dresses pictures Jersey Shore
  • dresses pictures Jersey Shore

  • lfwf
    08-05 03:53 PM
    If that's the law then there is not much of a debate here!

    I think admin should close the thread as the point of a lawsuit is moot.

    Of course porting is derived from law!
    As I was pointing out earlier, this debate has become warperd. The question is about porting with BS+5, not porting per se. I believe the BS+5 came from a legacy INS memo after a lawsuit or something. Perhaps we should ask the question on one of the attorney forums.


    house Ronnie Ortiz-Magro from jersey shore ronnie punches mike. Jersey Shore stars Ronnie
  • Jersey Shore stars Ronnie

  • waitnwatch
    08-06 01:49 PM
    I don't think Rolling flood is debating the eligibility of 5 years experience post Bachelors for EB2. The point here is about porting which enables one to retain the priority date from the EB3 application which maybe required Bachelors + 0 years. To balance things out why not give a person who acquires a Masters or PhD a few years in terms of priority date.

    Note that I have no personal gain from any of the above happening. :)

    ........ RollingFlood has not explained why a job that requires 5 years or more experience in addition to a B.S. does not make it eligible for EB2. Without that he is likely going to waste a lot of money on lawyers.

    tattoo Ronnie and Situation Fight jersey shore ronnie punches mike. Jersey Shore S02E18 Drunk
  • Jersey Shore S02E18 Drunk

  • nk2006
    09-30 03:38 PM
    Beacuse somehow USCIS is not looking into AC21 documentation also most of the time you don't even know that your AC21 letter has been places in your file or not, on the other hand when an employer send out the revocation request it seems to reached USCIS and they deny the 485 with out calculating that its been 180 days since 485 is pending and also suppose a company filed 100 485 caes in July 2007 out of those 20 has changed the Job using Ac21, now the company is filing for 20 news GCs and in the I140 stage recievs rfe for Ability to Pay, the company will have to prove the A2Pay for 120 people as oppose to only 100 ( 80 old + 20 new) , so the lawyers must be suggesting to tell USCIS that the 20 people are not on our list and we should not be asked to prove Ability to PAY for these and hence the revocation and a 485 deniel. The only issue here is that USCIS acts quickly on I140 revocation cases becuase it reduces on case from the workload and they don't bother to calculate when was 180 days done for the poor guy.

    does this make sense, I will like to know what other people think about it.

    I think you are right - as soon as they see I140 revocation they are doing the easiest thing, that is to reject underlying I485. They can easily check the 180 days period; alternately they can actually issue NoticeOfIntenttoDeny (NOID) and give a chance to the candidate why I485 should not be rejected - this is also equally easy for them to do (just send a letter and give a 45 day or something similar time). I think they are simply rejecting so it reduces the total pending I485 cases. It might be possible for us to open MTR and resolve this but if working on EAD we will be in soup and also MTR's typically take longer to get resolved.


    pictures jersey-shore-ronnie-mike- jersey shore ronnie punches mike. Jersey Shore Season 3,
  • Jersey Shore Season 3,

  • nogc_noproblem
    08-08 11:46 PM
    Good one!!!

    I thought the first blonde joke was really very funny - Helloooooooo :)

    dresses dresses pictures Jersey Shore jersey shore ronnie punches mike. one of MTV#39;s Jersey Shore
  • one of MTV#39;s Jersey Shore

  • Marphad
    01-08 03:35 PM
    Refugee_new is a moron. He send me 5 profane message. He started the tread and he abusing the people responded in his tread. What he achived??
    He achieved the opposite effect. Now many people understand who is the problem maker. He is a potential terrorist. Admin must inform his location by giving his IP address to FBI or other law enforcement offices. It is our duty to protect this country from furthur attacks from fanatics.

    I did report to admin, they didn't take any action to the guy send the vulgar messages. Now warning the people copy pasted them.!!!!
    funny world!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I respect all your posts. This time you seem like getting hyper ;)


    makeup Sammy, Mike and Ronnie Jersey jersey shore ronnie punches mike. Ronnie Ortiz-Magro from
  • Ronnie Ortiz-Magro from

  • sc3
    07-14 12:57 PM
    USCIS has not changed any law they have re-interpreted an existing law which was unclear and some folks have said that CIS interprets laws based on inputs from congress to understand the intent behind the law. If you complain to CIS that you have changed law they will send you a polite reply that we do not make any laws we just implement it.

