ATTENTION: 20,000 surface to air and anti tank missiles missing in Libya


Approximately 20,000 portable surface-to-air missile and Russian made anti-tank missiles as well as rifle and anti aircraft ammunition have gone missing in Libya. A couple of those weapons are explained in the graphic above. (Click on to enlarge).

After a 6 month civil war that ended Qaddafi’s 42-year rule and sent him into hiding allowed the regime’s extensive armories to be fully exposed and available to looters, former rebel fighters or anyone with a truck to carry weapons away.

Weapons that could be used to knock down military planes, helicopters or drones as well as cause destruction and damage to innocent civilians.

With the US govt unsure as to who is leading the rebels in Libya and Defense Secretary Robert Gates stating that its “very possible that Al Qaeda is leading the rebellion” and the significance impact of Hamas and Hezbollah in the area makes this matter gravely serious not only for America’s security but also for Israel’s security.

Today, the White House released a press statement saying it will boost efforts to find and destroy the weapons stockpile and last week, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called on Libya’s new leaders to secure the chemical weapons and convention weapons supply.

Yet at the same time, visits by The Associated Press to weapons caches around Tripoli (the capital of Libya) show that many remain poorly guarded and have already been heavily looted.

AP reported that 12 rebels wandered around one site where a large hangar was strewn with the boxes of missing weapons. Rebels at another site were leaving with a load of tank shells they said they were taking to a safe place for storage. They acknowledged, however, that they’d found the site unguarded.

At one unguarded site, Bouckaert said he found 100,000 anti-tank and anti-personnel mines. Elsewhere, he found weapons caches hidden under fruit trees.

On a positive note,  the U.N. chief weapons watchdog said Wednesday that Libya’s remaining chemical weapon stockpiles are believed to be secure but we must remain ever viligent.

Let’s pray that we find them and confiscate the weapons before they are used against us and/or our allies.

Copyright (c) September 28, 2011. All rights reserved.

BREAKING NEWS: Al Qaeda confirmed bin Laden’s death and antagonizes the United States.


On Friday 05/6/11, Al Qaeda confirmed bin Laden’s death while still antagonizing the United States.

According to the Associated Press, Al Qaeda posted a statement on various militant websites.

“We stress that the blood of the holy warrior sheik, Osama bin Laden, God bless him, is precious to us and to all Muslims and will not go in vain. We will remain, God willing, a curse chasing the Americans and their agents, following them outside and inside their countries.”

“Soon, God willing, their happiness will turn to sadness- their blood will be mingled with their tears.”

The statement comes after President Obama announced that the administration would not release photos of bin Laden’s body so as to not enrage the U.S.’s enemies.

The AP stressed that it could not independently verify the authenticity of the statement, but that it was posted on websites al Qaeda typically uses to post messages.

I think, honestly, that it is only a matter of time before Al Qaeda seeks revenge on the US for taking out one of their beloved leaders.

I am grateful to hear from credible sources that our defense compounds, airports and security are on alert.

However to think that Al Qaeda are going to sit back on their hands and do nothing is naive.  What is needed to be known is if Al Qaeda is organized and bold enough to make a move that would most certainly prompt yet another retailation.

Honestly, I dont feel safer then I did a day before bin Laden was captured.

Al Qaeda has not posed a credible threat to us the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

If anything,  I feel more threatened because Obama just stirred the hornet’s nest by killing and then burying bin Laden at sea (which is frowned upon in the Muslim community).

Copyright (c) May 6, 2011. All rights reserved.


BREAKING NEWS in Libya: Qaddafi’s son, Saif al-Arab was killed in NATO night strike.


In an attempt at a straight up NATO execution- style night strike with 3 missiles; Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi’s compound was attacked by NATO members; resulting in killing Qaddafi’s youngest son, Saif al-Arab (29 yrs old) and 3 of his grandchildren.

The attack struck the house of Qaddafi ‘s youngest son, Seif al-Arab, when Qaddafi and his wife were inside.

Seif al-Arab Qaddafi , 29, was the youngest son of Gadhafi and brother of the better known Seif al-Islam Gadhafi, who had been referred to as a reformist before the uprising began in mid-February. The younger Gadhafi had spent much of his time in Germany in recent years and was not as into politics as other members of his family.

