Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om oas, oas-rörelsen, Media, Borås, journalistik, Borås tidning, BT

Skriver man i BT efter kvällens Elfsborgsmatch inget om innehållet, om vad som hände på plan eller? Jo, det är klart. Märkte man då inte vad Hans Weichbrodt talade om? Uppmuntrande ord för kristen tro i vår tid, en tro som talar om sanningen för alla människor, om Guds kärlek. Det kunde varit något egentligen. Med vågar man inte skriva om det i en seriös dagstidning.

Visst är Borås en fin stad. Bra fotbollslag, och kulturella begivenheter med de här skulpturerna. Men för Borås som för alla andra städer och byar, så är det hoppet om liv i tron på Jesus som förändrar. Det är all skillnaden för vår tid. Och mycket kommer hända framöver. Det är nog bara att vänja sig vid tanken, både kyrka och media. Jesus kommer.

Se tidningen Dagen om mötet, och en intervju med Leif Nordlander.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om journalistik, media, oas-rörelsen, oas, borås, bt

Men det är lätt hänt att hamna galet. Jag minns en liten kurs i röst- och talvård för snart 10 år sedan som anordnades som en del i prästutbildningen. Mycket var bra och lärorikt, men det hela höll på att sluta i någon slags tillbedjan till ljuset eller vad det nu var - "sträck dig mot ljuset och ta in det i ditt liv" eller något sådant. Hur som helst så blev hela kursupplägget satt i nytt ljus och vi såg hur det hade varit ett mål för kursledaren hela vägen med positivt tänkande och flera karaktärisktiska newage-bitar. Tror att vi fick lämna in utvärdering på det...

Ytterst handlar det om medlemmar för svenska kyrkan. Omsorgen om ekonomin är stor, ibland tror jag större än omsorgen om själens salighet. Det berör något jag skrev alldeles nyligen. Eva Hamberg säger något liknande i Dagenartikeln:

Men jag tycker att det är vår skyldighet som kristna att tydliggöra vad just kristen tro innebär. I Sverige behövs mission, eller evangelisation om vi kallar det så, okunnigheten är stor.Hon tycker att Svenska kyrkan verkar oerhört upptagen med att behålla så många medlemmar som möjligt, och att "värna varumärket".

Undervisningen behöver vi, och praktiken av undervisningen både i det vi känner igen och på sätt och vis vet hur vi ska göra.

Alltså både det helt vanliga mellanmänsliga, beröringen, uppmärksamheten, närvaron. Det där som svenska kyrkan är rätt bra på att prata om. Viktigt i relation till nyandligheten är bara att låta det bli känt att min förmåga till närvaro kommer av Jesus Kristus. Det är i honom jag är förlåten och försonad och upprättad till liv här och nu. Kärleksfullt liv, vittnande i handling.

Men också det som är mer tydligt kopplat till Guds Rike - tecknen på hans helande närvaro. Det är en fråga om undervisning i förväntan och tro, att komma in i längtan efter Gud, en längtan som knyter an till Guds längtan och öppnar vägen för den Helige Ande i våra liv. Jesu liv i våra församlingars liv, i våra liv. Varför skulle Jesu tecken varit konkreta då till tro och efterföljelse, men inte på samma sätt nu?

Jag måste nämna sommarens oasmöte i Borås i sammanhanget. Undervisning och praktik, alltså Guds Ord och bön om helande. Så som det bör vara i varje kristen församling. Inspiration och uppmuntran för oss.

Det diffusa som man kan uppfatta som fritt blir en inbundenhet i det egna svaret. En tydlig kyrka som svarar kärleksfullt och tydligt utifrån Guds Ord på vår tids sökande ger ett tilltal från levande Gud.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om nyandlighet, svenska kyrkan, oas-rörelsen, Jesus

I den senare delen av mötet inbjöds också, precis som vanligt i Oassammanhang, till personlig förbön och bikt. Sammantaget var det just så gott som man kunde förvänta sig: en stor skara människor som samlas utifrån en gemensam längtan att möta Jesus och få sina liv förvandlade av honom.

Dessutom är det förstås kärt att träffa vänner som jag inte träffat på länge: Hans från Österbotten, Stefan från Tornedalen, Sture från Älvsbyn (hoppas få träffa Margot idag), Torkel från Umeå, Jonas från Örnsköldsvik, Agne från Uppsala osv.

A noite de 27 de março de 2008 já entrou para a história do Grêmio. Nessa data o Conselho Deliberativo do clube escolheu o consórcio liderado pela empresa portuguesa de marketing TBZ e pela construtora OAS como responsável pela construção da nova arena tricolor, no bairro Humaitá (zona norte de Porto Alegre), próximo ao Aeroporto Salgado Filho.

100 dias após a definição, falta pouco para o Projeto Arena sair do papel. O consórcio TBZ/OAS tem até o fim deste mês (julho) para apresentar as documentações e as garantias que o Grêmio exige para assinar o contrato.

Depois disso vai faltar apenas a liberação da Prefeitura de Porto Alegre e a formalização da Grêmio Empreendimentos (empresa criada pelo Grêmio para gerir o processo de construção junto com o consórcio), o que pode ocorrer a qualquer momento.

No último dia 30 de junho foram escolhidos os integrantes do Conselho de Administração da Grêmio Empreendimentos: Paulo Odone (atual presidente do clube), Fábio Koff (ex-presidente do Grêmio e presidente do Clube dos 13), Eduardo Antonini (atual vice-presidente), Alexandre Grendene (empresário), Sérgio Pegoraro (conselheiro), Mauro Knijnik (economista) e Marcos Herrmann (ex-vice-presidente).

Odone será o único dos conselheiros com cargo remunerado. Assim que a empresa for constituída, ele vai deixar a presidência do clube para assumir o novo desafio. A eleição do novo presidente gremista deve ser em setembro próximo. Além do Conselho de Administração, a Grêmio Empreendimentos terá uma diretoria profissional remumerada para cuidar do planejamento estratégico da arena.

Estrutura da arena

A nova casa do Grêmio terá 52.112 assentos distribuídos em 4 níveis (todos cobertos):

• Arquibancada superior
• Arquibancada inferior
• Bancada Gold (com serviços mais sofisticados)
• Área VIP (com 130 camarotes)

O projeto prevê ainda 882 lugares para a imprensa.

Números que impressionam

O novo estádio do Grêmio vai custar R$ 300 milhões, dinheiro que será obtido integralmente pelo consórcio TBZ/OAS, ou seja, sem qualquer endividamento do clube. O montante está de acordo com um orçamento médio para se construir uma arena moderna (padrão Fifa) no Brasil, mas representa apenas 30% do investimento no complexo, que totaliza R$ 1 bilhão.

Além do estádio, o empreendimento terá um shopping center (295.433 m2), 214.700 m2 de escritórios, um hotel (com 35.000 m2), um centro de convenções (21.075 m2), 155.540 m2 de apartamentos residenciais e um estacionamento (com 66.500 m2). Em termos de tamanho e estrutura não há nada sequer parecido na América do Sul.

Não conheço muito bem aquela região de Porto Alegre, mas imagino que deverá haver uma valorização considerável quando o projeto ficar pronto (a previsão é primeiro semestre de 2012). Conto com a colaboração dos leitores para tirar essa dúvida.

Modelo de negócio

O prazo de exploração da arena é de 20 anos. Durante esse período o resultado líquido será dividido conforme a seguinte composição societária: 65% para o Grêmio e 35% para os parceiros. Se a estimativa de receita anual (R$ 56 milhões) for confirmada, não há dúvida de que o Tricolor gaúcho terá feito um excelente negócio.

A outra contrapartida do Grêmio para o consórcio TBZ/OAS é o complexo do Estádio Olímpico, que vai ser entregue aos parceiros assim que a nova arena for inaugurada (e deve ser demolido). Vale ressaltar a ousadia da direção gremista que soube enxergar a oportunidade e, ao contrário de boa parte dos clubes brasileiros, não se prendeu a "questões emocionais".