    * When was it unclear?
    * Why did it take so long for USCIS to see that the law was unclear?
    * What caused USCIS to realize that the law was unclear?
    * What caused them to change their interpretation?
    * How did USCIS use up all of EB2-I numbers in the very first quarter? (Very illegal thing to do)

    Come on, dont be so picky. You know what I mean when I said USCIS changed the law. Dont argue on syntax.

    girlfriend Jersey Shore S02E18 Drunk jersey shore ronnie punches mike. Jersey Shore star Ronnie Magro
  • Jersey Shore star Ronnie Magro

  • Macaca
    05-16 05:52 PM
    China�s recent obstreperousness may yet backfire, frightening the United States and its Asian partners into doing more to balance against its growing power. For now, however, the alarming news is that China�s strategy seems to be working much better than America�s. Washington has made basically no progress in pushing China toward democracy, nor has it succeeded in persuading Beijing to abandon ambitions�like controlling the entire South China Sea�that threaten the interests of America�s allies. For its part, China�s Communist Party remains firmly in command. Meanwhile, as China�s economy and military have matured, it has begun to mount a serious challenge to America�s position in Asia.

    Beijing has now become the most important trading partner for the advanced industrial nations of Northeast Asia and Australia, as well the comparatively poor countries on its frontiers. It is a leading investor in infrastructure development and resource extraction across the region. These thickening commercial ties have already begun to complicate calculations of national interest in various capitals.

    China�s rapid economic growth has also enabled a substantial expansion in military spending. And Beijing�s buildup has begun to yield impressive results. As of the early 1990s, the Pacific was, in essence, a U.S. lake. Today, the balance of military power is much less clearly in America�s favor, and, in certain respects, it has started to tilt toward China. While its arsenal remains comparatively small, Beijing�s ongoing deployment of intercontinental ballistic missiles will give it a more secure second-strike nuclear capability. Washington�s threat to use nuclear weapons, if necessary, to counter Chinese aggression against its allies is therefore dwindling toward the vanishing point. As happened during the cold war, once the Soviets achieved a form of nuclear parity, the burden of deterrence will fall increasingly on the conventional forces of the United States and its allies. And, here, the trends are, if anything, more worrisome. Since the mid-1990s, China has been investing heavily in so-called �anti-access� capabilities to deter or defeat American efforts to project power into East Asia. People�s Liberation Army (PLA) strategists appear to believe that, with enough highly accurate, conventionally armed ballistic and cruise missiles, they could, in the event of a confrontation, deny U.S. forces the use of their regional air and naval bases and either sink or push back the aircraft carriers that are the other principal platform for America�s long-range power projection.

    If the PLA also develops a large and capable submarine force, and the ability to disable enemy satellites and computer networks, its generals may someday be able to convince themselves that, should push come to shove, they can knock the United States out of a war in the Western Pacific. Such scenarios may seem far-fetched, and in the normal course of events they would be. But a visibly deteriorating balance of military power could weaken deterrence and increase the risk of conflict. If Washington seems to be losing the ability to militarily uphold its alliance commitments, those Asian nations that now look to the United States as the ultimate guarantor of their security will have no choice but to reassess their current alignments. None of them want to live in a region dominated by China, but neither do they want to risk opposing it and then being left alone to face its wrath.

    When he first took office, Barack Obama seemed determined to adjust the proportions of the dual strategy he had inherited. Initially, he emphasized engagement and softpedaled efforts to check Chinese power. But at just the moment that American policymakers were reaching out to further engage China, their Chinese counterparts were moving in the opposite direction. In the past 18 months, the president and his advisers have responded, appropriately, by reversing course. Instead of playing up engagement, they have been placing increasing emphasis on balancing China�s regional power. For example, the president�s November 2010 swing through Asia was notable for the fact that it included stops in New Delhi, Seoul, Tokyo, and Jakarta, but not Beijing.

    This is all to the good, but it is not enough. The United States cannot and should not give up on engagement. However, our leaders need to abandon the diplomatic �happy talk� that has for too long distorted public discussion of U.S.-China relations. Washington must be more candid in acknowledging the limits of what engagement has achieved and more forthright in explaining the challenge a fast-rising but still authoritarian China poses to our interests and those of our allies. The steps that need to be taken in response�developing and deploying the kinds of military capabilities necessary to counter China�s anti-access strategy; working more closely with friends and allies, even in the face of objections from Beijing�will all come with steep costs, in terms of dollars and diplomatic capital. At a moment when the United States is fighting two-and-a-half wars, and trying to dig its way out from under a massive pile of debt, the resources and resolve necessary to deal with a seemingly distant danger are going to be hard to come by. This makes it all the more important that our leaders explain clearly that we are facing a difficult long-term geopolitical struggle with China, one that cannot be ignored or wished away.

    To be sure, China�s continuing rise is not inevitable. Unfavorable demographic trends and the costs of environmental degradation are likely to depress the country�s growth curve in the years ahead. And this is to say nothing of the possible disruptive effects of inflation, bursting real-estate bubbles, and a shaky financial system. So it is certainly possible that the challenge posed by China will fizzle on its own.