It is said that Qaddafi and his wife were not seriously injured in the attack.

Medic Abdel-Monem Ibsheir considered the strike a form of justice.

“Qaddafi was not far away, meaning he’s not safe,” he said as as  explosions were heard in the background,  “It’s just like our children getting hit here. Now his children are getting hit there.”

Has Qaddafi’s son and grandchildren really been affected by the night time air strike or is it more lip service by the Libyan leader in an attempt to stall NATO operations and strike sympathy from others?  I would like to see the body of  victims as Qaddafi has a habit of lying and this case is no exception.

The fatal airstrike came just hours after Qaddafi called for a mutual cease-fire and negotiations with NATO powers to end a  6 week bombing campaign stating “the door to peace is open.”

You are the aggressors. We will negotiate with you. Come, France, Italy, U.K., America, come to negotiate with us. Why are you attacking us?” asked Qaddafi.

He also railed against foreign intervention, saying Libyans have the right to choose their own political system, but not “under the threat of NATO bombings.”

The problem here is that Qaddafi talks about a cease fire but is found to be an aggressor; so essentially when people try to honor the cease fire- that is when he goes in for the kill (literally).

This has been his 4th/5th (Ive lost track now) of his pleas for a cease fire. Actions speak louder than words.

Qaddafi cant say that peace is possible when he’s bombing Misrata.

NATO has promised to continue its operations until Qaddafi stops attacking and threatening his people and all of Qaddafi’s forces return to their bases and stand down. In addition, full humanitarian access must be granted before NATO stands down.

I dont see this happening. Qaddafi is far to fearsome of regime change for him to let up for even one minute.

What I want to know is WHO within NATO launched the missiles?  I thought that it was agreed upon by the UN/NATO that strikes would be limited to command centers only?  Who changed the direction and what is the new exit strategy? If anybody knows, please email me directly at Theheartofamerica@hotmail.com.

Now I am waiting to see how Qaddafi responds. He can do 1 of 2 things. 1) He will be MAD and retaliate with force or 2) He will shriek back as that attack was too close for comfort or 3) He will utilize this “sympathy time” to gather his intelligence; as this report of fatalities were nothing but a ploy on Qaddafi’s part.

I pray its #2 but I cant help but to think that he will run with #1. Only time will tell that true implications of our involvement in this war but I can already tell you that Obama’s name will NOT be seen in a favorable light.

Who am I kidding? Obama’s name is NOT seen in a favorable light now. I think that Obama and Qaddafi are quite similar in the sense how they say one thing and then do the EXACT opposite.  Does anybody else see that correlation?

Copyright (c) April 30, 2011. All rights reserved.

Exclusive Video, Commentary and Solution on Syria Sanctions and the Importance of Diplomacy.


Reports of the Syrian government forces killing more than 400 people since mid-March with hundreds missing, 1700+ protesters being detained over the past week and cutting off telephone lines and water/electricity supplies to the general area conjoining with Bashar al-Assad’s tanks and machine gunned armed Syrian security forces entering the city of Dara’a in attempt to quell the protesters has sparked a concern from many human rights activists.

It is important to note that there has been massive fighting in Syria with Bashar al-Assad imposing violence on his people ever since Libya started rioting a couple months ago. This type of violence is nothing new to the Syrian People.

Which leads me to the question- If we were to pick a human rights violation and looking to help Israel and her people;  why would we not engage war with Syria who borders Israel?  Wouldnt that be in our best interest?

Apparently, 4 European countries think so as France, Britain, Germany and Portugal have circulated a draft media statement to the Security Council that would strongly condemn the violence against peaceful demonstrators. Although sanctions were not specifically mentioned.

Lebanon, the only Arab member of the council, has very strong ties to Syria and diplomats said it is likely to oppose a council statement as may Russia, also a friend of Syria.

Good ol’ undecided China’s U.N. Ambassador Li Baodong said “we want to get engaged with everybody and try to find a solution and to push for a political solution.”

Turkey, Iraq and Jordan (Syria’s neighboring countries) have been eerily silent on the matter.

We’ll talk about US actions at the end of this Commentary.

Some nations are wanting the US to get involved but is that really the best thing for the US at a time where the US is already committed to 3 full blown wars and an outstanding financial debt of $14.3 Trillion? Can we really afford yet another war?