A parte imobiliária do projeto (que foi citada mais acima) não terá nenhuma participação do Grêmio. Em relação à infra-estrutura, estão previstos investimentos governamentais para melhorar a acessibilidade e o sistema de transporte da região. Dinheiro público, portanto, só aonde se justifica.

Para finalizar, é importante destacar que o projeto do Grêmio independe de uma possível escolha da arena como sede da Copa do Mundo de 2014, embora esteja sendo feito de acordo com todos os requisitos da Fifa. O mais provável, acredito, é termos um Gre-Nal extracampo na escolha do estádio de Porto Alegre.

Quem será que leva a melhor? A nova arena gremista ou o Beira-Rio reformado?

Genoegdoening
"Indien we een dergelijke genoegdoening niet krijgen, zullen we ze er met onze eigen middelen doordrukken, en de OAS, de hele internationale gemeenschap, zal wegens hun stilzwijgen daar schuld aan hebben", zei hij op een gezamenlijke persconferentie met zijn gastheer, de Venezolaanse president Hugo Chavez. Die noemde de Colombiaanse president Alvaro Uribe een "oorlogsmisdadiger".

OAS
De OAS had tijdens een spoedvergadering in Washington de onverwachte Colombiaanse aanval, waarbij zaterdag de nummer twee van de FARC Raul Reyes werd gedood, wel een schending van de soevereiniteit van Ecuador genoemd. De tekst, waarover de afgevaardigden van Colombia en Ecuador het eens waren geworden, bevatte echter geen expliciete veroordeling van Colombia.

Waarschuwing
Correa waarschuwde evenwel dat het conflict niet zal "afkoelen", zolang Ecuador niet tevreden is gesteld. De OAS moet de "schending van de soevereiniteit van Ecuador" door de duidelijke agressie van "Colombia, wiens president Alvaro Uribe, die geen vrede maar oorlog wil, veroordelen", voegde hij eraan toe. Zijn land beschikt over strijdkrachten om zich te verdedigen, en "over de middelen om zich tegen een agressor te verdedigen".

Troepen
Ecuador en Venezuela hebben reeds troepenversterkingen naar de grenzen met Colombia gestuurd en de diplomatieke betrekkingen met Bogota afgebroken. (dpa/sam)

bron: HLN

d.d. 06/03/2008

Brazilië heeft meteen aangedrongen op snelle gesprekken binnen de Organisatie van Amerikaanse Staten (OAS) om de spanningen tussen Ecuador, Venezuela en Colombia te ontmijnen. Experts vreesden dat de economische integratie van Zuid-Amerika zware schade zou oplopen als de crisis ook maar even uit de hand loopt. De Braziliaanse regering wil ook dat een commissie van de OAS de Colombiaanse aanval onderzoekt.

Een gewapend conflict, 'zelfs als het maar een dag duurt en er nauwelijks doden vallen, zou een permanente vlek' nalaten op de relaties in Zuid-Amerika en het regionale integratieproces helemaal ondergraven, vreest de Braziliaanse senator Cristovam Buarque.

Clinton en Obama

De Amerikaanse presidentskandidate voor de Democraten, Hillary Clinton, wijst Hugo Chavez, de Venezuelaanse president, aan als boosdoener in het conflict. 'Het bevel van Hugo Chavez om tien bataljons te sturen naar de Colombiaanse grens is ongewettigd en gevaarlijk.' De presidentskandidate beschuldigt Chavez van samenwerking met terroristische organisaties zoals het Farc, het revolutionair leger in Colombia.

Barack Obama heeft Colombia, Ecuador  en Venezuela opgeroepen om het conflict diplomatisch op te lossen. 'De presidenten van Colombia, Ecuador en Venezuela hebben de verantwoordelijkheid om de gebeurtenissen niet uit de hand te laten lopen.' De oproep past binnen Obama's plan om de diplomatieke betrekkingen met Latijns-Amerikaanse landen te verbeteren. Obama wil ook Chavez de hand reiken, een voorstel dat Clinton als naïef bestempeld heeft.

Reacties op resolutie

De Permanente Raad van de Organisatie van Amerikaanse Staten (OAS) heeft ondertussen een resolutie aangenomen die stelt dat Colombia de nationale soevereiniteit van Ecuador heeft geschaad door zaterdag een kamp van de FARC aan te vallen, de Revolutionaire Gewapende Troepen van Colombia.

De Venezolaanse regering steunde de resolutie wel, maar verklaarde te werken aan een krachtiger besluit tegen Colombia, te nemen door de ministers van Buitenlandse Zaken. De meeste landen bekritiseerden de operatie van Colombia, dat alleen openlijke steun kreeg van de Verenigde Staten.

De Ecuadoraanse minister van Buitenlandse Zaken María Isabel Salvador had dinsdag een veroordeling geëist van de actie. Ze beschuldigde de Colombiaanse president Álvaro Uribe van 'liegen tegen Ecuador en de hele wereld' toen hij verklaarde dat de operatie een daad van legitieme 'zelfverdediging' was, omdat de rebellen in werkelijkheid sliepen toen de operatie werd uitgevoerd.

Commissie

De OAS stelde ook een commissie in, bestaande uit secretaris-generaal José Miguel Insulza en de ambassadeurs van Ecuador, Colombia, Brazilië en Panama, om de beide landen dichter bij elkaar te brengen. Bovendien zal er, volgens de wens van Ecuador, een buitengewone vergadering van ministers van buitenlandse zaken worden gehouden op 17 maart, 'om de feiten te onderzoeken en de noodzakelijke aanbevelingen te maken'.

Strijd tegen het terrorisme

Colombia legt de resolutie positief uit. Volgens het ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken is de OAS-commissie geen onderzoek, maar missie om de feiten op een rij te zetten. 'Door deze historische proef te doorstaan heeft de OAS zijn bestaansrecht bewezen.'

Bogotá bood opnieuw excuses aan voor de aanval. De voorzitter van het lagerhuis in Colombia, Oscar Arboleda, zei: 'Het is groot nieuws dat Colombia niet veroordeeld is, want hiermee werd internationaal erkend dat het een strijd tegen terrorisme is.' De leider van het Congres, Nancy Patricia Gutiérrez, riep op tot nauwere banden met de buurlanden om beter uit te leggen wat de binnenlandse situatie is.

Sabotage

'Het lijkt er sterk op dat president Uribe met de moord de gevangenenruil, die dankzij de inspanningen van de Venezolaanse president Chávez op gang was gekomen, heeft willen saboteren. De voorbije maanden wist Chávez al een 7-tal gijzelaars van de FARC vrij te krijgen', schrijft Toon Danhieux in een opiniestuk op MO.be.

'Wat Uribe voorstelt als een militaire overwinning op de FARC is niet meer dan een laffe moord op een onderhandelingsdelegatie en dan nog wel op het territorium van een buurland. Dat alles met de enige bedoeling de tanende invloed van de VS in de regio te vuur en te zwaard te herwinnen.'

bron: Mondiaal Nieuws - MO

d.d. 09/03/2008

Singura Galerie de Artă din oraş (mă rog, la faza asta nu-şi depăşeşte condiţia de sat mare) era închisă. Aşa va fi şi mâine. De o galerie artizanală nu poate fi vorba, magazinele care oferă aşa ceva au doar chiciuri cu Dracula şi alte asemeni. Acum îmi dau seama că nici măcar un cadou nu poţi cumpăra de la mine din sat. Şi pentru asta e un alt fel e capăt de lume. Galeria asta e de când mă ştiu în acelaşi loc încât, deşi trec des pe lângă ea, nici nu o mai văd. Când îmi mai arunc privirile în vitrină zăresc, în treacăt, aceleaşi opere de artă. Este a doua oară în ultimii ani când vreau să-i trec pragul şi este închis. Parcă trăiesc în secolul trecut, când negustorii îşi închideau cu de la sine voie boldul pe motiv că mergeau să-şi adape oile or ce or fi având. Poate eu trăiesc într-o altă realitate...

