Saturday, July 2, 2011

Natalie Portman 2009 Academy Awards

images Natalie Portman was sweet and Natalie Portman 2009 Academy Awards. Natalie Portman in 81st Annual
  • Natalie Portman in 81st Annual


    • MatsP
    January 25th, 2006, 09:09 AM
    Try taking the main battery AND the "clock" battery out. Leave them out for at least 15 minutes [longer is fine]. Then re-insert clock battery and then main battery.

    Check that there's no buttons being stuck in.

    --
    Mats
    L1 to Green card [Archive] - Immigration Voice
    Log in

    View Full Version : L1 to Green card




    wallpaper Natalie Portman in 81st Annual Natalie Portman 2009 Academy Awards. 2010 – Natalie Portman
  • 2010 – Natalie Portman


    • anilsal
    01-14 12:28 PM
    Even when officers work on your files, there may not be any LUDs.

    If you input all your case numbers (old H1B approvals etc), you will see that those get LUDs once in a while. They may be batch jobs or someone pulling files frequently or filing old applications etc.

    Since your PD is a few months away, it is best to just relax and hope your applications are preadjudicated. When your PD becomes current, then go the Service Request - infopass - senator/ombudsman route.

    If you are that interested, take infopass appointments and find out where your application is. If the CIS person is friendly, they give out a lot of information. Dress well and talk politely.



    Natalie Portman 2009 Academy Awards. Natalie Portman Academy
  • Natalie Portman Academy


    • Blog Feeds
    02-21 08:40 AM
    [UPDATE: You can see the FOIA'd documents here.] The AP's Suzanne Gamboa has a great article describing how a program billed as voluntary for communties turned out to be impossible to get out of once a city has enrolled. Gamboa has reviewed internal documents sought in a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the Benjamin Cardozo School of Law in New York, the National Day Labor Organizing Network and the Center for Constitutional Rights. ICE has opposed the release of the documents, but a New York judge ordered the information be released. Here are highlights from the AP piece:...

    More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2011/02/freedom-of-information-act-request-reveals-ice-misled-communities-on-opting-out-of-secure-communitie.html)



    2011 2010 – Natalie Portman Natalie Portman 2009 Academy Awards. wallpaper Natalie Portman
  • wallpaper Natalie Portman


    • Macaca
    07-23 07:32 PM
    Reid's Anti-Reform Maneuvers (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/22/AR2007072200881.html?nav=hcmodule) By Robert D. Novak (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/robert+d.+novak/) Washington Post, July 23, 2007

    When Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid picked up his ball and went home after his staged all-night session last week, he saved from possible embarrassment one of the least regular members of his Democratic caucus: Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Reform Republican Tom Coburn had ready an amendment to the defense authorization bill removing Nelson's earmark funding a Nebraska-based company whose officials include Nelson's son. Such an effort became impossible when Reid pulled the bill.

    That Reid's action had this effect was mere coincidence. He knew that Sen. Carl Levin's amendment to the defense bill mandating a troop withdrawal from Iraq would fall short of the 60 votes needed to cut off debate, and Reid planned from the start to pull the bill after the all-night session, designed to satisfy antiwar zealots, was completed. But Reid is also working behind the scenes with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to undermine earmark transparency and prevent open debate on spending proposals such as Nelson's.

    These antics fit the continuing decline of the Senate, including an unwritten rules change requiring 60 votes to pass any meaningful bill. When I arrived on Capitol Hill 50 years ago, Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson (like Reid today) had a slim Democratic majority and faced a Republican president, but he was not burdened with the 60-vote rule. While Johnson did use chicanery, Reid resorts to brute force that shatters the Senate's facade of civilized discourse. Reid is plotting to strip anti-earmark transparency from the final version of ethics legislation passed by the Senate and House, with tacit support from Republican senators and the GOP leadership.

