Confused 2

Missing the point, Gowon... Are you reading what I wrote, or is your understanding of sex something that men just do to women? If so, I feel sorry for your wife/fiancee...

No he is not, I think you are just reading too much into a person writing here who does not have english as first language. Chill! Not everything that comes out of a man's mouth is anti-women's rights.

7 months? Is she even supposed to be flying anymore? Is it worth the risk? A little bit of patience Dirk. That is all it will take. 1000s have babies in the Phil. You can chose to look at the positive or the negative, the process will not change but your experience will. Most everyone here has waited and some have waited years and years and are still doing fine. Having a baby is really not a reason to expedite. Most couples do.

Pregnancy has not been accepted as a reason for expedite normally unless there are complications that can only be treated in the US. Gary is correct (no matter what the criteria says) that you have to prove that you are financially capable of supporting her and your child. This financial hardship has to be able to show the officers that you will suffer great financial hardship if your wife does not get here for delivery. The cost of having a baby + trip expenses are most likely not enough (if that was the case, 1000s would be able to get expedites because the trips cost too much).

Focus on the positive. Cali. was slower by quite a few months when we applied so no one is being discriminated against.

We budget it to be around $150 a week (2 of us + a preschooler). Sometimes we go over so about $900-$1,000 a month. We do eat healthy, organic, whole food only which is a little expensive, but we would rather cut down on something else than food and items of daily use.

I read an article about "forbiden marriage" base on those marriage that are highly controversial like 1st cousin marriage and same sex marriage. Both oh them are forbidden in most of the states, but that doesn't mean they cant do it. Like an example: if a gay couple got married in New York (which is one of the states that allows it) and the moved to Idaho (dont allow gay marriage) even though they are still married. You can file for a k1 visa and then get married in one of the 16 states that allows 1st cousin's marriage, and keep living in texas. Or married OVERSEAS and file or CR1. Either way, you marriage will be legal in Texas, as long you dont do the ceremony in there

The worst 'incorrect advice' ever given on VJ. Wow!!!!

Some people really hold a grudge.

Absolutely. Half of your motherland was not snatched from you. If the unwelcome guests you accepted into your home eventually took half of it from you, raped your mother, wife and sister & in the meanwhile, killed your father, brother and son, Trust me, you would hold a grudge too!!!

Sofiyya -

1. What the Islamic Invaders Did to India... Islamic Invaders

2. Islam’s Indian slave trade in Islam’s genocidal slavery... Slave Trade

3. British Islamist Anjem Choudary Launches 'Shariah for India,' Vows to Demolish Hindu Temples and Bollywood; Muslims Urged to Join In New Delhi March Next Month Marking 88th Anniversary of the End of Islamic Caliphate.

4. There is a Consensus among All Muslim Scholars That It is Not Permitted for Non-Muslims to Have Authority over Muslims; India Needs to Return Back to Her Glorious Islamic Past; India Needs a Muslim Revolution.

5. The Whole of India is in Fact [a] Muslim Land, the Authority Belongs to… [Muslims] and That They Should Take It From the Current Ruling Party to Implement the Shari'ah... Instead [of] Begging for Rights from the Hindus, the Muslims in India Must Govern By the Law of the Creator Allah

6. The Hindus or Sikhs or Other Non-Muslims… Must Not Build Any New Temples Nor Start to Sell Them and Buy New Ones, as Islam Forbids Us to Cooperate in the Bad Deeds; They Will Not Do Any Public Gathering of Their False Religion – Like Celebrating Christmas or Halloween or Diwali.

7. The Cultural and Religious Agenda

"The Reconquest of India by Muslims Would See the Complete Demolition of Bollywood; Polytheism, Interfaith and Promiscuity and All of the Other Various Ills of the Bollywood Industry would Be Replaced with Islamic Monotheism.