                For quite some time now I have been pondering this scenario. Although I understand there are already office solutions that automate many tedious technical tasks, it is a project I have considered starting. Out of the many extracurricular and university projects I have done, this project would be the most demanding, requiring me to research deeper into the Windows API and specific device/software formats.

                Below are a few goals (not conclusive) I would like to be achieved once this program is done:

• - Take document images from a scanner.
• - Crop selected parts of digital document images.
• - Recognize image text and convert it to editable text.
• - Manage and queue data in a selected, organized fashion.
• - Create a searchable database of text-pieces and commonly used paragraphs, allowing the user to select and insert paragraphs of selected text into a document.

                Knowing this project may take weeks, maybe months to complete, I am in no rush to churn out a prototype. I'll keep this project posted as I continue to make progress.

Jun 3, 2008, 21:15 GMT

Medellin, Colombia - Venezuela and the United States clashed strongly Tuesday at the annual meeting of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States (OAS) in the Colombian city of Medellin.

Both countries accused each other of harbouring terrorists, and Venezuelan Foreign Minister Nicolas Maduro called US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte a 'petty official with a criminal record.'

Maduro accused Negroponte of being 'responsible for disappearances, for tortures and for deaths in Central America and in several parts of the world.'

He further called him a 'character of the worst kind.'

Maduro's remarks followed comments by Negroponte on Monday calling upon Venezuela to actively combat the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) that 'have sought sanctuary' in its territory.

US ambassador to the OAS, Hector Morales, said Tuesday that he had not seen a Venezuelan condemnation of terrorism, and the Venezuelan minister immediately replied that the US should extradite Luis Posada Carriles to Venezuela if it is so concerned about combatting terrorism.

Posada Carriles, 80, is accused by Havana and Caracas of the 1976 bombing of a Cuban airliner which killed 73 people, and other deadly attacks. He was convicted in Venezuela of being one of the masterminds of the bombing, but escaped from prison after eight years and joined US-directed covert counterinsurgency operations in Central America.

He entered the US illegally in 2005, and was detained by US officials. But the US refused extradition requests from Cuba and Venezuela, and in 2007 dropped charges against him on immigration fraud.

Washington has labelled FARC a terrorist group, and Morales had called upon Venezuela to comment on countries' obligation to cooperate with their neighbours in fighting terrorists.

'If the US government says it wants to combat terrorism, let it immediately capture Luis Posada Carriles and hand him over to Venezuelan Justice so that his trial can conclude,' Maduro said.

He asked OAS 'to watch the conduct of the US government as it protects a well-known, convicted and self-declared terrorist that has committed tremendous crimes' against Venezuela.

'OAS governments must know that this terrorist is free, protected by the United States government in Florida,' he insisted.

Earlier, Maduro accused Negroponte of seeking to 'drive the wedge of intrigue' at the Medellin gathering and to determine the agenda of the meeting.

The Venezuelan minister interpreted that the United States was upset about a meeting that Maduro held Monday with Colombian Foreign Minister Fernando Araujo, who sought to revamp bilateral ties between the neighbours following a severe diplomatic crisis prompted by a Colombian cross-border raid against a FARC camp in Ecuador.

'This petty official has no moral quality to talk about any issues in our continent, and neither does the United States,' Maduro complained.

He went as far as to say the US government is 'behind the political operation, the show that is being staged around the computers' found in the raid on March 1. Colombian officials have alleged the computers contain information tieing the Venezuelan government to FARC.

The raid has been a constant topic at the general assembly meeting, which started Sunday and was set to end Tuesday.

'We call on the conscience of the Colombian people, of the Colombian government, to realize that behind this campaign there is only one objective: to divide us, to confront us against each other, to create a conflict,' Maduro said.

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/americas/news/ar...

Picture from the official site of OAS: Insulza with the Arubean Primer Minister, Nelson Oduber.

The OAS Secretary General, José Miguel Insulza, opened also the Youth Summit on Innovation and Entrepreneurship in the city today in the Eafit University, south-east of Medellín, in the same place where the meetings of the continental organization Assembly was inaugurated by Insulza and the host president of Colombia, Álvaro Uribe Vélez.

The Plaza Mayor, the traditional Congress Center of the industrialist city of Medellín, is currently the headquarter of the 38th Assembly of OAS.

One of the novelties was the presence of the Aruba Prime Minister Nelson Oduber as an observer to discuss issues in development in the Western Hemisphere and the worries about the cost of food and fuel as the relation of the American nations. Aruba, a small Caribbean island, does not belong to the OAS and it is included more in the European community due to its Dutch links.

Secretary General Insulza deplored the incidents of last May 24 in Sucre, Bolivia, where several indigenous persons were victim of racial violence.

The Assembly elected also Fernando Araujo Perdomo, the Colombian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as President of the Summit after the nomination presented by Samuel Lewis Navarro, his Panamean collegue in the foreign affairs office. The proposal of Panama was followed by Peru and Argentina and finally got the general approval.

The 38th Assembly celebrated in the Andean city of Medellín, one of the main industrial centers of Colombia, will last until June 3 and it has as headquarters Plaza Mayor, the city center for congresses.

During the opening of the Assembly, Secretary General José Miguel Insulza underlined the important role of the Continental Organization during the last months in different events among the American nations, especially the Colombian - Ecuadorian crisis, the political internal problems faced by Bolivia recently and the peace process of Colombia.

Insulza met also president Uribe with Trust for the Americas, the High Presidencial Commissioner for the Colombian Reintegration and the Microsoft company, in order to discuss the expansion of "Mi Llave" (My Key) Program to benefit more than 6 thousand persons in the Colombian communities of Barranquilla, Buenaventura, Santa Marta, Tierra Alta and Villavicencio.

Among the main worries of the participants to the OAS Summit, has been the situation of poverty, hunger, unemployment and violence in many American nations. One of the main proposals has been boosting policies in the development of youth wide the Americas.

"During the past few years the Bush Administration has demonstrated that the U.S. is willing to work with Brazil as an equal partner. It is time that Brazil reciprocated in this all too important area ..."

When you ask most Americans what comes to mind when discussing Brazil, it would be things such as Rio, soccer, or carnival. Regrettably, not too much more. And depending who you ask in Washington, DC, you may get trade and a whole host of other important policy issues; however, nuclear proliferation will not be one of them. Nuclear proliferation has never really been something normally associated with one of the world's largest democracies. Sometimes, even suggesting the latter in polite company will likely land you much derision, a guaranteed removal from social guest lists. In a post-09.11.01 world though, no matter the country, nuclear proliferation concerns should be discussed openly and without reservation.

A few years ago then-Secretary of State Colin Powell said that he was "sure" that Brazil had no intent to manufacture a nuclear weapon. He made this statement presumably after consultation with his Brazilian counterparts and making reasonable assumptions about Brazil's commitment to non-proliferation. For example, like other countries with civilian nuclear programs, Brazil is a party to various treaties and agreements that it will not produce nuclear weapons or conduct research to manufacture such weapons. Indeed, Brazil's constitution even bans nuclear weapons. Brazil's leaders have insisted that Brazil is only committed to the peaceful development of nuclear power for civilian purposes.

Yet, if all of this is so, why does Brazil continue to deny international inspectors complete and unfettered access to all of its nuclear facilities? Keep in mind that during the late 1970s Brazil started to a secret nuclear weapons research program parallel to its civilian program.

With regards to Da Silva's track record in this area, the matter is mixed. Da Silva, when running for office the first time, said why should developing countries fight with a "slingshot" when neighbors, i.e., the United States and others, have atomic bombs? While Da Silva cooled this rhetoric after his election in 2002 and is no longer making this argument on behalf of developing countries, on or about mid-2000s Brazil announced it was expanding its refining capacity. In 2007, a Brazilian four star General, former head of the Brazilian War College, said on television that “if the government agrees, we need to have the ability in the future to develop nuclear weapons.” Da Silva has also continued to criticize the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, as do most leaders of developing countries, as an agreement tilted in favor of the U.S. and other advanced powers.