The George W. Bush administration had, clearly, toughened relations in Syria — imposing new sanctions as Assad ran operations against U.S. troops in Iraq and was implicated in the murder of the Lebanese prime minister — so it will be a little more challenging to see how a non-violent shake up can play out but diplomacy and peace is possible and probable, if the US handles this correctly.

In responding to this crisis in Syria, the Obama administration is pulled by two conflicting currents.

First, Obama appears to be cautious like Syria- much like he was with Egypt- in the fear that the opposition leaders would be worse that the current situation and since the majority of Syria is terrorist based; that could prove to be detrimental to not only the US but also Israel.

(Note: The terrorist infiltration case also runs true in Libya where it is a known fact that Al Qaeda has infiltrated the leaders of the Libyan opposition and Obama has stated that he wants a regime change- so Obama’s foreign policy stance his, once again, inconsistent and much to be desired.)

May I caution the Obama administration about policing the World and encouraging regime changes when he has little information on the opposition parties (Libya anyone?) and little leverage to control events in a land very foreign to us.

Second,  there is resentment running amok as the violence escalates in the Syrian streets and the contradiction of US actions in Libya. The mentality that I predicted would form, “The US helped out the opposition in Libya- why will the US not help us?!” is indeed taking place.

It is a belief of many that Assad is no reformer. Rather, he is an ally of Iran, a supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah. So the administration has another chance to “fight the good fight”.

Honestly? If the US was get involved in another war (I wish we wouldnt; we have enough problems and debt at home as it is) but if we were to get involved- I would RATHER get involved in Syria instead of Libya.

But, first above everything else, I would work on transitioning a new US Ambassador to Syria because; obviously, the current one is not doing a very good job.

We need to be EXTREMELY careful as Hezbollah could utilize  this opportunity to capitalize in Lebanon and work to consolidate its control and upset the status quo.

The fall of the Assads and the emergence of a more radicalized Sunni regime in Damascus could raise questions in Israel about the viability of the 1974 disengagement agreement on the Golan Heights, which has made the Syrian-Israeli border the quietest in the Middle East. A Sunni regime would also likely raise tensions with Iraq’s Shia-dominated government.

Personally, I think that the US should deploy another communicator over to assist the US Ambassador to Syria because obviously; he’s not doing a very good job getting a message of “Peace and Prosperity” across.

We should not under any circumstances remove our ambassador from Syria. I realize that there was not an ambassador there before Obama placed him but now, since it has been established, revoking such a position could prove to backfire as we need as many “peaceful” eyes and ears near ground zero.

If that fails to work, THEN and ONLY then; should we place an asset freeze and travel restrictions on the Syrian president and close allies as we have exhausted all means of diplomacy.

After the asset freeze and travel restrictions are placed and if  Bashar al-Assad is continuing to use violence- then we should consider how else we can resolve the matter.

Regime change should only be pushed IF we know WHO we are supporting. We already made that mistake in Libya- let’s not support terrorists again. This would be especially dangerous as Syria borders Israel and would give terrorists direct access to wage war with the holy land.

I feel that diplomacy is possible within Syria but our current way of going about it is not working; let’s focus on reshaping our diplomacy efforts before we consider freezing assets and travel restrictions; especially use of force as that should be our last resort.

US-Syria communication is blocked and we must take steps to get the communication flowing in the right direction before the US gets forceful.

Perhaps the US can talk to the UN Human Rights Council and see what type of diplomatic measures are available within the UN.

NOTE TO OBAMA: Please get Congressional approval before invading Syria so we can comply with the US Constitution as well as join efforts with other nations so that we are not singled out.

Copyright (c) April 27, 2011. All rights reserved.

Obama’s defensive speech for the US’s Libyan operations- “F” for Failure & Fabrication of Truth.


On March 28, 2011- President Obama took to the podium at the National Defense University in Fort McNair, Washington DC in defense of his premature actions in Libya and his “forgetfulness”  in consulting Congress before committing to air strikes and an offensive approach in Libya.

Watching Obama’s speech with a mixture of skepticism, unbelief and at this point- pure resentment for getting us involved in a battle that we have no means (personally or financially) to be a part of, I had to balk at some of President Obama’s “talking points”.

