fufor's unregelmässige news

Pressed by U.S., European Banks Limit Iran Deals
May 22, 2006
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN
WASHINGTON, May 21 — Prodded by the United States with threats of fines and lost business, four of the biggest European banks have started curbing their activities in Iran, even in the absence of a Security Council resolution imposing economic sanctions on Iran for its suspected nuclear weapons program.
Top Treasury and State Department officials have intensified their efforts to limit Iran-related activities of major banks in Europe, the United States and the Middle East in the past six months, invoking antiterrorism and banking laws. They have also traveled to Europe and the Middle East to drive home the risky nature of dealing with a country that has repeatedly rebuffed Western demands over suspending uranium enrichment, and to urge European countries to take similar steps.
Stuart A. Levey, the under secretary of the Treasury for terrorism and financial intelligence, said: "We are seeing banks and other institutions reassessing their ties to Iran. They are asking themselves if they really want to be handling business for entities owned by a government engaged in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and support for terrorism."
The four European banks — the UBS and Credit Suisse banks of Switzerland, ABN Amro of the Netherlands, and HSBC, based in London — have made varying levels of disclosure about the limits on their activities in Iran in the past six months. Almost all large European banks have branches or bureaus in the United States, units that are subject to American laws.
American officials said the United States had informed its European allies about the new pressure exerted on the banks, and indeed had asked these countries to join the effort. At the same time, the Americans have not publicized the new pressure, partly out of concern it could complicate efforts by European negotiators, who were still talking with Iran about a package of incentives to suspend uranium enrichment.
It is not clear how curbed business with four of Europe's biggest banks could adversely affect Iran. But some outside political and economic experts say it is unlikely to do much damage considering Iran is one of OPEC's leading producers and is earning hundreds of millions of dollars worth of windfall profits daily from $70-a-barrel petroleum.
The American prodding has not yet resulted in any fines or other punishment. But UBS and ABN Amro are no strangers to the sting of American financial penalties for dealing with countries that the United States has wanted to isolate. UBS was fined $100 million by the Federal Reserve two years ago for the unauthorized movement of dollars to Iran and other countries like Libya and Yugoslavia, which were subject to American trade sanctions at the time. Last December, ABN Amro was fined $80 million for failure to comply with regulations against money laundering and with economic sanctions against Libya and Iran from 1997 to 2004.
UBS now says it will no longer do direct business with any individuals, businesses or banks in Iran. UBS also says it will not finance exports or imports for any corporate clients in Iran. But the bank has said that it would not stop doing business with clients who use other means to transact business there. ABN Amro also says it has minimized its activities in Iran.
"We have no representation in Iran," said Sierk Nawijn, a spokesman for ABN Amro in Amsterdam. He added that although the bank does no dollar-based business with Iran, it was participating in "a fairly limited number of transactions" with it."
Georg Söntgerath, a spokesman for Credit Suisse in Zurich, said, "As of January, we have said that we will not enter into any new business relations with corporate clients in Iran." He said the decision, which applied to Syria and some other countries, resulted from an assessment of an "increased economic risk for our bank and our clients."
He said, however, that the bank would fulfill existing contracts with businesses in Iran.
A United Nations Security Council resolution might restrict some of those kinds of dealings.
The Americans have taken other steps to pressure Iran. With American encouragement, Iran's rating as a business risk was raised last month by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a group of 30 leading countries with market economies.
At the same time, the defiance of the West by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran has unsettled markets, and American officials have said the climate of anxiety over the prospect of globally enforced sanctions — or even military action — was having its own effect.
"I think there is a real and growing sense that there's a risk associated with doing business with Iran, with lending Iran more money or providing it with a line of credit," said Robert G. Joseph, the under secretary of state for arms control and international security. "But I would argue that their motive is market forces, more than any American pressure."
Some European diplomats from countries with missions in Tehran say that there are signs of an impact, despite the rise in oil prices.
Whatever the cause, Iran's economic growth has slowed to less than 5 percent, its stock market has dropped more than 20 percent in the past year, new investments and construction have declined, and Iranians have been sending their money abroad, or buying gold.
Iran has recently tried to counter diplomatic pressures over its nuclear program with reminders to Europe that it was a good market, with a good work force. In a regular weekly news conference on Sunday, the Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman, Hamidreza Assefi, urged Europe not to take any steps that would jeopardize economic links with Iran.
"We have good ties with Europe, and a bad decision by Europeans over Iran's nuclear program can undermine relations and will eventually harm the Europeans," he said.
Many experts said it would be difficult to bar banks from conducting the lucrative business of financing trade deals with Iran. Iran's largest trading partners are Japan, China, Italy, Germany and France. All of those nations have companies that use banks to finance letters of credit to export machinery, commodities and other goods to Iran.
The laws being applied against banks are varied, and many of them also apply to North Korea, Syria, Cuba and Sudan. A 1984 law requires a ban on activities with any country declared a sponsor of terrorism. Officials are also invoking the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act of 1996 and a directive signed by President Bush last year banning transactions with those suspected of helping the spread of unconventional weapons.
Under that directive, the United States has identified six Iranian entities, including its Aerospace Industries Organization, the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran and several private industrial groups, as off limits to banks that operate under American protections and laws.
Mr. Joseph said the use of American banking regulations and antiterrorism laws against European banks had been effective against Iran and would have a greater effect "if we can get other countries to take similar actions."
Some experts say they doubt that anything short of a sweeping oil embargo, or a blockade of gasoline imports — Iran imports about 40 percent of its gasoline — could get Iran to change its behavior, and the West is not contemplating such steps.
"I don't see that the pullout of a few European banks doing a tremendous amount of damage," said Karim Sadjadpour, an analyst at the International Crisis Group, an advocacy organization. "They're making $300 million a day from oil revenues, and they can weather the storm."
Nazila Fathi contributed reporting from Tehran for this article.
http://tinyurl.com/mjtp7