Despite U.S. officials' lack of concern, there remains a patchwork of words and deeds that show, at a minimum, that Brazil has left the nuclear research door somewhat open for both the civilian and military sectors. In addition to legitimate civilian research, as part of its overall military modernization program, Brazil plans to purchase several nuclear-powered submarines. This year Brazil's foreign minister announced cooperation with Russia to expand Brazil's existing civilian nuclear power program.

In 2006, Brazil re-started its uranium enrichment using some technologies that Iran is suspected of using and, some experts believe, is technology that can be easily reconfigured to produced highly enriched uranium. It is this latter act that should have raised some red flag at Foggy Bottom, but it was not even an issue, at least in the public agenda, of the 2007 meetings between our two countries. In fact Bush and Da Silva have had seven bilateral meetings and there is no public record that the nuclear issue has ever been a serious subject of discussion.

Brazil, an ally of Iran, has repeatedly denied International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors complete and unfettered access to a new nuclear facility, Resende, that experts estimate could produce enough highly enriched uranium to produce close to six or more warheads in its first year of operation to close to 70 warheads by 2015. Enough enriched uranium to manufacture just one warhead is one too many.

Rather than a full-access inspection, Brazil eventually relented and agreed to allow the IAEA to take gas samples, but no more access than it deemed necessary because it needed to protect its proprietary nuclear technology. In other words, in many ways Brazil set the inspection "standards" by which Iran and North Korea will plan its responses. As Iran and North Korea have done, Brazil promises not to enrich beyond civilian-use levels. The Bush Administration appears to have no issues with Brazil's assurances that it is not seeking a nuclear weapon or the technology to build weapons of mass destruction. The goal appears focused on maintaining the international leverage through the IAEA. Officials argue that this latter approach is the best means possible to effectuate cooperation with a regional power.

Yet even if Brazil does not harbor ill will to U.S. or our interests, in contrast to Iran and North Korea, it is not in the U.S. national interest for Brazil to possess a nuclear weapon or to be secretly exploring ways to enrich uranium to achieve that end, even if it never decides to build a weapon of mass destruction. Unfortunately, Brazil's transparency record in this field is not good. Recent comments by Brazilian officials, cooperation with Iran, and expansion of its military submarine fleet to include nuclear subs require more from the U.S. than reliance on the IAEA and other international processes.

The capability or hint of the capability to produce such a weapon, or the technology required to build one, could set off another arms or technological race with the other nuclear power in Latin America, Argentina. Argentina has been brought in to the fold by the U.S. in this area, but there is no telling how its leaders or military would react if it knew for certain that Brazil was advancing in the nuclear research field. Then there is the question of Venezuela. Who knows how neighboring fellow traveler Hugo Chavez would react? In fact, Venezuela has already hinted that it wants to begin its own civilian nuclear power program. From a regional perspective, Brazilian nuclear adventurism would also weaken an already anemic regional non-proliferation regime. It could set off an arms race unlike any other in the history of the Western Hemisphere.

The U.S. is not alone in its silence with regards to Brazil, regional silence also exists. The Agency for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (OPANAL) has said nothing about Brazil's nuclear research programs or Brazil's failure to allow complete and unfettered access to the Resende facility. In fact, OPANAL has very little to say about anything except hold conferences and programs or issue declarations about things happening in other parts of the world. Regrettably, OPANAL is much like the Organization of American States (OAS) and the inter-American system, a process and institution in much need of update and reform. In the case of the OPANAL, things were so dire recently that in 2007 it had to issue a statement that it was running out of money because members were not paying dues. A key official had to resign over it.

Transparency is one of the cornerstones of non-proliferation efforts. The U.S. needs to talk in clear, non-equivocal terms about the proliferation of nuclear technology in the Western Hemisphere. Besides the U.S. and Canada, only Mexico, Argentina, and Brazil operate civilian nuclear reactors. Mexico's program is small and there are no indications that it is anything but a civilian effort. Argentina has come around and its cooperation rewarded by the U.S. and other powers. Brazil, on the other hand, has not been fully forthcoming. Where we should have a clear picture, there is fog.

The U.S. should urge Brazil to come clean on its nuclear program. A good first step to re instill confidence in the non-proliferation process would be for Brazil to allow IAEA inspectors complete and unfettered access to the Resende facility. The U.S. Congress should also use its oversight and appropriations powers to place Brazil on notice that there can be consequences if it fails to open up its nuclear program to international inspectors. During the past few years the Bush Administration has demonstrated that the U.S. is willing to work with Brazil as an equal partner. It is time that Brazil reciprocated in this all too important area. You may not want to talk about it, but it is a problem and the American taxpayer deserves a better return on its investment.

"Desde 1995 eram acusados de praticar uma primitiva dupla militância. Martins e Carneiro licenciavam-se da Receita e iam para o escritório de consultoria Martins Carneiro, onde prestavam serviços a empresas acusadas de sonegação. Dada a ajuda, voltavam para a repartição e arrematavam o serviço. Um de seus clientes, a construtora OAS, livrou-se de uma autuação de R$ 1,1 bilhão pagando apenas R$ 25 milhões. Estima-se que tenham ganhado R$ 26 milhões (R$ 18,3 milhões só da OAS)."

Gente suja existe em qualquer setor da sociedade e em qualquer ideologia. No entanto, a direita e o alto empresariado são mais afeitos a essas artimanhas...

This is the day we set aside to remember those who have fought and died for founding principals upon which this country was created. The meaning of the day has been lost over the years, as people use it to kick off the summer. Advertisers, Marketers and retailers are as much to blame for turning it into a "sales event". Parades no longer have the large patriotic turnouts they used to have either.

We seem to have become ensconsed in an apathy towards all things, except those things which we personally find distasteful. Special interest groups and the government - aided by a no longer free media - bombard us daily with those things they want us to focus on, usually involving the discrimination or limitation on the freedom of someone elses choice - via the fear factor, versus what we should really be focusing on....the preservation of our foundation and Constitution.

Politicians tell us what they want us to hear in order to get our vote. And we are just dumb enough, just drugged enough, to believe them. So while we are enjoying our day off from work and our bbq's let us also remember those who came before us and fought for the freedom and liberty we have. But let us also not lose sight of what is happening today. Let us make this, not only a day of rememberance, but a day to open our eyes and think what role we can play in preserving that which our founding fathers envisioned for us.

I am concerned for the security of our great Nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within.
Douglas MacArthur

I came across this site yesterday, when reading Devvy Kidds article that I posted on, that I think is appropriate to help wake us from this stupor we seem to be in. The author encourages its readers to share it:

The Demise of Our Unique American Identity

By CJ Scott

From this moment forward, all Citizens of the United States of America must insist we be addressed in this very precise manner by the media, academia and our politicians. Our treasured identity as Americans has been wrenched from us and diluted until it no longer holds the same significance. It is our responsibility to restore our precious identity once more.

The purpose of this article is to inform the Citizens of the United States of America that our sovereignty is in peril. Not everyone believes in the value or importance of our constitution. Some are in positions of authority and power and can and will do great harm to our nation if left unchecked.

The following statements are absolutely true. I have sourced my writing so that you can verify it for yourself. Once you read and explore the links, you will better understand the perilous circumstances of our nation faces today.

Here is the simple truth:

All Peoples of the Western Hemisphere are now being called Americans by the elite power structure. In treaties, documents, declarations, speeches, media reports, government, academia, and non-governmental organizations.

All nations of the Hemisphere are called STATES in the Americas. The OAS or Organization of American States has a membership of 35 countries. The United States of America is a member of the OAS. In decisions of policy making the United States is one vote of 35. In most cases a vote of two-thirds of the members is all that is needed to move a declaration forward. The OAS is an agency of the United Nations and is authorized to act by the Summit of the Americas institution.

While people are talking about a North American Union conspiracy, they are missing the fact that a fully integrated hemisphere much like the European Union has already been formed. Treaties have been signed. Membership has been established. If you read nothing else, go down to the links at the bottom of this article and explore them. You will see that all that I have written will be confirmed there.