8.Associating Partners or Equals to Allah (God) is Seen as the Biggest Crime in Islam; The Establishment of the Shariah in India will Ultimately See an End to All Public Idols and Statues; We Envisage the Construction of Masjids (Mosques), Symbolizing the Transformation from Polytheism to Monotheism.

9. The head of Hindu god Lord Shiva is cut off in an image on the Shariah for Hind website.

10. Allah says in the Quran, 'I have created you (Muslims) a leading Ummah (nation) in order to witness the affairs of mankind.

11. For 2,000 Muslims killed in Gujarat, we must cry from the rooftops for 2.4 million Hindus killed in 1971 or the 250,000 Kashmiri Pandits forced out of their homes in Kashmir.

12. The Magnitude of Muslim Atrocities... Muslim atrocities

13. Islam Destroyed Ancient Universities of India.... Ancient Universities

India must face up to Hindu terrorism

India's anti-minorities bias is so strong that it has failed to acknowledge the threat posed by Hindu radicalism

The Indian state's pro-Hindu stance has left it unwilling to tackle Hindu extremism.

For far too long, the enduring response of the Indian establishment to Hindu nationalists has rarely surpassed mild scorn. Their organised violent eruptions across the country – slaughtering Muslims and Christians, destroying their places of worship, cutting open pregnant wombs – never seemed sufficient enough to the state to cast them as a meaningful threat to India's national security.

But the recently leaked confession of a repentant Hindu priest, Swami Aseemanand, confirms what India's security establishment should have uncovered: a series of blasts between 2006 and 2008 were carried out by Hindu outfits. The attacks targeted a predominantly Muslim town and places of Muslim worship elsewhere. Their victims were primarily Muslim. Yet the reflexive reaction of the police was to round up young Muslim men, torture them, extract confessions and declare the cases solved.

Pundits now conduct cautious enquiries on television. Does this revelation mean India is now under attack by "Hindu terrorism"? But to treat this as a new phenomenon is to overlook the bulky corpus of terrorist violence in India that has its roots in explicitly Hindu-political grievances. Why is the attack on a Jewish centre in Mumbai by Pakistani gunmen an example of "Islamic terrorism", but the slaughter of a thousand Muslims by sword-wielding Hindus in Gujarat in 2002 not proof of "Hindu terrorism", particularly when the purpose of the violence was to establish an Hindu state in India? How do we describe attacks on churches, the kidnappings of pastors, the burning to death of a missionary? What do we make of the war-cry pehle kasai, phir isai: first the butchers (Muslims), then the Christians? What has prompted this debate over "Hindu terrorism" is not Aseemanand's confession: it is the fact that, in carrying out their violence, his accomplices appropriated methods which, in popular imagination, have become associated exclusively with Islamic terrorism. Detonating bombs in crowded areas: isn't that what Muslims do?

It is when you look at the reactions to non-Hindu extremism that you absorb how strongly majoritarian assumptions inform the state and society's conduct in India. In 2002, the Indian government banned the radical Muslim group Simi (Students' Islamic Movement of India) citing the group's charter, which seeks to establish sharia rule in India, and the terror charges some of its members were facing. But the Hindu radical outfit RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh or the National Volunteer Corps) remains open for business – even though it campaigns, very openly, for a Hindu state in India, and its members incite and perpetrate violence against Muslim and Christian minorities. Mahatma Gandhi's assassin was a member of the RSS, as are Aseemanand and his confreres. To get an idea of which of the two groups poses a more immediate threat to India, consider this: the government that banned Simi was headed by the BJP, the political wing of the RSS.

The principal cause of Hindu radicalism, much like its Muslim counterpart in Pakistan, is the partition of India in 1947. The departing British hacked India apart to accommodate the Muslim League's demand for an exclusive homeland for the subcontinent's Muslims – and so, the Hindu nationalist logic runs, the territory that remained should logically be identified as the land of Hindus. If Pakistan's Muslim majoritarianism crystallised around the bogey of "Hindu raj", the Hindu nationalist project thrives by casting the burden of partition on India's Muslim minorities – fifth columnists whose coreligionists tore India apart by claiming, in spite of a millennium-long sojourn in India, to be foreigners by virtue of their faith.