SPD: Autoverbot für Langzeitarbeitslose
Hartz-Irrsinn: Der nächste Sparhammer lauert schon
21.05.2006
Berlin - Hartz IV ist ein Fass ohne Boden, die Kosten explodieren. Auch bei der SPD schrillen die Alarmglocken. Der Ruf nach Leistungskürzungen wird immer lauter. Jüngste Idee: Wer Arbeitslosengeld II (ALG II) bezieht, soll in Zukunft auf seinen Wagen verzichten. Autoverbot für Langzeitarbeitslose? Das darf doch nicht wahr sein!
SPD-Haushaltspolitikerin Waltraud Lehn hat diese Sparvariante ins Spiel gebracht. Man könne sich ja fragen, wie lange man einem Langzeitarbeitslosen ein eigenes Auto zugestehen wolle, so der ernstgemeinte Vorstoß der 58-Jährigen. Im Haushaltsausschuss werde "eine ganze Reihe zusätzlicher Sparmaßnahmen" diskutiert, verriet sie. Darunter: die Auto-Streich-Kiste. "Alle diese Überlegungen sind aber noch nicht spruchreif", hieß es.
Bislang darf ein ALG-II-Empfänger ein Auto im Wert bis zu 5000 Euro fahren. Liegt der Wert seines Fahrzeugs höher, entscheidet der Sachbearbeiter der Arbeitsagentur. Bei einem Luxusgefährt muss der Erwerbslose auf ein billigeres Modell umsteigen. Dass er künftig völlig auf seine vier Räder verzichten soll, ist ein Sparhammer, der Betroffene um ihre Mobilität bringt, ihnen vielleicht auch noch die letzte Chance auf einen Job nimmt.
Fakt ist: Die Große Koalition steckt in der Hartz-IV-Falle. "Niemand hat die explosionsartige Vermehrung der Bedarfsgemeinschaften auf derzeit vier Millionen mit ihren finanziellen Folgen vorausgesehen", stöhnt SPD-Fraktionschef Peter Struck. Er will, dass nur Hartz IV bekommt, wer auch wirklich bedürftig ist.
http://tinyurl.com/qnjld