    At stake is the fate of Coburn's "Reid amendment," previously passed by the Senate and so called because it would bar earmarks benefiting a senator's family members such as Reid's four lobbyist sons and son-in-law. Nelson's current $7.5 million earmark for software helps 21st Century Systems Inc. (21CSI), which employs the senator's son, Patrick Nelson, as its marketing director. The company gets 80 percent of its funds from federal grants, mostly through earmarks. With nine offices scattered among states represented by appropriators in Congress, the company has in recent years spent $1.1 million to lobby Congress and $160,000 in congressional campaign contributions. "As of April," the Omaha World-Herald reported, "only one piece of [the company's] software has been used -- to help guard a single Marine camp in Iraq -- and it was no longer in use."

    In requesting the 21CSI earmark, Nelson did not disclose his son's employment. "There's no requirement that he disclose that," a Nelson spokesman told this column. "But frankly, in this case, we didn't disclose it because it's so public." An April 24 letter from Levin giving senators instructions on how to request an earmark made no mention of the "Reid amendment" that had been passed by the Senate three months earlier but that required only certification that no senator's spouse would benefit from an earmark. Inclusion of Nelson's son, however, would be required if the ethics bill provision passes.

    When the defense authorization bill came up last week, Coburn prepared amendments to eliminate the Nelson earmark and the most notorious earmark pending in Congress: Democratic Rep. John Murtha's proposed $23 million for the National Drug Intelligence Center in his Pennsylvania district. Reid's plan to satisfy antiwar activists with an all-night debate averted debate, for now, on those two earmarks.

    Reid, the soft-spoken trial lawyer from Searchlight, Nev., has tended to suppress free expression in the World's Greatest Deliberative Body in his tumultuous 6 1/2 months as majority leader. Last week, he cut off an attempt by Sen. Arlen Specter, the veteran moderate Republican, to respond to him with an abruptness that I had not witnessed in a half-century of Senate watching. When Specter finally got the floor, he declared: "Nothing is done here until the majority leader decides to exercise his power to keep the Senate in all night on a meaningless, insulting session. . . . Last night's performance made us the laughingstock of the world." It may get worse if plans to eviscerate ethics legislation are pursued.


    more...

    Natalie Portman 2009 Academy Awards. Natalie Portman: Top
  • Natalie Portman: Top


    • kirupa
    03-05 11:08 PM
    Added :)



    Natalie Portman 2009 Academy Awards. The 81st Annual Academy Awards
  • The 81st Annual Academy Awards


    • Macaca
    11-11 08:15 AM
    Extreme Politics (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/books/review/Brinkley-t.html) By ALAN BRINKLEY | New York Times, November 11, 2007

    Alan Brinkley is the Allan Nevins professor of history and the provost at Columbia University.

    Few people would dispute that the politics of Washington are as polarized today as they have been in decades. The question Ronald Brownstein poses in this provocative book is whether what he calls “extreme partisanship” is simply a result of the tactics of recent party leaders, or whether it is an enduring product of a systemic change in the structure and behavior of the political world. Brownstein, formerly the chief political correspondent for The Los Angeles Times and now the political director of the Atlantic Media Company, gives considerable credence to both explanations. But the most important part of “The Second Civil War” — and the most debatable — is his claim that the current political climate is the logical, perhaps even inevitable, result of a structural change that stretched over a generation.

    A half-century ago, Brownstein says, the two parties looked very different from how they appear today. The Democratic Party was a motley combination of the conservative white South; workers in the industrial North as well as African-Americans and other minorities; and cosmopolitan liberals in the major cities of the East and West Coasts. Republicans dominated the suburbs, the business world, the farm belt and traditional elites. But the constituencies of both parties were sufficiently diverse, both demographically and ideologically, to mute the differences between them. There were enough liberals in the Republican Party, and enough conservatives among the Democrats, to require continual negotiation and compromise and to permit either party to help shape policy and to be competitive in most elections. Brownstein calls this “the Age of Bargaining,” and while he concedes that this era helped prevent bold decisions (like confronting racial discrimination), he clearly prefers it to the fractious world that followed.