For all the saffron calumny, it is impossible to find a community more emphatically committed to India than its Muslims. India's Hindus never had to make a choice. The Muslims did. Consider what an ordinary Muslim family in 1947 would have had to deal with: terrified by the violence that the partition had unleashed, their coreligionists were fleeing in the millions to Pakistan; Hindu and Sikh fanatics were actively seeking out Muslims for slaughter and rape; the possibility of being betrayed by neighbours and friends was far from remote. Sardar Patel, the second most powerful functionary in the Indian government, was openly hostile to Muslims – hostility which no doubt would have been seen by many Hindus as tacit endorsement of their actions. Amidst all this, the sole authoritative source of reassurance would have been the distant pledges of a better tomorrow by Jawaharlal Nehru. The Muslims who remained, who refused to vacate the hell that was India despite the blandishments of paradise next door in Pakistan, affirmed their faith in India with their lives.

After all this, it is staggering that the Hindu right gets away so easily by routinely humiliating Indian Muslims. From demographics to diet, personal laws to places of worship, Muslims are suspect in everything they do. Adding a dash of foreign authority, glamour and fuel to this unbridled bigotry is the lavatorial "scholarship" of frustrated European converts to Hinduism such as François Gautier and Koenraad Elst. Misfits in their own societies, they have flourished by exploiting communal tensions in a miserably poor country. What the Muslims did to Hindus was worse than the Jewish Holocaust explains one, while the other warns Hindus that they are being outbred by Muslims. The JNU historian Tanika Sarkar was perhaps right in identifying "####### envy and anxiety about emasculation" among the principal reasons for anti-Muslim bigotry.

The Indian state has failed appallingly in its obligations to Muslim citizens. There are 150 million Muslims in India, but as the government's own figures show, only 4% are graduates, 5% have public employment, an overwhelming majority remain locked out of public institutions, and their access to government loans and education is severely restricted. If this institutional exclusion should breed resentment, and the resentment produce violence, no one will hesitate to call it another instance of Islamic terrorism. But when self-pitying Hindus massacre minorities and detonate bombs in the midst of Muslim crowds, we are expected to be polite. No, let us call it what it actually is: Hindu terrorism.

Read some REAL news if you are going to cite examples!!!! JNU is a pro communist university that will use any piece of (mis)information and turn it into an issue. You are so right to use JNU example

You are not getting the point at all. A policeman gives me a ticket, and I can accept it and pay it --- but if I think it is wrong, I can take it to court and have a unbiased authority (a judge) hear my side of the story and if he agrees with me, the ticket can be reversed. If the judge goes against me and I want to protest further, I can appeal it. That is the American system. The same goes for any agency decision --- the FBI, the FTC, the FDA and every other government agency. I have the option of appeal, to have someone else arbitrate if I feel strongly that the something is wrong.

And yes, I can make my voice heard with congress and with even the president, however in those cases it often takes me gathering up a lot of like minded people to protest with me. A single person, however, can make a difference, and there are countless examples of this in the US.

With a consular interview employee making an arbitrary decision, there is absolutely no appeal. I cannot even talk to their boss, and certainly cannot take it to court. That one individual, the consulate interviewer serves as policeman, judge, jury and executes the punishment with no oversight at all, and no method of appeal in any way. That's wrong, and it is sad that so few see those on this forum that just accepts that.

Some of the comments here have been helpful. But some which seem to come from either consulate employees or people who very much support them without questioning anything, just tell me to shut up, the system is perfect and we should never question the great wisdom of a consulate employee. Why when someone questions the system or the interpretation of a vague statute by a single consular employee do so many here give fiery responses with personal attacks.

And dear Mr. Noah-it-all, don't tell me if I could do it better why don't they just give the job of ruling over thugish consular employees. I don't want the job --- I don't want any kind of government job. I don't need a job. But government employees should understand who they report to, who is the boss, and who should be given respect. That is me and every other American citizen taxpayer.