Recognise SS as heroes, say Estonian MPs
Sat 20 May 2006
Advert for scotsman.com Rosslyn video podcast
ESTONIAN MPs are trying to have men who fought for the SS in the Second World War officially re-classed as freedom fighters. When German forces marched into Estonia and its neighbouring Baltic states, Lithuania and Latvia, in 1941, many treated them as liberators as the countries had been occupied by the Soviets a year before and tens of thousands of people massacred by the Red Army.
Thousands later joined the German army and ended up in SS units. After Estonia's absorption into the Soviet Union, they were branded traitors. Now Estonia's right-wing Fatherland Union and Respublika parties want to see the former SS members recognised as heroes.
One MP, Trivimi Velliste, said: "Thousands fought for the Estonian republic then. The least we can do is recognise their struggle for liberation."
http://tinyurl.com/menoj

North American Union to Replace USA?
by Jerome R. Corsi
Posted May 19, 2006
President Bush is pursuing a globalist agenda to create a North American Union, effectively erasing our borders with both Mexico and Canada. This was the hidden agenda behind the Bush administration's true open borders policy.
Secretly, the Bush administration is pursuing a policy to expand NAFTA to include Canada, setting the stage for North American Union designed to encompass the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. What the Bush administration truly wants is the free, unimpeded movement of people across open borders with Mexico and Canada.
President Bush intends to abrogate U.S. sovereignty to the North American Union, a new economic and political entity which the President is quietly forming, much as the European Union has formed.
The blueprint President Bush is following was laid out in a 2005 report entitled "Building a North American Community" published by the left-of-center Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). The CFR report connects the dots between the Bush administration's actual policy on illegal immigration and the drive to create the North American Union:
At their meeting in Waco, Texas, at the end of March 2005, U.S. President George W. Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin committed their governments to a path of cooperation and joint action. We welcome this important development and offer this report to add urgency and specific recommendations to strengthen their efforts.
What is the plan? Simple, erase the borders. The plan is contained in a "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" little noticed when President Bush and President Fox created it in March 2005:
In March 2005, the leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States adopted a Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), establishing ministerial-level working groups to address key security and economic issues facing North America and setting a short deadline for reporting progress back to their governments. President Bush described the significance of the SPP as putting forward a common commitment "to markets and democracy, freedom and trade, and mutual prosperity and security." The policy framework articulated by the three leaders is a significant commitment that will benefit from broad discussion and advice. The Task Force is pleased to provide specific advice on how the partnership can be pursued and realized.
To that end, the Task Force proposes the creation by 2010 of a North American community to enhance security, prosperity, and opportunity. We propose a community based on the principle affirmed in the March 2005 Joint Statement of the three leaders that "our security and prosperity are mutually dependent and complementary." Its boundaries will be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter within which the movement of people, products, and capital will be legal, orderly and safe. Its goal will be to guarantee a free, secure, just, and prosperous North America.
The perspective of the CFR report allows us to see President Bush's speech to the nation as nothing more than public relations posturing and window dressing. No wonder President Vincente Fox called President Bush in a panic after the speech. How could the President go back on his word to Mexico by actually securing our border? Not to worry, President Bush reassured President Fox. The National Guard on the border were only temporary, meant to last only as long until the public forgets about the issue, as has always been the case in the past.
The North American Union plan, which Vincente Fox has every reason to presume President Bush is still following, calls for the only border to be around the North American Union -- not between any of these countries. Or, as the CFR report stated:
The three governments should commit themselves to the long-term goal of dramatically diminishing the need for the current intensity of the governments’ physical control of cross-border traffic, travel, and trade within North America. A long-term goal for a North American border action plan should be joint screening of travelers from third countries at their first point of entry into North America and the elimination of most controls over the temporary movement of these travelers within North America.
Discovering connections like this between the CFR recommendations and Bush administration policy gives credence to the argument that President Bush favors amnesty and open borders, as he originally said. Moreover, President Bush most likely continues to consider groups such as the Minuteman Project to be "vigilantes," as he has also said in response to a reporter's question during the March 2005 meeting with President Fox.
Why doesn’t President Bush just tell the truth? His secret agenda is to dissolve the United States of America into the North American Union. The administration has no intent to secure the border, or to enforce rigorously existing immigration laws. Securing our border with Mexico is evidently one of the jobs President Bush just won't do. If a fence is going to be built on our border with Mexico, evidently the Minuteman Project is going to have to build the fence themselves. Will President Bush protect America's sovereignty, or is this too a job the Minuteman Project will have to do for him?
Mr. Corsi is the author of several books, including "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry" (along with John O'Neill), "Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil" (along with Craig R. Smith), and "Atomic Iran: How the Terrorist Regime Bought the Bomb and American Politicians." He is a frequent guest on the G. Gordon Liddy radio show. He will soon co-author a new book with Jim Gilchrist on the Minuteman Project.
http://tinyurl.com/rsltt