    The turbulent politics of the 1960s and ’70s introduced newly ideological perspectives to the two major parties and inaugurated what Brownstein calls “the great sorting out” — a movement of politicians and voters into two ideological camps, one dominated by an intensified conservatism and the other by an aggressive liberalism. By the end of the 1970s, he argues, the Republican Party was no longer a broad coalition but a party dominated by its most conservative voices; the Democratic Party had become a more consistently liberal force, and had similarly banished many of its dissenting voices. Some scholars and critics of American politics in the 1950s had called for exactly such a change, insisting that clear ideological differences would give voters a real choice and thus a greater role in the democratic process. But to Brownstein, the “sorting out” was a catastrophe that led directly to the meanspirited, take-no-prisoners partisanship of today.

    There is considerable truth in this story. But the transformation of American politics that he describes was the product of more extensive forces than he allows and has been, at least so far, less profound than he claims. Brownstein correctly cites the Democrats’ embrace of the civil rights movement as a catalyst for partisan change — moving the white South solidly into the Republican Party and shifting it farther to the right, while pushing the Democrats farther to the left. But he offers few other explanations for “the great sorting out” beyond the preferences and behavior of party leaders. A more persuasive explanation would have to include other large social changes: the enormous shift of population into the Sun Belt over the last several decades; the new immigration and the dramatic increase it created in ethnic minorities within the electorate; the escalation of economic inequality, beginning in the 1970s, which raised the expectations of the wealthy and the anxiety of lower-middle-class and working-class people (an anxiety conservatives used to gain support for lowering taxes and attacking government); the end of the cold war and the emergence of a much less stable international system; and perhaps most of all, the movement of much of the political center out of the party system altogether and into the largest single category of voters — independents. Voters may not have changed their ideology very much. Most evidence suggests that a majority of Americans remain relatively moderate and pragmatic. But many have lost interest, and confidence, in the political system and the government, leaving the most fervent party loyalists with greatly increased influence on the choice of candidates and policies.

    Brownstein skillfully and convincingly recounts the process by which the conservative movement gained control of the Republican Party and its Congressional delegation. He is especially deft at identifying the institutional and procedural tools that the most conservative wing of the party used after 2000 both to vanquish Republican moderates and to limit the ability of the Democratic minority to participate meaningfully in the legislative process. He is less successful (and somewhat halfhearted) in making the case for a comparable ideological homogeneity among the Democrats, as becomes clear in the book’s opening passage. Brownstein appropriately cites the former House Republican leader Tom DeLay’s farewell speech in 2006 as a sign of his party’s recent strategy. DeLay ridiculed those who complained about “bitter, divisive partisan rancor.” Partisanship, he stated, “is not a symptom of democracy’s weakness but of its health and its strength.”

    But making the same argument about a similar dogmatism and zealotry among Democrats is a considerable stretch. To make this case, Brownstein cites not an elected official (let alone a Congressional leader), but the readers of the Daily Kos, a popular left-wing/libertarian Web site that promotes what Brownstein calls “a scorched-earth opposition to the G.O.P.” According to him, “DeLay and the Democratic Internet activists ... each sought to reconfigure their political party to the same specifications — as a warrior party that would commit to opposing the other side with every conceivable means at its disposal.” The Kos is a significant force, and some leading Democrats have attended its yearly conventions. But few party leaders share the most extreme views of Kos supporters, and even fewer embrace their “passionate partisanship.” Many Democrats might wish that their party leaders would emulate the aggressively partisan style of the Republican right. But it would be hard to argue that they have come even remotely close to the ideological purity of their conservative counterparts. More often, they have seemed cowed and timorous in the face of Republican discipline, and have over time themselves moved increasingly rightward; their recapture of Congress has so far appeared to have emboldened them only modestly.