Who is Obama trying to convince that this war on Libya was a good idea- the general public or himself?

While I understood what President Obama was trying to accomplish with the freeze of $33 billion assets on Qaddafi’s regime, furthering our sanctions and imposing an arms embargo in an attempt to convince Qaddafi to stop using massive force against his people, Ive questioned from the beginning if the United States knew who they were supporting in an attempt to rid Qaddafi of his regime.

Then, out of the blue, I heard reports that the United States were going to lead an offensive air strike against Qaddafi since he violated the UN restricted “no fly zone” (another military operation that I was against from the beginning and as I said- would result in a war with Libya and her allies.)

During his defensive speech, President Obama stated, “And so nine days ago, after consulting the bipartisan leadership of Congress, I authorized military action to stop the killing and enforce UN Security Council Resolution 1973.”

Whoa, wait a second- Did President Obama just state that he consulted Congress before engaging in an offensive attack? I had to rewind the program and check the written transcripts, yes- he sure did.

That statement is a BOLD FACE LIE. President Obama DID NOT consult Congress which is why there is an uproar from people on the Right and the Left as President Obama violated Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution by not consulting Congress or declare war before entering Libya on the offensive.

Not that it surprises me that President Obama lied as he has a history of saying one thing and doing the other but it floored me that night as it is shameful that President Obama did not follow the US Constitution (especially since he was a Constitutional Professor, one would think he would recognize the US Constitution of its importance- especially when going into war) but he flat out lied, to the People, about how this war started.

How could he consult Congress when the Congress was not even in session?  Im still shocked that he would, so openly, try to twist the truth of the uninformed voters.

President Obama stated that we were joined by a “strong coalition” of France, the United Kingdom, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Italy, Spain, Greece, Turkey and the Arab League but were we really?

The only countries that I have seen really step up to the plate is France, Britain and the United States. In this instance, I feel that we are the “holy trinity” with the other countries in the background cheering us on.

Granted, Canada has stepped up more now that NATO is implemented and the United States will fall under Canadian Lt General Bouchard in which I am grateful. It is also true that Qatar from the Arab League has stepped up a smidgen but they are far from the leads on this offensive.

Not too mention where is the rest of the Arab League? One of the main pushes for going into the Libyan war is that the Arab League asked for our involvement but then when we got involved- they hid in the shadows. Was that their plan all along?

In an almost comical statement from our President, “It is true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs. And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action.”-  I have to wonder if he applied that logic to the Libyan operations.

It sure doesnt seem like it as President Obama has not given a budget or financial impact report on Libya. It is known that within the first day, $100 million were spent on Tomahawk Missiles and basic overhead cost with the cost increasing exponentially, piling on top of our already massive $14.3 trillion debt.

President Obama stated, “So while I will never minimize the costs involved in military action, I am convinced that a failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price for America.”

I have to disagree as Defense Secretary Robert Gates stated that Libya was NOT an immediate threat. Granted, we receive 2% of our oil from Libya and we prefer Libyan oil as it is sweeter and much easier to refine so that would be a major complication but our safety was not at risk and is untruthful for Obama to continue to state otherwise.

In a confused statement, Obama proclaimed, “To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq. Thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our troops and the determination of our diplomats, we are hopeful about Iraq’s future. But regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya.”

If that is the case, then why has President Obama not laid out a clear, decisive and directive plan and exit strategy? Looks like more fluff and empty statements from our “Commander in Chief” (and I use that term loosely).

Obama then stated, “I have made it clear that I will never hesitate to use our military swiftly, decisively, and unilaterally when necessary to defend our people, our homeland, our allies, and our core interests. That is why we are going after al Qaeda wherever they seek a foothold.”

What Obama is failing to grasp is that the US and her people were not “attacked” and Libya did not pose a direct threat to our safety.

Further, how can Obama state that we are going after Al Qaeda in places like Afghanistan yet are willing to take a chance in supporting them (and Obama is pushing to coordinate their command centers and arming the opposition) when Defense Secretary Robert Gates claimed that he has “not ruled out that the Libyan opposition is infiltrated with Al Qaeda”.

Who is really the enemy here? Isnt that slight hypocritical, and dangerous, on our part to blindly support the opposition without knowing who is really pulling the puppet strings and without knowing their intentions and long term plan as the Middle East is more militaristic than democracy driven.