Bush, Fox, Martin announce new security, economic cooperation
Posted: 3/23/2005 3:47:58 PM
WACO, Texas (AP) - President Bush says prosperity and security "go hand-in-hand."



He and his Canadian and Mexican counterparts today announced a pact to strengthen cooperation between the three countries on security and economic issues. After meeting today in Waco, Texas, Bush said the three leaders had "a good discussion" about trade, border security and other issues. Relations between the three North American countries cooled after America's northern and southern neighbors opposed the Iraq war. Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin says the countries need a "renewed partnership." The leaders met for more than an hour at the university and are having lunch at Bush's sprawling ranch in nearby Crawford.
http://tinyurl.com/qsrlw

Amid strains, Bush, Fox, Martin vow cooperation on security, economic issues
By Jennifer Loven
11:07 a.m. March 23, 2005
Associated Press
Mexican President Vicente Fox, left, President Bush, center, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin walk into a news conference in Waco, Texas, Wednesday.
WACO, Texas – President Bush, seeking smooth relations with U.S. neighbors despite dustups over immigration, trade and defense, announced on Wednesday a pact with Canada and Mexico to broaden cooperation on security and economic issues.
"We had a good discussion about prosperity and security. It turns out the two go hand-in-hand," Bush said. "We've got a lot of trade with each other and we intend to keep it that way. We've got a lot of crossings of the borders and intend to make our borders more secure and facilitate legal traffic."
Neither Mexico nor Canada backed Bush's decision to invade Iraq, and that chilled relations between Bush and the two nations early in his first term. Relations have generally remained amiable, however, and all three leaders – Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin – all appeared cordial when they met with reporters here after their trilateral meeting.
The need for strong relations among the three North American neighbors will outlast political developments, Bush said.
"We've got a lot to do, so we charged our ministers with the task of figuring out how best to keep these relationships vibrant and strong," he said.
Bush greeted Fox with a hearty handshake and said "Hola" as the Mexican president stepped out of his limousine at a Baylor University library, adorned with the flags of the three nations. A few minutes earlier, the reception Bush offered Martin was only slightly less effusive.
"The world does not stand still," Martin said in French, through an interpreter. "In a world in constant change we need the renewed partnership – more strong, more dynamic and we must have a roadmap that will bring us there."
The three issued a statement jointly saying that while all three nations have worked to enhance trade and have taken steps since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 to address terrorism "more needs to be done."
The leaders met for more than an hour at the university and were having lunch at Bush's sprawling ranch in nearby Crawford. It was during less formal conversations that some of the most contentious issues in U.S.-Mexican and U.S.-Canadian relations were expected to surface.
Ottawa, for instance, is irritated that the United States is keeping its border closed to Canadian beef, because of lingering concerns over mad-cow disease, and maintaining punitive tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber. Washington isn't pleased at the Canadian government's surprise snub last month of U.S. plans for a North American missile defense shield.
Martin said Canada would not reconsider its decision against joining the U.S. missile defense program. But he added, "The defense of North America is not only going to take place in North America. Canada is playing an increasing role in Afghanistan."
With Mexico, Fox is pushing the United States to back immigration reform. Bush's hopes for a guest-worker program were dashed by the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, which refocused U.S. attention on securing borders.
Bush still advocates liberalizing immigration, but the proposal has generated broad opposition among conservatives, a core Bush constituency.
"There's some million people a day crossing the border from Mexico into the United States, which presents a common issue, and that is how do we make sure those crossing the border are not terrorists or drug runners or gun runners or smugglers," Bush said. "I have told the president that I will continue to push for reasonable, common sense immigration policy with the United States Congress."
If there is an opening for a job an American doesn't want to take – a "willing worker and a willing employer" – that job ought to be filled by a legal immigrant.
"I think we ought to have a policy that does not jeopardize those who stood in line to become legal citizens," he said. "But there's a better way to enforce our border, and one way is to be compassionate and decent about the workers who are coming here to the Unitded States."
With Mexico, relations also are strained by the Bush administration's anger over a high Mexican tax on soft drinks made with high fructose corn syrup, water owed to U.S. farmers and the suspicion that Mexico could do more on drug trafficking and to address fears that al-Qaeda agents are slipping into the United States from the south.
Mexican officials complain about vigilante groups hunting illegal immigrants in Arizona, new U.S. walls being built along the border and the still-stalled status of a guest worker immigration liberalization proposal.
U.S. officials fully expect many – if not all – of these issues to come up, raised casually by the leaders during the 20-minute helicopter ride from the meeting site to Bush's ranch, or over the hour-long lunch there, or during a brief tour the president planned to give his guests of his beloved property.
Also not an official part of the meeting but expected to be discussed was Bush's unrealized wish – backed by Mexico and Canada – to create a hemisphere-wide free trade area.
http://tinyurl.com/orcx7