Yes you can, except, the BIG difference is that your ADULT step-son is not an American citizen and is not entitled to anything, whether, its a tourist visa or immigration or an explanation.

What really gets to me is that the officer makes a decision and there is never any appeal allowed. In our case, I think if I were able to explain it to an impartial judge, I would get a more reasonable result. Even in the criminal streets in the US, the cop on the beat is not allowed to be cop--judge-jury for anything he sees, and then only respond with vague answers, like it is "against the law". There is a level of fairness and courtesy that should be expected from the bureaucrats that are representing us (meaning representing my wife and I, taxpaying citizens). I don't see it here.

And all this in the context that any American with a passport can simply pop into Thailand and be granted a 30 days stay with no cost for processing. There should be reciprocal fairness in the process.

I am sure those bereaucrats will be happy to help you and wife with anything but where do you get the notion that your adult step son is entitled to anything when it comes to visiting the USA or immigrating (whatever the case). He has already shown that he wants to live in the US by applying for an immigrant visa so now in all fairness and courtesy, he should wait his time, like everybody else.

Most of the people here that get posts removed , post just to see how long before their post is removed. Those people should have every post moderated. Other sites allow moderation by ID

A lot of them actually post to be heard but obviously 'The Moderators' are humans too with leanings/biases and most of them will delete a post, lock a thread or ban a member if the posts do not appeal to their tastes or seem insulting to a certain sect of people. The truth is that I have seen some get away with anything and some are just not allowed to voice any opinion.

I never said we should have to change, like I said before " there is Nothing we can ever do to appease these terrorists' So that does not leave many options on the table for those who dare exercise their right of free speech. You can speak your mind and hide forever or you can deal with the problem. I am pretty sure the mods here have been working overtime watching threads to make sure nothing was posted here that would draw attention to this site , so that in itself is a partial victory in the win column for the terrorist.

The mods, Ahem!! are like libt@rd media for Obummer regime...

Good decision. Its not the movie's fault that the brain-dead need a reason to resort to violence any moment in their sorry lives. I would love to watch this movie now and have a few good laughs too!!

I also think it is silly to get destructive or violent over a movie, or a cartoon, etc.

My question about the film and the filmmakers is: did one of the people connected with the film deliberately try to incite violence to coincide with the 9/11 anniversary by uploading it in Arabic in the days just before 9/11, and then informing Salafist (possibly AQ) groups about it so that they could plan an attack ? This would be very disturbing, and this is what investigators will try to find out.

There was a long quiet period between the time the film was made and uploaded in English (which happened last summer) and the sudden, intense new activity beginning earlier this month with the uploading of the Arabic version accompanied by press releases sent out to news media across the Arab world, in the days shortly before 9/11. This is what's suspicious - especially considering that the attack in Libya appears to be pre-planned, rather than a spontaneous reaction to the film.

Oh! #######'ever. Monsters need any reason (even non existant) to justify their need for violence and obviously, there is no dearth of idiots who will fall for it or worse,Bigots, who will defend the same violence by proclaiming it to be someone else's fault. There are 100s of films made in the world. Muslims are known to deface, destroy any other religious sites/artefacts or just simply not recognize an existance, they are known to resort to violence, torture, Jihad for any reason/non reason and YET, it is all justified because 'it is only a handful of them' while the rest of the followers of 'anti' anything every other peace lover understands, go on defending those terrorists.

My blood boils at the thought that these monsters are allowed a life, freedom and status in America which they clearly detest and openly show. Throw these sorry @sses where they belong so they would be happy clearly (their kind of people) and we would be happy for the riddance.

The squawks of protest that anyone would want to take a closer look at the filmmakers or who funded them (or who may have deliberately fed Salafist groups in Egypt and in Libya an Arabic translation, timed to coincide with 9/11) are right along the lines of Pamela Geller's response to Alex Kane, when asked about it. From the Mondoweiss link:

I haven't gone to have a look over at Atlas Shrugged, but I would not be surprised if she has a column up with the same sort of reasoning that's been repeated by some people here.