It appears that the general consensus on Obama’s speech left the public flat, uninspired and even more skeptical of our involvement in Libya.

I dont feel that Obama made any case for our involvement other than appealing to our emotional side but I am a woman of logic, facts, financial figures and strategy.

Since he did not give any true detail on that- I give Obama a huge F for FORGETTING that the US Constitution must be followed at all times, for FABRICATING the Truth and claiming he received Congressional Approval when it is a known fact that he did not and for FAILING the American People as our President.

Copyright (c) April 1, 2011. All rights reserved.

BREAKING NEWS: 3 types of Plutonium and Caesium 137 has been found in addition to Iodine 131 near Japanese reactors and what can be taken to counteract.


Not only has  radioactive iodine 131 been detected outside the Fukushima nuclear plant but 3 types of potent Plutonium and Caesium 137, has been found at 5 different points inside the plant grounds.

Officials are declining to indicate which types of Plutonium has been found which is concerning as the half life on Plutonium can range anywhere from PU-233’s 20 minute half life to PU-239’s half life of 24,000 years.

In comparison, Iodine 131 has a half life of 8 days and is expected to disappear in a few weeks.  Caesium 137, which has a half-life of 30.17 years is more of a concern of mine as it poses a health threat for far longer.

Back in 1986, the Chernobyl accident report stated that highly contaminated areas were defined as those with over 1490 kilobequels (kBq) of caesium per square metre. Vegetables and fruits from soil with 550 kBq/m2 were destroyed.

In Japan, the highest contaminated level was 6400 kBq/m2, about 35 kilometres away, while caesium reached 1816 kBq/m2 in Nihonmatsu City and 1752 kBq/m2 in the town of Kawamata.

“Some of the numbers are really high,” says Gerhard Proehl, Head of Assessment & Management of Environmental Releases at the International Atomic Energy Agency.

There are many dependents to note that indicate the severity of the caesium as sandy soil releases it but clay containment binds it. Analysis has not been done on the different areas to see what type of land mass has come into contact with the caesium.

Either way, people need to be on the lookout for iodine 131 and caesium 137 contamination.

As well as the Japanese, US & Canadian government needs to be proactive in setting up testing and analysis to ensure as little contamination breach as possible. Our lives may very well depend on it.

Caesium 137 is water-soluble and the biological behavior of caesium is similar to that of potassium and rubidium.  

Once it enters the body, caesium centralizes in muscle tissues.

Experiments with dogs showed that a single dose of 3800 μCi/kg (approx. 44 μg/kg of caesium-137) is lethal within three weeks.

Good news- If caseium is accidentally swallowed (in the case of drinking containment tap water/milk or vegetables/fruits) , it can be treated with the chemical called Prussian blue, which binds to it chemically and then speeds it expulsion from the body.

Copyright (c) March 29, 2011. All rights reserved.

EXCLUSIVE VIDEO: Air strikes in Tripoli, Libya. US fighter jet crashes.


President Obama’s Unconstitutional War with Libya and Call for Impeachment from Both Sides of the Political Fence.


President Obama has longed for bipartisan support to his directives and finally he received it.

However, this bipartisan support does not work in President Obama’s favor as many on both sides of the political fence are coming together under a mutual agreement that President Obama directly violated Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution which separated powers for the decision to go into war intentionally with the approval of Congress, in an attempt to thwart the tyranny of kings.

In fact, one of the US’s Founding Fathers, James Madison stated, “The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature”.

However, President Obama has proven time and time again that he feels that he is above the law and has shown that he is willing to strip rights away from people (this time not just the common people but the legislature at large!)

In a harshly worded statement Monday evening, Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.) declared, “The United States does not have a King’s army.”

“President Obama’s unilateral choice to use U.S. military force in Libya is an affront to our Constitution,” said Bartlett, a senior member of the House Armed Services Committee.

Sen. Richard Lugar, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a frequent ally of the president on foreign policy, also called Monday for “full congressional debate on the objectives and costs” of  military action in Libya — and a declaration of war if it goes on.

“There needs to be a plan about what happens after Qaddafi” Lugar said in a statement. “Who will be in charge then, and who pays for this all. President Obama, so far, has only expressed vague hopes.”