Simple fact is that Saddam Hussein was a good man who led a good government. Iraq was a decent nationalist/socialist state with women and Christians in many privilaged positions. the country was rich, was socialist and without poverty. Everyone had work.
Thanks to the kikes and their slavish henchmen now it is a moslem extremist hell of terrorists, jihadists, murderers, rapists and thieves and mercenary american filth.

Iraq Before and After "LIBERATION"!!







The first two photos are Iraqi female students in 1963-1964; the third photo is Iraqi female students in 2006!! In other words the Iraqi women before and after "liberation"…
You can imagine the condition in Iraq through these photos. Iraq was the most developed and liberated country in the Middle East and among the Islam World although the Iraqis were devoted Moslems; yet they knew the real Islam not the Iranian imported Islam… I have no more comments.. Waiting yours..
http://thewomaniwasblog.blogspot.com/

Viva Chavez
May 19, 2006
By Mike Whitney
"We are facing the threat of global challenges stemming from the genocidal, immoral, sick, and corrupt elite currently governing the United States, which appear to have no limits" Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez



Hugo Chavez is a self-made man. He wasn’t piggy-backed into Harvard on a legacy grant (Affirmative Action for plutocrats) or shoehorned into the White House by corporate gangsters. He grew up in a two-room thatched palm-leaf house with his five siblings and dreamt of moving to New York to play baseball for the Yankees. At age 18 he chose to make the most of his meager opportunities by enlisting in the military.
For 17 years, Chavez served his country; gradually moving up the chain of command to lieutenant colonel. Unlike his American counterpart, GW Bush, Chavez never went AWOL during wartime or stumbled through years of idle profligacy peering at the world through beer-goggles.

While Bush was busy driving three consecutive companies into insolvency and fattening his bank account with the loot from insider-trading scams, Chavez was putting together the Revolutionary Bolivarian Movement; a leftist political organization which promoted redistribution and civil rights.
Chavez was lifted to the presidency on the backs of peasants and working-class people while Bush was selected by 5 venal judges who repealed the democratic process and suspended the counting of ballots.
The differences between the two men go on and on. It is an interesting study in contrasts and one that is particularly relevant to the deteriorating state of world affairs. So far, Bush’s views have carried the day; the global superpower is free to act unilaterally and without concern for either international law or basic standards of decency.
Chavez, however, has presented a competing vision of global integration, collective action, and participatory democracy. His world-view is clearly ascendant.
"Capitalism is barbarism," Chavez says; a point that is persuasively driven home in the daily accounts of butchery in Iraq, Afghanistan or Haiti. In Bush-world the mounting death toll is simply the price of opening new markets like the cheerful ringing of a cash register. Its no wonder the system is collapsing all around him.
Chavez has taken the lead in denouncing Bush and the system that supports him:
"For the horror it has created around the world in the last century, the United States’ war machine should be dismantled. It is a threat against all of mankind, particularly against our children."
He has wisely taken aim at Bush, an indigent patrician without any identifiable qualifications, as the foremost symbol of a system run amok:
"The worst genocidal leader in the history of humanity is the President of the United States. Hitler would be like a suckling baby next to George W Bush… He is a terrorist, a drunkard, and a donkey".
The stark contrast of the two men’s personalities has been a boon to Chavez. Even the feeble attacks by the media have only enhanced his popularity and strengthened his case for socialism:
"This model, the so called American way of life, the extreme capitalism, is not sustainable, life on this planet will come to an end if we continue down this road, that is why we are motivated to seek socialism and abandon capitalism, the individualism, the selfish consumerism, the so called destructive development that is destroying this planet, we are all in danger, and not so much us, our children and grandchildren."