As a faithful Citizen of the United States of America and a USAF Veteran, I have lived my life with the absolute knowledge that as Americans we have a system of government, brilliantly conceived by our forefathers and guaranteed by our Constitution. With this simple truth the destiny of our country and her Citizens are protected.

By this truth we have been raised and have raised our children. It is an ideal young men and women for generations have fought and died to protect. In a world of perpetual danger, a world so often without reason or consistency, this knowledge is our rock. Our constitution, our culture and our identity is our way of life.

We, as Americans embrace our unique identity as a melting pot, assimilating the many into the one - a nation indivisible. In this context I set forth in search of answers to questions I had not been able to reconcile about the state of our domestic affairs today. What I have come to understand has shattered my sense of stability, shaken my respect for many American legislators, and destroyed belief I had in their integrity and honor in the protection of our national sovereignty. As a faithful American, I am infuriated!

If you have tried to speak with your Representative lately, you may have come away convinced your concerns have not been seriously considered. The politicos, who once courted your vote, and made the pretense of caring about you, now seem too preoccupied by other obligations to feign interest in your frustrations. With unprecedented arrogance, Citizens of the United States of America are being shown the door and given a deaf ear. It would seem our legislators have bigger fish to fry than to worry about the concern of the American Citizen.

They have. Much bigger fish!

A constant outcry can be heard from citizens who seem more baffled and frustrated daily by the lack of simple common sense measures that could be taken so easily to secure our country, prosperity and citizens. We know what needs to be done and we have made ourselves very clear time and again. And, yet nothing changes for the better. Things consistently change for the worse. One might even speculate the worsening condition of the American way of life is intentional. But, why would that be desirable and who benefits?

If you correctly surmise your best interests are no longer being served by many in government sworn to protect and your well being is no longer their first priority, it is because the Citizen of the United States of America and the United States Constitution are no longer a real factor in the grand scheme of things.

With a heavy heart and an outraged spirit I pass on to you information I have discovered, substantiating all I am about to share with you. I believe every Citizen of the United States of America has a right to know the truth.

Time is of the essence. While we were dutifully serving our country in her defense, educating ourselves to prosper, raising our young ones to say the Pledge of Allegiance with pride and certainty, ‘Grand Schemers’ have been formulating the foundation for treachery against the U.S.A. In the ‘Grand Scheme’, our constitution is outdated, outmoded, and an unnecessary hindrance.

There is a reason. There is an expected outcome. And it is not good.

Read the FULL SITE here.

In the spirit of 'remembering' here are some quotes on "Liberty"

Edward Abbey quote:

A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.

Samuel Adams quote:

The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men.

Benjamin Franklin quotes:

Outside Independence Hall when the Constitutional Convention of 1787 ended, Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, "A republic, if you can keep it."

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority.

Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you.

Thomas Jefferson quotes:

For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well organized and armed militia is their best security.

What country before ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

Since 1962 every president, every Congresswoman and man that has been elected to office has known about the Organization of American States. But it started earlier than that. The name doesn't refer to 50 States of the United States of America and its District of Columbia, nor even Puerto Rico, which actually votes in our elections, NO, this stands for ALL the following countries:

Antigua and
Argentina
The Bahamas
Barbados
Belize
Bolivia
Brazil
Canada
Chile
Colombia
Costa Rica
Dominica
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
El Salvador
Grenada
Guatemala
Guyana
Haiti
Honduras
Jamaica
Mexico
Nicaragua
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Suriname
Trinidad and Tobago
United States of America
Uruguay
Venezuela

All of the above are considered States of the Americas. Do you see Venezuela there? Now, if our government is a part of this "Organization of American States" or OAS for short, how can it be that we should be wanting a war with a sister state? And not just any war either, but threats of nuclear war are rumored...

Did you see Mexico there? Canada? Still wondering why the government is so determined to have open borders? We are betrayed by that government which is supposed to Guard and uphold our Constitution, Guard and uphold our Bill of Rights, and yet has blithely sold us out. We are betrayed. Each president and vice president, each congressman or woman takes their oath to do this very thing. So how come we've been sold out?

As required by Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution, Members of Congress shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution. Representatives, delegates, and the resident commissioner all take the oath of office on the first day of the new Congress, immediately after the House has elected its Speaker. The Speaker of the House administers the oath of office as follows:

"I, (name of Member), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

OAS Head Quarters 17th St. between C St. and Constitution Ave., NW.

I guess God doesn't mean what he used to any more because an oath like that would sure make me think twice if I took it. So much for Good Christians!!! But these people are Godless, else why did they sell us out? Why else do they disrespect their oath? You can talk about God all you want, but when your actions tell a different story, one can only conclude you either don't believe in God or you figure you can lie and cheat up until your death and then make good? I think not... And if this is the best these people can do, we are some kind of fools for keeping them in office!

The OAS has a long history and has changed its name several times. Beginning in 1826, it was the brain child of Simón Bolivar. At the Conference of Panama he proposed that a league of American republics, (America being the Continent), with a common military, a mutual defense pact, and a supranational parliamentary assembly be created. He meant to unify the Latin countries against what he feared; that the United States of America and other countries might try to dominate them. The first name for the OAS was Treaty of Union, League, and Perpetual Confederation. While grandly titled, it was a failure. However...

Between 1889 and 1890 the first International Conference of the American States was held in Washington D.C. 18 nations resolved to create the International Union of American Republics, served by a permanent secretariat called the Commercial Bureau of the American Republics (renamed the "International Commercial Bureau" at the Second International Conference in 1901–02).

At the 4th meeting of the International Union of the American Republics in 1910 in Buenos Aires, the name was changed again to Union of American Republics and the Commercial Bureau became the Pan American Union. These two bodies, in existence as of April 14 1890, represent the point of inception to which today's OAS and its General Secretariat trace their origins.

What is the OAS? It is the SPP gone Global. It is world domination couched in words like humanity, charity, human rights, and for the good of all, etc. But what it means is that the Sovereignty of the United States of America has been sold out, is being dismantled, and We the People are being traded up by those in power. It means that those in Congress are working against us, even as I write this. It means that you and I are being made slaves while others control everything. Sound like a conspiracy theory? Then why is this not out in the open? Why haven't we heard about it. Why is it a secret? It has been around since FOREVER....

As with most of those who intend to do harm, the first thing they do is protect themselves from everything and everyone. In this case it is every government everywhere. They have created for themselves such immunity from prosecution, search, or seizure that I doubt there is an agency in the world capable of touching them.

CHAPTER I

Organization of American States

Article 1. The privileges and immunities of the Organization of American States shall be those which are granted to its Organs and to the personnel thereof.

The Specialized Conferences and the Specialized Organizations are not included within the scope of this Agreement.

Article 2. The Organization and its Organs, their property and assets wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall enjoy immunity from every form of legal process except insofar as in any particular case the immunity has been expressly waived. It is understood, however, that no such waiver of immunity shall make the said property and assets subject to any measure of execution.

Article 3. The premises of the Organization and of its Organs shall be inviolable. Their property and assets, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, requisition, confiscation, expropriation and any other form of interference, whether by executive, administrative, judicial or legislative action.

Article 4. The archives of the Organization and of its Organs, and all documents belonging to them or in their possession, shall be inviolable wherever located.

Article 5. The Organization and its Organs, their property, funds and assets, shall be»

a) exempt from all direct taxes; it is understood, however, that they may not claim exemption from taxes which are, in fact, charges for public utility services;

b) exempt from customs duties and prohibitions and restrictions on imports and exports in respect of articles imported or exported for their official use. It is understood, however, that articles imported under such exemption will not be sold in the country into which they were imported except under conditions agreed with the Government of that country;

c) exempt from customs duties and prohibitions and restrictions on imports and exports in respect of their publications.

Article 6. Without being restricted by financial controls, regulations or moratoria of any kind,

a) The Organization and its Organs may hold funds, gold or currency of any kind and operate accounts in any currency;

b) The Organization and its Organs shall be free to transfer their funds, gold or currency from one country to another or within any country, and to convert any currency held by them into any other currency.