    There is no definitive answer to the question of whether the current level of polarization is the inevitable result of long-term systemic changes, or whether it is a transitory product of a particular political moment. But much of this so-called age of extreme partisanship has looked very much like Brownstein’s “Age of Bargaining.” Ronald Reagan, the great hero of the right and a much more effective spokesman for its views than President Bush, certainly oversaw a significant shift in the ideology and policy of the Republican Party. But through much of his presidency, both he and the Congressional Republicans displayed considerable pragmatism, engaged in negotiation with their opponents and accepted many compromises. Bill Clinton, bedeviled though he was by partisan fury, was a master of compromise and negotiation — and of co-opting and transforming the views of his adversaries. Only under George W. Bush — through a combination of his control of both houses of Congress, his own inflexibility and the post-9/11 climate — did extreme partisanship manage to dominate the agenda. Given the apparent failure of this project, it seems unlikely that a new president, whether Democrat or Republican, will be able to recreate the dispiriting political world of the last seven years.

    Division of the U.S. Didn’t Occur Overnight (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/books/13kaku.html) By MICHIKO KAKUTANI | New York Times, November 13, 2007
    THE SECOND CIVIL WAR How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, The Penguin Press. $27.95


    more...

    Natalie Portman 2009 Academy Awards. Natalie Portman Is Vegan No
  • Natalie Portman Is Vegan No


    • Macaca
    05-25 08:10 PM
    Making History, Reluctantly (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/24/AR2007052402069.html) In a Hill Anomaly, Pelosi Shepherds Iraq Bill She Opposes, By Jonathan Weisman (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/jonathan+weisman/) Washington Post Staff Writer, Friday, May 25, 2007

    In public, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) had done nothing to suppress her frustration as she assented to funding the Iraq war without a deadline to end it. But behind closed doors Wednesday night, she was all business.

    With its members gathered in her office, she told the House's "Progressive Caucus" that she would vote against the war funding bill, but that she also had no choice but to facilitate its passage. Funds were running out for the troops, and she had promised to protect them. The Memorial Day break loomed, and without the money President Bush would have a week to hammer her party for taking a vacation while the Pentagon scrambled to keep its soldiers fed.

    Was she agonized over the situation? Sure, said Rep. Maurice D. Hinchey (D-N.Y.), who attended the meeting. But "we all feel that way," he added. "I feel that way, too. Are we going to just walk away now, or are we going to continue this process, to keep the pressure on?"

    Yesterday's vote to fund the war through September was a historical rarity: the passage of a bill opposed by the speaker of the House and a majority of the speaker's party.

    Two years ago to the day, then-Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) violated the "Hastert rule" -- that only bills supported by a majority of the majority can come up -- by bringing up legislation to allow federal funding for stem cell research. The majority of the Republican majority opposed the law. He voted against it, but he knew it would never become law over President Bush's signature.

    Over his objections and the opposition of most Republicans, Hastert did allow passage of campaign finance reform in 2002, but only because a petition drive was about to force the bill to the floor. The North American Free Trade Agreement passed in 1993, over the objections of most Democrats, who were then in the majority. But NAFTA did have the support of then-Speaker Thomas S. Foley (D-Wash.), as well as the Democratic president, Bill Clinton.

    In contrast, the Iraq funding bill was not only opposed by the majority of House Democrats, it was also ardently opposed by the speaker and even the lawmaker who drafted it, Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis.). And it is destined to become law.

    "We don't relish bringing a package to the floor that we're not going to vote for," Obey conceded before last night's vote.

    Pelosi's agonized decision put her in the company of Foley, who in 1991 brought to the floor the resolution authorizing the Persian Gulf War and then voted against it, and Thomas Brackett Reed, a speaker in the 1890s who voted against the annexation of Hawaii, and then against the Spanish-American War, but allowed both to go forward.

    "To have the chairman and the speaker vote against a bill like this, I've never heard of it," Hastert said.

    But while protesters outside the Capitol condemned what they saw as a capitulation, Democrats inside were remarkably understanding of their speaker's contortions.