I would not be surprised if you were able to turn that into a 'Islam hating' philosophy too.

All the Bigots who are worried about hurting a certain religious sentiments are nowhere near this thread. The ones who blame all terrorist threats/actions to every body else but the terrorists or make big claims about ' The Religion of Peace and Tolerance ( )' will claim that this is only a handful of people and has nothing to do with religion or better still, blame it on 'The Film'. The Sad part is that some idiots will still fall for it.

No, most Muslim terrorists are not committing their acts because of religion; they are fighting against what they perceive as foreign occupation of their land. According to the landmark study of suicide terrorism by Robert A. Pape, who studied every single suicide terror attack from 1980 to early 2004:

Hmmmmm, really??? You must believe every person in this world (non-muslim) to be a complete idiot to actually not when you said that....

As for your knowledge base WOM, you are obviously biased (so am I actually, because I am done with mumbai blasts, suicide bombers, 9/11, taliban, Al Queda, training camps etc etc) so you cannot convince me and a lot of others who see things or are beginning to see them that Peace & tolerance are probably not even known to you know whos.

Still converts! There is a difference between new and newest members WOM. There is no point diverting attention to 'how much half is half and if it is less than 50% it is ok but 78% is not.

Explain the peaceful and tolerant theory behind the passion for dividing the lands and wars though because that you have not been able to deny.

Atleast, even she cannot disagree with the rest of my post

All Muslims are converts who "snatched away" people's homes ?

You are, indeed, confused.

Standard answer by WOM when she has no answer

Also, I lost half of my country to Muslims when it was divided into 3 by the newest members of the society that gave them a place to call home. Get over it. First you take some and then they take it back.

Ever read history of our planet???? Climatic changes happen and the Earth cools down and heats up in cycles and so do plants and animals become extinc in large numbers. Don't overestimate yourselves to think you have any influence to change or stop it

OK so you are not able to understand. I was wrong.

They are libruls after all sense and logic is an unfair advantage others have over them

Jordanians never expelled Palestinians from their homes in Palestine, or appropriated their property.

My family lost our homes, businesses and properties in Haifa in April 1948, but, not to the Jordanians.

If you do not realize, let me refresh your memory (no, I don't need to be a Phd to know this) Islam is a relatively new religion and consists of converts only. Where ever they have spread, they have caused division and war. I do not know what muslims mean by their homes taken away because every place they call theirs belonged to someone else and was snatched away by the 'so called' peaceful & tolerant muslims. If you say that is how every religion has acted in the past, well, they also got over it 500-1000 years ago so that excuse does not count anymore.

Every day I watch the Christians in this country become more powerful and more hateful, and yet you tell American Muslims to become more moderate. Practice what you preach.

Everyday I see muslims move to different parts of the world and start demanding that the laws and the society change for them or they resort to force/terrorism. Once they are in majority, that place is changed into 'Islamic republic of blah di blah'. Christians, hindus, budhists, jews etc etc have problems in their society but they do not proclaiming Jihad against others who do not follow the same religion. You cannot compare anything to Islam for what it is doing and you cannot justify it any way no matter how much you blame the world. The truth is that Islam preaches difference and superiority of Islam and conversion by any means. There is no peace and tolerance. What cr@p you are talking about??

The problem that most of you 'politically correct' bigots fail to admit (but know is true) is that those so called radical, islamist terrorists outnumber the 'peaceful, moderate muslims' by the millions. Also the moderate muslims never raise their voices against the radical ones as loudly as they do to defend their actions by calling them just a few individuals.

I am a hindu and openly denounce caste system and any inequality and injustice based on caste, color and creed. I also make my feelings known to people who still live in the 18th century and follow these customs. Do moderate muslims do the same with radicals??