In exercising these rights, the Organization shall pay due regard to any representations made by the Government of any Member insofar as it is considered that effect can be given to such representation without detriment to the interests of -the Organization.

Now, how would it be if those who fought and died for the United States of America could look at our government and see it had protected US like this??? Instead, our country's very foundations are being eroded for the sake and empowerment of a few. But this was only the beginning. The demands for immunity continue...

CHAPTER II

Representatives of the Member States

Article 7. The Representatives of the States Members of the Organs of the Organization, as well as the personnel of the Delegations, shall, while exercising their functions and during their journey to and from the place of meeting, enjoy the following privileges and immunities:

a) Immunity from personal arrest or detention and from seizure of their personal baggage, and, in respect of words spoken or written and all acts done by them in their official capacity, immunity from legal process of every kind;

b) inviolability for all papers and documents;

c) the right to use codes and to receive papers or correspondence by courier or in sealed bags;

d) exemption in respect of themselves and their spouses from immigration restrictions, alien registration or national service obligations in the state which they are visiting or through which they are passing in the exercise of their functions; in the case of permanent delegations, -this exemption shall extend also to dependent relatives;

e) the same facilities in respect of currency or exchange restrictions as are accorded to representatives of foreign governments on temporary official missions;

f) the same facilities in respect of their personal baggage as are accorded to diplomatic envoys; and also

g) such other privileges, immunities and facilities not inconsistent with the foregoing as diplomatic envoys enjoy, except that they shall have no right to claim exemption from customs duties on goods imported (otherwise than as part of their personal baggage) or from excise duties or sales taxes.

They cannot be detained, prosecuted, searched or inspected. The immunity extends to spouses and children or relatives if they are dependent on the one that is a member for their survival. They cannot be touched anywhere at anytime in any manner and are above the laws of that country. And in any country which has signed onto this charter, they get a free pass for everything...

Those who stand for the good of all, who have no harm in mind, do not set these kinds of protections in place. They do not need them. This organization, by this very setup, means that illegal activities, perhaps even the overthrow of other governments, may be planned and executed from this very organization and they cannot be touched, examined, scrutinized, held accountable, or held for questioning. If you think I am wrong, then explain to me why such protections are necessary.

Some documents you might find interesting are: agreement-between-the-usa-and-oas and

headquarters-agreement-between-the-organization-of-american-states-and-the-government-of-the-united-states-of-america

And this last one on tax reimbursement: tax-reimbursement-agreement-between-usa-and-oas

Why would the United States of America or Canada or any other nation for that matter, want to be a part of this? Why??? So far, I have not seen any benefit for the USA at all, and yet, our government has signed onto this program. Nor have I seen or heard of any improvements coming about for the original 18 countries that started this to begin with. As with the United Nations, they seem to be a body of men and or women that meet and do not much else except for profit from their existence. Whatever their lofty goals in the beginning, nothing has been accomplished. Nothing that we can see anyway.

For example, consider Mexico or even Haiti and then read this:

OAS Declaration of the Rights
and Duties of Man

Chapter 1

Right to life, liberty and personal security.
Article I. Every human being has the right to life, liberty and the security of his person.

Right to equality before law.
Article II. All persons are equal before the law and have the rights and duties established in this Declaration, without distinction as to race, sex, language, creed or any other factor.

Right to religious freedom and worship.
Article III. Every person has the right freely to profess a religious faith, and to manifest and practice it both in public and in private.

Right to freedom of investigation, opinion, expression and dissemination.
Article IV. Every person has the right to freedom of investigation, of opinion, and of the expression and dissemination of ideas, by any medium whatsoever.

Right to protection of honor, personal reputation, and private and family life.
Article V. Every person has the right to the protection of the law against abusive attacks upon his honor, his reputation, and his private and family life.

Right to a family and to protection thereof.
Article VI. Every person has the right to establish a family, the basic element of society, and to receive protection therefor.

Right to protection for mothers and children.
Article VII. All women, during pregnancy and the nursing period, and all children have the right to special protection, care and aid.

Right to residence and movement.
Article VIII. Every person has the right to fix his residence within the territory of the state of which he is a national, to move about freely within such territory, and not to leave it except by his own will.

Right to inviolability of the home.
Article IX. Every person has the right to the inviolability of his home.

Right to the inviolability and transmission of correspondence
Article X. Every person has the right to the inviolability and transmission of his correspondence.

Right to the preservation of health and to well-being.
Article XI. Every person has the right to the preservation of his health through sanitary and social measures relating to food, clothing, housing and medical care, to the extent permitted by public and community resources.

Right to education.
Article XII. Every person has the right to an education, which should be based on the principles of liberty, morality and human solidarity.

Likewise every person has the right to an education that will prepare him to attain a decent life, to raise his standard of living, and to be a useful member of society.

The right to an education includes the right to equality of opportunity in every case, in accordance with natural talents, merit and the desire to utilize the resources that the state or the community is in a position to provide.

Every person has the right to receive, free, at least a primary education.

Right to the benefits of culture.
Article XIII. Every person has the right to take part in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts, and to participate in the benefits that result from intellectual progress, especially scientific discoveries.

He likewise has the right to the protection of his moral and material interests as regards his inventions or any literary, scientific or artistic works of which he is the author.

Right to work and to fair remuneration.
Article XIV. Every person has the right to work, under proper conditions, and to follow his vocation freely, insofar as existing conditions of employment permit.

Every person who works has the right to receive such remuneration as will, in proportion to his capacity and skill, assure him a standard of living suitable for himself and for his family.

Right to leisure time and to the use thereof.

Now, according to Wikipedia, by 1946 Mexico was a part of this organization. It might have joined earlier but since I don't speak or write Spanish, I cannot find out through their documentation (done in Spanish) when they signed their charter. But the point is, how has signing up helped Mexico or Mexicans in any way? They are still leaving their country in droves! Headed for the USA among other places. So if this organization is so wonderful, why isn't it helping these countries? And why don't we hear about it? Something this good SHOULD be known about don't you think? And the same goes for Haitians. I cannot see where this organization has done one thing to help any nation that is a member.

Or, by the same token, WHY would the United States of America want to join? This was for the Latin countries originally. We have had these rights all along. Where is the benefit to the United States in being a member? What does Congress Know about it?

There is a an item in these treaties too about getting rid of Conventional Weapons, see Here: According to Wikipedia Conventional Weapon is:

Conventional weapon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Conventional weapons)

••

A conventional weapon is a weapon that does not incorporate toxic chemical, biological or nuclear payloads. The phrase is a retronym, used to describe the arsenal that existed before the other categories of weapons were heavily researched and developed in the 20th century. Although the term 'conventional weapons' is primarily used to refer to explosive weapons the UN Convention on Conventional Weapons also includes controls on blinding laser and incendiary weapons.

So, guess what, they intend to disarm everyone. WHY does our government want to be a part of this??? And why aren't the mass destruction weapons on their list??? But no, only conventional weapons are listed... Why is it so important to disarm the population. Does this bring new light to the cases brought against men like David Olofson??? Think about it.

This organization is not what it appears to be. This organization is not a good thing. Those who support it are not meaning the American Citizens well. Get informed so you can fight back!

If Mexico allowed al-Qaeda to build camps on the Mexico-side of the U.S.-Mexico border, would Mexico really expect the U.S. to sit idly by and do nothing?  Why should Colombia act any differently when dealing with the FARC?

An unreasonable reliance on multilateralism to advance the national interest is a vice. And, like any vice, if not remedied will blind, bind, and mistakes will certainly follow. Stability at all cost is a similar concept. This latter talisman eventually leads a nation down the very path that it sought to avoid in the first place, instability and most certain crises. Blend both of these principles - hyper-focus on multilateralism and stability at all cost - and you will get really bad outcomes. Despite the rhetoric in this town - both public and private - the Western Hemisphere is chock full of examples.