Not that these “grand hopes with little detail” should be a surprise to everyone as he ran his campaign on the vague concepts of “hope” and “change” and let the American people fill in the blanks with whatever their definition of hope and change was without setting a clear sense of direction.

Much like Operation Odyssey Dawn.

This time though, the criticism is not coming from just the Republican side of the camp but also that of his own party.

Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), a member of the Armed Services Committee, told MSNBC Monday “this isn’t the way our system is supposed to work.”

“We have not put this issue in front of the American people in any meaningful way,” said Webb. “The president is in Rio, the Congress is out of session.”

In a conference call over the weekend, several House Democrats reportedly raised questions about the president’s action in Libya, without having consulted Congress.

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) said Monday the president should have done so.

“I truly believe that before we put our young people in harm’s way that people in the Congress should be able to explain to their constituents that our national security was in jeopardy,” he said.

Obama secured United Nations approval in the form of a security council resolution that calls for the protection of Libyan citizens, and waited until the Arab League endorsed a no-fly zone, despite initial opposition.

However,  Under the War Powers Resolution, a president must get congressional authorization to deploy U.S. troops except in the case of a clear threat or emergency to the US.

It is important to note that the US was not in direct danger- our gas prices rose but as far as physical danger- we were not at risk. Even Defense Secretary Robert Gates agrees.

That is, the Libyan circumstances does not justify President Obama authorizing air strikes on Qaddafi without the approval of Congress, a concept that Obama is failing to grasp.

Quoting the War Powers Resolution is all well and good and I would be supportive of his action if the Libyan turmoil presented a direct and imminent threat here at the United States but it doesnt.

What President Obama did was essentally get involved in a civil rights battle in the middle east.

For all of you who are saying that he is protecting human rights of freedom, ask yourself this– If that is what Obama was really doing, then how come he did not intervene in Tunisia, Egypt, Algeria, Jordan, Bahrain and Yemen as the leading government was oppressing their rights to freedom.  President Obama was oddly silent on those happenings.

If you are going to fight for human rights, then they must always be defended- not selected by the President WITHOUT the approval of Congress.

Once again, the Obama of Yesteryear conflict with Obama of the Current Times as  in 2007, Obama told The Boston Globe that it is always “preferable” to have “the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.”

Obama even goes further to say, “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” Obama said, responding to a question about when a president could bomb Iran without use-of-force authorization from Congress.

In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch.”

On Monday afternoon, responding to the congressional pushback, he sent a 2 page  letter to Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), the president pro tem of the Senate, offering excuses for violating the Constitution, ahem, asserting his constitutional authority.

He noted he did not deploy ground troops into Libya and that the U.S. is conducting a “limited and well-defined mission in support of international efforts to protect civilians and prevent a humanitarian disaster.”

Well defined mission? It is apparent that there is NOT a long term consequence plan mapped out.

He said he “directed these actions, which are in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States, pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive.”

“I am providing this report as part of my efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution,” he wrote. “I appreciate the support of the Congress in this action.”

Further, Obama did not mention the budgetary impact of the military campaign in that letter, but cost has become a flashpoint.

Proven, once again, Obama does not take the budgetary consequences of how actions into consideration.

Our Founding Fathers were absolutely clear in their demand that the country would only go to war upon the collective decision of the representatives of the People.

“The facts are that our budget is stretched too far and our troops are stretched too far,” Lugar said in a statement. “The American people require a full understanding and accounting, through a full and open debate in Congress.”

Additionally, a primary reason for creating a system of representation was due to exigencies of the day that made it impossible for the People to meet and decide their fate in person.

Thus, the true reason for entrusting the Legislature with the power to declare war was to ensure that the People would be involved in the decision as much as was physically possible.

What the Framers did not imagine was a weak and ineffectual Congress that failed to claim its rightful authority in deciding when the nation would go to war, or a power-hungry President that wouldn’t refuse an extra-constitutional transfer of such power from Congress.

If a President failed to recognize the US Constitution in pursuing a war with a country that posed no liable threat to the US- that would be room for impeachment.

Even VP Biden supports impeaching Obama for his offensive into Libya. Well, he didnt say those words exactly but what he DID say was that he would look to impeach Bush if he went into Iran without congressional approval (video evidence below)- so he should stand behind his belief  or else prove to be hypocritical.