    But if you look at the history of relations between rising and dominant powers, and where they have led, what you find is not reassuring. In one important instance, the United States and Great Britain at the turn of the twentieth century, the nascent rivalry between the two countries was resolved peacefully. But in other cases�Germany and Britain in the run-up to World War I, Japan and the United States in the 1930s, and the United States and the Soviet Union after World War II�rivalry led to arms races and wars, either hot or cold. What saved the United States and Britain from such a clash was in part the similarity of their political systems. What made conflict likely in the latter scenarios were sharp differences in ideology. And so, unless China undergoes a fundamental transformation in the character of its regime, there is good reason to worry about where its rivalry with the United States will lead.

    Aaron L. Friedberg is a professor at Princeton University and the author of the forthcoming book A Contest for Supremacy: China, America, and the Struggle for Mastery in Asia

    Dr. K�s Rx for China ( By Niall Ferguson | Newsweek
    The China Challenge ( By Henry Kissinger | Wall Street Journal
    Henry Kissinger on China ( By MAX FRANKEL | New York Times
    Modest U.S.-China progress ( The Japan Times Editorial
    U.S.-China's Knotty but Necessary Ties ( By John Pomfret | Council on Foreign Relations
    Do Americans hold �simple� ideas about China's economy? ( By Michael Schuman | The Curious Capitalist

    hairstyles Jersey Shore picture gallery jersey shore ronnie punches mike. Jersey Shore Guys Land in
  • Jersey Shore Guys Land in

  • Macaca
    02-17 02:14 PM
    The Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 ( establishes criteria for determining when an organization or firm should register their employees as lobbyists. Lobbyists register with the Senate Office of Public Records (SOPR ( SOPR receives, processes, and maintains for public inspection records filed with the Secretary of the Senate ( involving the Lobbying Disclosure Act, the Federal Election Campaign Act (, the Ethics in Government Act, the Mutual Security Act, and the Senate Code of Official Conduct. The office has many other responsibilities in addition to their lobbyist registration duties.


    Lobby Filing Disclosure Program (
    Example: Find amount paid by IV

    Go to Senate Office of Public Records (
    Click on Access the US Lobby Report Images for All Years (
    Highlight Client Name and then click on button Go
    Type Immigration Voice in client name field and then click on button Go
    Click on Immigration Voice Corporation (
    The 3 links are

    QGA registered IV as client (|2)
    Mid-Year Report (|3) (Jan 1- Jun 30)
    Year-End Report (|2) (July 1 - Dec 31)

    Follow above steps for anti-immigration organizations (FAIR ( FORM&CLIQUAL==), NumbersUSA (, ...) House (
    Lobbying Spending Database (

    04-17 08:40 AM
    To Conceal Donors, Some Political Groups Look to the Tax Code (, By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum, Tuesday, April 17, 2007

    An increasing number of organizations working to influence elections also are working to hide who is paying for their activities.

    Several political organizations colloquially known as 527s are relying more on or switching into 501(c)(4) groups, the type of tax-exempt entity that the tax code uses for advocacy groups.

    The 527s must disclose who gives them money; 501(c)(4)s do not have that requirement.

    The trend, which was discovered by the nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute, runs counter to one of the basic tenets of modern-day election law -- broad public disclosure. Voters generally have the right to know who is helping to elect their representatives and senators. Armed with such data, they can decide for themselves who, if anyone, is trying to buy their congressional representatives.

    A lot of political influence is at stake if such transformations proliferate. In last year's elections, 527s spent $143.2 million. The biggest outlays on the Democratic side came from the Service Employees International Union, Emily's List and America Votes, a coalition of liberal groups. On the Republican side, the big spenders were the Progress for America Voter Fund, the College Republican National Committee and the Presidential Coalition.

    There are many reasons that 527s might want to alter their stripes. The main one has nothing to do with concealment: The Federal Election Commission has been cracking down on 527s, insisting they cannot explicitly press for the election or the defeat of candidates.

    But in trying to sidestep the crackdown, several 527s have chosen an alternative structure that is harder for the public to track. Tax-exempt groups of various types have always been able to keep their donors anonymous (except to the Internal Revenue Service). The exception to this, made in 2000, is the type of electioneering funds called 527s, which have to publicly name their contributors.

    In recent years, one group that has leaned more heavily on its 501(c)(4) is Progress for America, once one of the largest GOP-leaning 527s. Another group is converting outright: the Club for Growth, which supports conservative, anti-tax candidates. According to a letter obtained by the Campaign Finance Institute, the club sees many benefits in its transformation, including secrecy. "Unlike in the past, your donations to the Club will not be disclosed to the public, except in very limited circumstances," wrote Patrick J. Toomey, the group's president.