The current state of affairs between the U.S. and Cuba fell victim long ago to the aforementioned politically brackish formula. United Nations-laden Haiti, another prime of example of the adage that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The seemingly never-ending "war against drugs" not only lacks focus, but has spawned new conflicts. The phenomena of the Central American gang or the coming "border wars" at the U.S.-Mexico border. On their own, each of these and other policy challenges directly impact the U.S., yet our response to each has been curiously ambivalent. Rather than take the "bull by the horns," if you will, and address these matters directly in the U.S. national interest by leading, we govern by consensus.

In other words, we have overly relied on regional and cooperative solutions with countries that can barely keep their own countries in order. From an institutional stand-point, a cursory review will show that most democracies in the Americas are ill-equipped to deal with the challenges of our day mainly because of weak or evolving rule of law systems as well as endemic poverty. While an admirable goal to treat our partners as equals, and we should, the reality is that most countries in the hemisphere are not at par commercially, politically, or militarily. A key to a robust international or regional system is strong nation-states. The inter-American is weak and ineffective because of it and we must not place too much stock in its abilities quite just yet. Consider one of the greatest challenges this day, combating terrorism, and the role of the Organization of American States ("OAS").

The Inter-American Committee against Terrorism ("CICTE") of the OAS was created in 1998 to promote and develop cooperation amongst Western Hemisphere nations to prevent, combat, and eliminate terrorism. Created exactly fifty years after the creation of of the OAS in 1948, the CICTE, in addition to studying and harmonizing work in this field with other international entities or regimes such as the United Nations and the International Financial Action Task Force, is supposed to take steps towards:

"ensuring the development of integrated responses to terrorism and to carrying out complementary efforts to prevent and fight terrorism and prosecute those responsible, ensuring the guarantees of due process in accordance with national law."

While the aforementioned language from the statutory mandate of the CICTE is broad, it is sufficiently clear that it should mean more than traveling throughout the region, hosting meetings, and issuing Declarations every so often. Yet, the latter has been the case since the CICTE was created and is the case with most of what the OAS and its other committees tend to do. In part, the inter-American system is somewhat flawed and in need of reform from the very top. There is little, if any, accountability for how it spends U.S. taxpayer monies. Its accomplishments are significantly outweighed by bureaucratic excesses. They talk, a lot, but action is not part of its lexicon. Why does this happen?

In large measure it is because most countries in OAS have little, if any, real world experiences in dealing effectively with the terrorism issue. Member states also have weak or poorly trained military and law enforcement entities. And when the have acted, it is those very states that have direct experiences with the issue that are treated as the bad guys, not the terrorists or terrorist organizations. They member state may support anti-terrorism declarations at the OAS, but national governments back home sometimes ignore what they signed and end up supporting the very groups the OAS allegedly seeks to crack down on. Consider Colombia's long struggle against the FARC-People's Army, a group designated a terrorist organization by the U.S., Canada, and the European Union.

Earlier this year, after years of hard work, intelligence gathering, and loss of life on both sides, the Colombians scored a major victory against the FARC. During a military operations the Colombian government seized a large cache of information stored on several laptops and portable storage devices. INTERPOL has authenticated and stated the data was not tampered with by Colombian officials. It includes FARC operational, administrative, and financial information, and may link the FARC to other nations and groups. During the operation at the Colombia-Ecuador border, the FARC's number two in command, Raul Reyes, and more than a dozen other terrorists were killed. As usual, the OAS's response to this matter leaves much to be desired: a lot of talk and there will be no reasonable action or follow through.

The CICTE was the proper entity within the OAS structure to review this matter. Rather than start with a referral to it, Colombia was essentially forced to "apologize" to FARC-supporting Venezuela and Ecuador. In addition, OAS Secretary General Jose Miguel Insulza took a delegation to the scene of the military operation. Rather than submit the matter to the CICTE at this juncture, Insulza delegated responsibility to an independent commission. And, as if this were not enough, during an OAS Foreign Affairs Ministers Meeting about the same time that this matter was being considered, foreign ministers rejected "the incursion by Colombian military forces and police personnel" since it, in some rather creative legal interpretation by the Secretary General and his lawyers, violated Articles 19 and 21 of the OAS Charter. What about the FARC and its supporters? Your guess will be as good as any.

The OAS diplomatic kabuki theater on the FARC is a common response to problems in the region. Colombia has shown restraint. If anything, Colombia was justified acting the way it did and customary international law clearly shows it was in the right. Even under the OAS Charter, Colombia was justified pursuant to Article 22 of the Charter which authorizes the use of force in cases of self defense. Rather than support a democracy, the OAS essentially treats Colombia in much the same way that Israel is treated by the Arab League or the U.N. Security Council. Rather than rally to her side, regional powers abscond and shirk responsibility or, the more brazen such as Ecuador and Venezuela, openly support the FARC.

If the OAS were truly interested in dealing with terrorism, the matter should have been reffered to the CICTE for review. Just as the foreign ministers accused Colombia of violating Articles 19 and 21, one can argue that Venezuela and Ecuador have been violating Articles 19, 21, 28 and 29 of the OAS Charter. Both of these countries have provided, or allowed others to provide, aid and comfort to the FARC for decades.

If Mexico allowed al-Qaeda to build camps on the Mexico-side of the U.S.-Mexico border, would Mexico really expect the U.S. to sit idly by and do nothing? So why should Colombia sit idly by when for the past several years the FARC has been allowed to build havens alongside the Ecuador-Colombia, Colombia-Venezuela borders? Venezuela, Ecuador, and other countries such as Cuba, have not only put in jeopardy Colombian democracy, but hurt the collective security of the Andean region through support of the FARC. These serious questions are for CICTE to consider, not some ad hoc commission.

Besides the Cuban Communist Party's control of Cuba and the war on drugs, the FARC insurgency is one of the longest running problems in the Western Hemisphere. The CICTE was created to address issues such as the FARC. Yet rather than be an active player and carry out its statutory authority to develop "integrated responses to terrorism and to carrying out complementary efforts to prevent and fight terrorism and prosecute those responsible, ensuring the guarantees of due process in accordance with national law," it is a sidelined committee subject to the whims of the Secretary General. This has happened in large part because there is a fundamental misunderstanding by OAS member nations about the threat terrorism poses to the region and because many of these countries have problems of their own making them ill-equipped to be unbiased, neutral observers.

In a post-09.11.01 world, the CICTE and the OAS can be much more than what it is today, a debate and study group. However, for the process to improve U.S. leadership will be required to scale back the bureaucracy and lead as problem solvers. Until the OAS gets its act together, if ever, the U.S. should partner with regional powers whose interests are aligned with those of the U.S. We should provide them the tools they need to improve rule of law, institutional building, and related programs. Only strong nation-states will provide the solutions needed to many of these problems. If done correctly, there would be no need whatsoever to resort to the OAS since the solutions are driven locally.

As with most things in today’s OAS, and this has been the case for decades, it is more focused more on getting along that it is about finding lasting solutions to regional challenges. And, if that means opposing the U.S., more the better. Rather than help a democracy combat terrorism, it has provided the FARC and its supporters political cover that they will use to keep bolstering international efforts to legitimize the FARC. Again, why should U.S. taxpayers underwrite these proceedings without a direct check by the Congress or the Government Accounting Office (GAO)? The following are some suggestions to get the ball rolling:

Order a Forensic Audit of the OAS

Some say in this town that we should not bother fixing or reforming the place; it is already known as an “irrelevant” organization. Why should Americans care about what the OAS says and what it does? Well, this may be so but running from a problem is not the American way. For starters, U.S. taxpayers fund the organization to the tune of about close to $100 million a year. What are they doing with that money? That is close to 60 percent of the regular funds needed to run it annually. We also also make additional contributions to special OAS programs on a case-by-case basis and support many OAS-driven program through other appropriation funding streams. We need to know how it has been spent or will be spent.

Amend the OAS Rules and Grant CICTE Oversight Authority

In the future, organizations within the OAS system need oversight powers independent of the Secretary General. Just as the U.S. Congress provides for clear and independent oversight powers through the Congressional committee system, so should the OAS structure a process whereby the "committees" of jurisdiction are given real authorities to deal with problems as they arise, such as the Colombia matter. A transparent, rule-focused process will help remove regional biases and politicking by the Office of Secretary General and, if properly implemented, should provide the CICTE with the means to carry out its stated mission. Until then, it is but another debating group subject to the political whims of the Secretary General.