    Party leaders jury-rigged the votes yesterday to give all Democrats something to brag about. A parliamentary vote to bring the Iraq funding legislation to the floor included language demanding a showdown vote in September over further funding. A second vote allowed Democrats to vote in favor of funds for Gulf Coast hurricane recovery, agricultural drought relief and children's health insurance. Finally, the House got around to funding the war.

    Republicans cried foul over what they saw as an abuse of the legislative system, but Democrats saw brilliance in the legerdemain. And with such contortions came more appreciation for the efforts Pelosi was making to fund the war in a fashion most palatable to angry Democrats.

    "It was the responsible thing to do, and she's a responsible speaker," said Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (D-Calif.), who is personally close to Pelosi. "You can't just walk away."



    2010 Natalie Portman Academy Natalie Portman 2009 Academy Awards. Natalie Portman was sweet and
  • Natalie Portman was sweet and


    • lecter
    January 17th, 2005, 08:38 AM
    I've done a few already... let me pick the first one without a comment....
    tick tick..
    Rob


    more...

    Natalie Portman 2009 Academy Awards. Natalie Portman
  • Natalie Portman


    • testerzback
    03-25 11:14 PM
    Hi,
    I know your time is very precious and not to waste.

    My issue is - I came to US as a programmar/analyst in Aug' 2005 with my B.Commerce (3years) and Master of Computer Applications (completed my 3years masters by 2003) in India. My H1 company in March'2008 applied for PERM/I 140 through EB3 (as a professional) recently they came back to me that my I140 got denied due to educational evaluation difference and need to reapply again through a new lawyer as EB3 - unskilled - system support engineer.

    Is this really require to go through the new lawyer to restart the GC process? - and this costs me to lose my priority date - almost 2 years

    If yes, how are the chances to get the perm/I140 if I reapply through the same H1 company ?

    Please find the denial docs and remember that I have to go for H1 extension by Aug'10 ( as I complete 5 years on my H1).

    Kindly suggest or email to testerzback@yahoo.com

    --
    Regards,
    S :(



    hair wallpaper Natalie Portman Natalie Portman 2009 Academy Awards. Natalie Portman
  • Natalie Portman


    • heywhat
    08-06 11:45 AM
    Out of luck ... You won't be able to refile it if your PD is not current.


    more...

    Natalie Portman 2009 Academy Awards. Natalie Portman: 2009 Oscars
  • Natalie Portman: 2009 Oscars


    • vastav.su
    12-27 08:29 PM
    My H1 is expiring Jan'2011 with company A and company A has not filed my labor yet due to economic slow down.

    As an employee of A, I have been working hard about 10-12 hrs day for last 3 years, and now they are saying they cannot file my labor.

    Since, I'm not sure, if they will file my labor, I applied for h1 transfer in aug 2008 to company B but have not started working to company B.

    I'm still working for company A, now that company B is willing to file my labor & 140 asap.

    Now, If I move to company B and start working, what would be the chances of getting my labor approved through company B, I have been working here in US for last 5 years with great job history and tax history.



    hot Natalie Portman: Top Natalie Portman 2009 Academy Awards. 22, 2009, in the Hollywood
  • 22, 2009, in the Hollywood


    • geesee
    07-26 12:04 PM
    http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=10428&highlight=order+processing

    http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=10344&highlight=order+processing

    You will find answers to both of your questions in above threads..


    more...

    house 2009 Oscar nominees at the 81st Academy Awards. Natalie Portman in Rodarte Natalie Portman 2009 Academy Awards. Natalie Portman: 2009 Oscars
  • Natalie Portman: 2009 Oscars


    • carbon
    07-14 07:12 PM
    Can I start sole proprietorship on EAD ?

    If Yes, Do I have to notify USCIS/DHS that I am doing such thing.

    Please help.



    tattoo The 81st Annual Academy Awards Natalie Portman 2009 Academy Awards. Natalie Portman Anthony Dod
  • Natalie Portman Anthony Dod


    • indyanguy
    11-07 12:57 PM
    I received a FP notice to attend on 11/23/07 (the friday after thanksgiving). The lawyer feels that they may be closed on that day and would like me to reconfirm the appointment.