What can WE do about it? For starters, you can contact:

Obama’s staff directly at 1-202-456-1111.  Try it, you get to talk to a live person.

Tell them that we need to regroup and figure out the long term plan, BUDGET and EXIT strategy as well as the cost and the increase in taxes (its either an increase in taxing or cutting more programs to balance!).

Also mention that the Libyan air strikes go against the US Constitution as it violates Section 1, Article 8 as Obama collaborated with the UNs and engaged in an offense attack without the approval of Congress.

Causally mention that our current debt of $14.3 trillion is a concern and knowing that the Tomahawk cruise missiles are $575k a piece, you are not comfortable with the fact that we, in a matter of a week, threw $73.6 million on top of our debt with the deployment of 128 Tomahawk cruise missiles.

For an added punch, tell them that you remember when VP Biden supported impeaching Bush if he went into Iran without Congressional approval and this is the exact same situation.

Also, make it a point to contact your Senators and Representatives to put more pressure on them and encourage them to stand up against President Obama (we elected them to be our voice!)

Representative Search: https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml
Senate Search: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm.

Copyright (c) March 22, 2011. All rights reserved.

EXCLUSIVE VIDEO & Commentary: Libyan protesters regaining control, thanks to the UN.


 

The barrage of attacks led by France, Britain and the US on Libya’s army, air bases and other military targets for a second day drew threats of a prolonged war from Qaddafi himself.

However, Qaddafi’s troops on the ground are in  disarray and fleeing in fear of further attacks from a new and unseen enemy.

The air bombardment is regarded among rebel military commanders as creating a more level battle field by removing Qaddafi’s advantage of heavy armour.

“There must be more attacks, to destroy his forces and heavy weapons,” said Kamal Mustafa Mahmoud, a rebel soldier on the edge of Benghazi. “Then they can leave Gaddafi to us. We know how to fight him but we are afraid of his heavy weapons. I want them to destroy the ground forces of Qaddafi.”

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who has opposed the U.S. getting involved in the Libyan uprising had a few words of warning today.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the U.S. military campaign against Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi should be limited to the terms of a United Nations resolution of protecting the people rather than being broadened to target the leader directly.

The coalition with the U.K., France and Arab countries relies on the terms laid out in the UN Security Council resolution adopted last week, Gates told reporters traveling with him to Russia today on a trip he delayed yesterday so he could monitor the start of “Operation Odyssey Dawn.”

“If we start adding additional objectives, then I think we create a problem in that respect,” Gates said. “I also think that it is unwise to set as specific goals things that you may or may not be able to achieve.”

The Pentagon chief also cautioned against getting too involved in the internal conflict of that country, saying the internal conflict should be left to be resolved by Libyans themselves.

Lat Sunday,  French and British forces expanded their bombing campaign with smoke billowing from Qaddafi’s massive Bab Azizia residential compound shortly after an earth-shaking explosion. Rounds of antiaircraft and tracer fire lit up the night for the third time in less than 24 hours.

In an effort to help the French, British & Arab League- the US changed their direction of air defense to expanding their strikes to include attacks on Libyan ground forces that threaten civilians or are able to shoot down planes enforcing a no-fly zone, a senior U.S. military official said.

War within the Democratic Party

A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday.

Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) “all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” during that call.

Kucinich even suggested that Obama had committed an impeachable offense. Ralf Nader agrees with a strong argument for impeachment due to war crimes in Afghanistan.

Speaker of the House John Boehner, Senator John McCain and Minister Farrakhan have made critical remarks.

At first, I was apprehensive with enforcing a no fly zone over Libya.  I feel that it will be more difficult for us to reach our objective since we waited long enough for Qaddafi to re-establish control.

I do applaud our military commanders on run a strict air and water battle with no forces on the ground. That is left best to the Libyan people who know the area like the back of their hand.

One thing is certain- now that President Obama has included our country to participate in the attacks on Qaddafi- we need to go smart or go home.

Copyright (c) March 21, 2011. All rights reserved.

 

Exclusive Video: U.S. Naval Academy Captain Authorizes Japan Evacuations


3/17/2011- As of 2:22pm EST; the first flight from Japan to the US has been flown. Radioactivity testing is being done at US airports intercepting flights.