Chavez has been a thumb in the eye of the Bush Empire. His criticism of America’s duplicitous foreign policy resonates with poor and working class people alike.

Presently, he is meeting with leaders of Libya and Algeria (supposedly) to discuss "increased cooperation on oil production" and to develop "social programs for the poor based on oil revenues". Chavez has initiated similar programs at home, but he is using his increased visibility to publicly denounce Bush and American foreign policy:

"We are against America, the imperialist. We don’t accept its hegemony. The whole world should unite against America."

Chavez’s trip comes at a time when there are renewed fears of an attack on Iran. Could it be that the Venezuelan president is actually working behind the scenes to stem the flow of oil if Iran is bombed? Or, maybe he is orchestrating a "run on the dollar" (transfer to euros) which Russia and Venezuela have already threatened? Whatever the plan, he has vehemently condemned the administration’s hostility to Iran while other nations continue to cringe.

"The world needs to do everything possible to avoid the madness of a military attack against Iran. We call upon the government of the United States to halt its warmongering, which will throw the world into an abyss of more wars, more terrorism, more death, and more desolation. Europe has a very important role to play in this, and instead of supporting this war, it should help to stop it."
Chavez has been equally blunt in his criticism of the war in Iraq. In an interview with British Channel 4 he was asked what he would do if he was living in occupied Iraq. Chavez answered:
"If I was an Iraqi I would be resisting. I would be in the trenches; I would have a rocket-launcher; I would be defending the holy sovereignty of my country against the abuses and oppression of the empire."
His sense of moral clarity is a reprieve from the evasive gibberish of other world leaders who try to soften their rhetoric so they don’t offend Washington.
In the same interview Chavez was asked (disdainfully) why people outside of his country "think he is crazy"?
Chavez responded, "If those people think I’m crazy, well, God forgive them, because they are victims of a media campaign. I am just a human being like you; no more, no less. But, I am totally devoted to this cause of equality and justice to see if we can save this planet….The great crazy guy is I Washington, not here."
Chavez is slowly transforming Venezuelan politics and making significant headway in areas of redistribution and social welfare. The country’s 25 million people now have full access to free health care and illiteracy has been eliminated. Government programs now provide15 million people with subsidized food, medicine and other essentials. Medical clinics have sprung up in every barrio in Caracas and college enrollment has increased exponentially.

Chavez has created a model of governance that is based on human needs rather than rigid ideology. This has made it more difficult to discredit him as dogmatic or authoritarian. His policies of income redistribution have created a burgeoning Venezuelan middle class which is changing the political dynamic throughout Latin America. He has become Washington’s "biggest nightmare" and a threat to America’s economic dominance in the region.
"Let's consider socialism," Chavez said. "Let's debate it and build it. I believe that mistakes were in the economic analysis, and there should be social praxis. 21st century socialism should be based on solid human values."
No one has done more to reenergize the Left than Hugo Chavez. He has become the face of anti-imperialism and the champion of progressive socialism. His views on education, poverty-reduction, social justice, and the equitable distribution of oil revenues are sweeping the hemisphere; brushing aside centuries of colonialism.
The politics of personal accumulation and perennial war are on the decline. Nothing can stop an idea whose time has come. As Chavez says, "We must embrace a new type of socialism, a humanist one, which puts humans, not machines and not the state, above everything".
This century’s Enlightenment is coming from south of the border. Viva Chavez!
http://tinyurl.com/ng4l6