    Anyone else received it for 11/23?

    Thanks!


    more...

    pictures Natalie Portman Is Vegan No Natalie Portman 2009 Academy Awards. Natalie Portman at the Academy
  • Natalie Portman at the Academy


    • Blog Feeds
    04-21 06:40 AM
    The storyline continues. Last year, 13,500 regular H-1B applications were counted in the first week and 5,600 advanced degree applications. This year 5,900 regular applications were received in the first week and 4,500 advanced degree petitions. USCIS just reported that in the second week of counting, 7,100 regular cases were receipted and 5,100 advanced degree applications. That's roughly the typical weekly usage we saw last year and if the pace doesn't change much, the cap will potentially be hit one to two months later than for FY2011. Later this summer as the cap starts to get a little closer to...

    More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2011/04/h-1b-usage-off-to-slow-start.html)



    dresses 22, 2009, in the Hollywood Natalie Portman 2009 Academy Awards. at the 2009 Academy Awards
  • at the 2009 Academy Awards


    • Blog Feeds
    06-17 09:10 AM
    With all of the publicity recently received in the cases of the abortion clinic and Holocaust museum slayings, I'm surprised that this crime has not been getting a lot of publicity: An outspoken anti-immigration activist who was at the center of a series of violent crimes in Everett earlier this year now stands accused of the home-invasion killings of an Arizona man and his 9-year-old daughter. Shawna Forde, 41, and two associates in her Minuteman American Defense group are charged with two counts of first-degree murder, one count of first-degree burglary and one count of aggravated assault, according to the...

    More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/06/latest-hate-killer-allegedly-connected-to-fair.html)


    more...

    makeup Natalie Portman Natalie Portman 2009 Academy Awards. 2009 Oscar nominees at the 81st Academy Awards. Natalie Portman in Rodarte
  • 2009 Oscar nominees at the 81st Academy Awards. Natalie Portman in Rodarte


    • vpadman
    03-13 06:55 PM
    Is it possible to file H1B1 transfer without lawyer?
    There is a desi consulting that says they will do H1B1 transfer without lawyer.

    For premium processing, they charge a fee of $3500



    girlfriend Natalie Portman Anthony Dod Natalie Portman 2009 Academy Awards. Natalie Portman
  • Natalie Portman


    • Blog Feeds
    11-08 03:30 PM
    H1B Visa Lawyer Blog Has Just Posted the Following:
    The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) Processing Times were released on November 4, 2009 with processing dates as of November 1, 2009

    If you filed an appeal, please review the links below to determine the applicable processing time associated with your particular case.

    Administrative Appeals Office (http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=30471)

    The current processing time for an I-129 H-1B Appeal is 13 months. The current processing time for an I-140 EB2 Appeal for an Advanced Degree Professional is 27 months. Most other cases are within USCIS's processing time goal of 6 months or less.






    More... (http://www.h1bvisalawyerblog.com/2009/11/updated_administrative_appeals_1.html)



    hairstyles Natalie Portman: 2009 Oscars Natalie Portman 2009 Academy Awards. Natalie Portman
  • Natalie Portman


    • Kitiara
    09-26 10:12 AM
    Does anyone have any URLs of sites that go into Photoshop 7? I haven't had much of a chance to get into playing with this yet, but I'd like to know how to do all these wonderful graphics you guys keep coming out with. :)



    vik_tx
    05-25 03:06 PM
    http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/may2007/db20070523_485361.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index _top+story

    sorry, if this is a repost. Couldn't resisst posting..
    /v-



    glen
    04-08 10:21 PM
    I have heard it is possible to change employer on 7th year of H1-B, though not immediately. The new employer should file LCA more than 365 days before the H1-B expires. Next time when renewing H1-B it can be renewed with new employer.

    Please verify the above thoroughly before taking any step.


    Posted by Avinatan at 7:56 PM

    No comments:

    Post a Comment

    Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)