Develop a Listing Process for Terrorist Organizations, Crime Syndicates, and Bad Persons

The CICTE should immediately begin to develop a terrorist listing process that mirrors listing regimes in use by many countries and international organizations. This inter-American listing process must include clear variables that will not allow exclusion of parties from the list because diplomats disagree if a group is a terrorist organization or an insurgency. For example, as is the case with the FARC today where several countries in Latin America do not consider them a terrorist entity. Independent of this, the U.S. should encourage member states to develop national listing processes of their own, with severe penalties enforced by national judicial systems.

CICTE Should Hold Hearings About the State of Terror in the Western Hemisphere

As its first order of immediate business the CICTE should also be empowered to study closely the FARC matter and how it has damaged Colombian democracy and regional stability. Using data found by Colombia at a FARC terrorist camp in Ecuador in March 2008, the CICTE should also determine who has been assisting the FARC and if there has been any assistance from outside of the hemisphere. An exhaustive accounting of regional hot spots is also in order and the CICTE staff should prepare an annual report on these issues, in addition to already required reporting.

Finally, independent of the inter-American process, the U.S. should take a lead role in resolving some of the more pressing challenges in the hemisphere. The next President should make every effort to re-focus how the U.S. operates in the Americas by putting our national interests ahead of all else. An over-reliance on regional systems and weak national states will not be the solution.

I find myself considering this weekend more and more over that past few years in light of the downfall I see America sliding into. I find myself asking if THIS is what our soldiers thought they were sacrificing for? How can we honor those who fought and died to create the United States and those who fought and died to preserve her soveriegnty when we sit back and allow our Constitution to be shredded? When we sit back and NOT hold our elected officials accountable for selling us out how is that honoring those who died fighting for our way of life?

I was reading an article by Devvy Kidd on NewsWithViews this morning (OK so I'm a couple of days behind my reading here as my new found allergies were really atrocious this past week and my brain could barely function for work let alone personal reading) and realized this was a perfect article for this weekend. I'll be doing a separate piece on the main thrust of her article.

IS IT TREASON AND WHO WILL STOP IT?

By: Devvy
May 22, 2008

© 2008 - NewsWithViews.com

“I am concerned for the security of our great nation, not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within.” — General Douglas MacArthur

~snip~

As I was standing at Nathan Hale's homestead in the peaceful, beautiful surrounding, my heart was indeed heavy. Only the night before at my hotel in Hartford, CT, while checking email on the hotel's computer, three men were standing directly behind where I was sitting. They were having a beer after a hard day. All three were dressed in suits; the younger male appeared to be about 45, the two other men were likely 60-65. They were lamenting about the difficulty in choosing between Clinton and Obama because they were so close on the issues, it came down to personalities. One piped up with the suggestion that should Marxist Hillary Clinton become president, she should make her slutty husband Secretary of State.

As I listened to this exchange, it was all I could do not to turn around and make a comment. I didn't because my words would have fallen on deaf ears. These are die hard Democrats who willfully believe lies out of ignorance and blind party loyalty. I'm not going to say they're stupid because they appear to be individuals who do have jobs. I will say they are like tens of millions who have no idea or understanding of who Obama and Clinton are and their true political ideology: communism. I've covered this before, so I won't rehash it.

Dare we call it treason?

Treason is defined as giving aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war. "The offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance; or of betraying the state into the hands of a foreign power." What else do we call a detailed plan to merge America with two foreign countries? What else do we call agendas being implemented, via treaties and agreements, that totally erase the sovereignty of this country and replace our constitutional republic with communism and fascism? What do we call the actions of Congress after Congress for decades with the blessing of president after president who continue to dismantle the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights?

While I get a dozen requests a day to cover a thousand issues, I simply can't. However, there are fine Americans out there doing the digging and writing factual columns and articles about all the pieces cementing totalitarian world government. One of those organizations is called the OAS: Organization of American States. I've wanted to get to this for a while, but a patriotic lady named CJ Scott has done a superb job in bringing forth the facts about this global operation in a recent column. We are far down the road, my fellow Americans. The picture is ugly. This is one of the things I was thinking about as I stood at Nathan Hale's homestead. I thought about then and now.

Read the FULL STORY here.

We've all heard the talk about the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) otherwise lovingly referred to by many as the North American Union (NAU); but have you ever heard of the Organization of American States (OAS)? I haven't.......until now. While the idea that makes up the organization and it's charter might make sense, don't let the name fool you. The Organization of American States is made up of 35 countries; The United States just being 1 of the members. In other words, under this charter ALL countries are called American States, which would make all peoples in the Western Hemisphere "Americans". OK, I guess...................but since the Citizens of the United States have always been known as "Americans" what will we be known as now? This can lead to some confusion, especially to those in Europe who only know Americans as those people from the United States.

Charter of the Organization of American States

As amended by the Protocol of Amendment to the Charter of the Organization of American States "Protocol of Buenos Aires", signed on February 27, 1967, at the Third Special Inter-American Conference,
by the Protocol of Amendment to the Charter of the Organization of American States "Protocol of Cartagena de Indias", approved on December 5, 1985, at the Fourteenth Special Session of the General Assembly,

by the Protocol of Amendment to the Charter of the Organization of American States "Protocol of Washington", approved on December 14, 1992, at the Sixteenth Special Session of the General Assembly,

and by the Protocol of Amendment to the Charter of the Organization of American States "Protocol of Managua", adopted on June 10, 1993, at the Nineteenth Special Session of the General Assembly.

Now, I'm all for eradicating poverty and improving everyone's way of life. I'm all for freedom and liberty. But why does it appear these days that in order to elevate other nations to a fair and equitable way of governing and life, it seems that OUR way of life and governing has to change to lower standards? This is how it seems, especially when I read:

Conscious that that mission has already inspired numerous agreements, whose essential value lies in the desire of the American peoples to live together in peace and, through their mutual understanding and respect for the sovereignty of each one, to provide for the betterment of all, in independence, in equality and under law;

I don't see Mexico understanding OR respecting the sovereignty of the United States these days.

From Chapter I Article 2:

h) To achieve an effective limitation of conventional weapons that will make it possible to devote the largest amount of resources to the economic and social development of the Member States.

I'm not quite sure what "conventional weapons" means in this, but I somehow get the impression we are talking serious gun control (eliminating our 2nd Amendment?).

From Chapter 2 Article 3:

b) International order consists essentially of respect for the personality, sovereignty, and independence of States, and the faithful fulfillment of obligations derived from treaties and other sources of international law;

e) Every State has the right to choose, without external interference, its political, economic, and social system and to organize itself in the way best suited to it, and has the duty to abstain from intervening in the affairs of another State. Subject to the foregoing, the American States shall cooperate fully among themselves, independently of the nature of their political, economic, and social systems;

Again, given the demands Mexico makes on our immigration policy, I don't see that as respecting OUR personality or sovereignty. We've all heard about Mexico demanding we allow Mexicans into our country without going through the normal immigration channels that all immigrants everywhere have to go through (including those immigrating TO Mexico). How is it respecting OUR political, economic and social system to demand we do nothing about illegal immigrants here?

Chapter VII is interesting. Of special note:

Article 40

The Member States reaffirm the principle that when the more developed countries grant concessions in international trade agreements that lower or eliminate tariffs or other barriers to foreign trade so that they benefit the less­developed countries, they should not expect reciprocal concessions from those countries that are incompatible with their economic development, financial, and trade needs.

Article 41

The Member States, in order to accelerate their economic development, regional integration, and the expansion and improvement of the conditions of their commerce, shall promote improvement and coordination of transportation and communication in the developing countries and among the Member States.

Article 42

The Member States recognize that integration of the developing countries of the Hemisphere is one of the objectives of the inter-American system and, therefore, shall orient their efforts and take the n