    Some experts doubt that the Club for Growth will be widely imitated. An organization cannot simply change its label to a 501(c); it must also alter its function so that it no longer primarily works on elections. Last week, Public Citizen, the liberal gadfly, formally complained that Americans for Job Security should not be allowed to operate as a 501(c)(6), or trade association, because of its large-scale electoral involvement.

    Veil of Secrecy
    A sample of entities involved in politics that operate as 501(c), (4), (5) or (6) groups, which are tax-exempt and do not have to disclose their donors publicly.

    Organization and Examples of 2006 political activity

    AFL-CIO Spent about $40 million on its pro-Democratic political program.
    Americans for Job Security Ran an estimated $1.5 million in ads on behalf of then-Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.).
    Chamber of Commerce Spent $10 million on ads thanking largely GOP incumbents for pro-business positions.
    Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund Spent $1.6 million on election-related activity, including voter education and mobilization.
    Focus on Family Action Sponsored radio ads in several competitive Senate races.
    League of Conservation Voters Spent more than $1 million on TV ads, mailings and other political outreach.
    NARAL Spent more than $740,000, mostly to rent voter lists for Internet communications.
    National Rifle Association Campaign war chest (excluding PAC funds) was reportedly $9 million.

    SOURCE: Campaign Finance Instititue

    05-09 05:48 PM
    Utah's Immigration Model ( Wall Street Journal Editorial

    If the states are meant to be laboratories of democracy, they have to get a chance to actually run their experiments. That's the story in Utah, where a new state immigration law is catching flak even before it goes into effect.

    In a Senate Judiciary hearing on Wednesday, Attorney General Eric Holder said the law, which combines enforcement measures with a guest worker program, needs to be adjusted or face federal lawsuits. Pressed on whether the Administration planned to sue Utah, Mr. Holder said the Department of Justice "will look at the law, and if it is not changed to our satisfaction by 2013, we will take the necessary steps."

    That's a tad awkward for the Attorney General, since the Utah plan probably looks a lot like what the federal government will end up considering if immigration reform has any hope of passing. Last summer, the Administration pounced like election-year politicians on an Arizona law that enlisted local police to enforce federal immigration statutes. So what's a state to do?

    Passed by the state's GOP legislature and signed by Republican Governor Gary Herbert in March, Utah's plan is notable because it's the first in the country that would allow undocumented immigrants to get a permit and work legally, after paying a fine of up to $2500 and meeting other conditions. The program is part of a larger package that includes increased scrutiny of immigrants who break the law. The compromise allows the state to address the economy's demand for workers�thus reducing the incentive for illegal immigration�while satisfying voters who don't want to reward those who arrived illegally.

    Like Arizona, Utah is already fending off lawsuits from the left. On Tuesday, the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Immigration Law Center sued to stop the portion of the law similar to the one in Arizona that enlists state and local police in the effort to identify illegal immigrants. In Utah's version, anyone who is arrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor has to show proof of citizenship.

    Unlike measures that unite talk radio hosts and labor unions against "amnesty," the Utah law doesn't create a path to citizenship or have any effect on an immigrant's legal status. That model could work for other states looking for a bipartisan compromise. Republican legislators in Texas have introduced similar legislation for guest worker programs, and Nebraska lawmakers plan to travel to Utah to learn more about the new law.

    Critics of state immigration laws often maintain that those decisions are the province of the federal government. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," and it's possible Utah might lose in court. But what are states to do when the federal government is unable to act on immigration? Utah's laws don't grant legal status to undocumented workers; they grant a work permit. Does the federal government have the power over such employment decisions?

    States are passing these laws because Congress has abdicated. Instead of ordering Utah to step back in line, or else, the Administration might consider what it can learn from Utah legislators who made a good faith effort to balance competing interests and solve a problem.

    Immigration: A better farm worker fix (,0,7562015.story) Los Angeles Times Editorial
    U.S. Warns Schools Against Checking Immigration Status ( By KIRK SEMPLE | New York Times
    Is the Asian Century upon us? It depends ( By HARUHIKO KURODA | Globe and Mail Update
    Immigration North of the Border ( By Hazeen Ashby | The Huffington Post
    Another project in trouble
    First the euro, now Schengen. Europe�s grandest integration projects seem to be suffering (
    The Economist
    Smugglers Guide Illegal Immigrants With Cues via Cellphone ( By MARC LACEY | New York Times
    As Barriers to Lawyers Persist, Immigrant Advocates Ponder Solutions ( By SAM DOLNICK | New York Times
    Lawyers for Immigrants ( Letters | New York Times

    No comments:

    Post a Comment