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.


Advertisements

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.

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.

Fukushima water tested above safe limit on 3/17/11


Radioactive iodine in drinking water was at one point above government safety limits in the prefecture that hosts a radiation-spewing nuclear plant, the Health Ministry said early Saturday after reporting that trace amounts had also been detected in Tokyo and five other prefectures.

The Health Ministry said in a statement that iodine levels slightly above the limit were detected Thursday in Fukushima prefecture, the site of the Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear power plant where workers are scrambling to prevent radiation leaks.

On Friday, levels were about half that benchmark, and by Saturday they had fallen further.

Drinking one liter of water with the iodine at Thursday’s levels is the equivalent of receiving 1/88 of the radiation from a chest X-ray, said Kazuma Yokota, a spokesman for the prefecture’s disaster response headquarters.

Yet govt officials are failing to note that this is not a one instance case. This 1/88 of radiation will be a continuing force, as if one was getting chest x-rays once, twice or even three times a day.

Earlier, the ministry said tiny amounts of the iodine were found Friday in tap water in Tokyo and five other prefectures. The ministry says the amounts did not exceed government safety limits.

Comments regarding the specific detected amounts  were refused by the Japan and US govt.

It’s important to note that normal tests on water, which for decades were only done once a year, usually show no iodine.

Outside Fukushima, the highest reading was less than a third of the allowable limit.

Nuclear reactors at the Fukushima plant began leaking radiation in the days after the March 11 tsunami knocked out its cooling systems.

The crisis has raised public alarm about the threat to public heath, and earlier Saturday, the government acknowledged that tests found iodine in spinach and iodine and the radioactive element cesium in milk from some farms 20 to 75 miles (30 to 120 kilometers) from Fukushima.

Read more about the government acknowledgment of radiation possibility stemming from Japanese spinach and milk by visiting: https://theheartofamerica.wordpress.com/2011/03/19/radiation-has-been-found-in-milk-and-spinach-in-japan/

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.

Egypt Revolution: Interior Minister Disbands Egyptian State Security Agency


Egypt’s interior minister has disbanded the country’s feared state security agency, which was accused of torture and human rights abuses during the 30-year rule of former president Hosni Mubarak.

Major General Mansour el-Essawy, the new interior minister, announced the dissolution of the security apparatus in a statement on Tuesday.

He said a new agency in charge of keeping national security and combatting terrorism will be formed “in line with the constitution and principles of human rights”.

Officers for the new agency will be chosen in the coming few days, the statement said, adding that the new agency will “serve the country without intervening in the lives of citizens while they practice their rights and political life”.

The move meets one of the main demands of activists who led an 18-day uprising against Mubarak, who stepped down on February 11.

The security branch, which was empowered to conduct emergency trials, was widely hated and its officers accused of committing torture.

The move was announced as Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, visited the capital, Cairo in a bid to lend support to Egypt during its transition.

Speaking at a joint news conference with the Egyptian foreign minister Nabil Elaraby during a visit to Cairo on Tuesday, Clinton welcomed the announcment.

Al Jazeera’s James Bays, reporting from Cairo, said the timing of the announcement could have been a bid to deliver good news during her visit.

But he said the dissolution of the state security agency also came as welcome news to many Egyptians because the role of the apparatus had expanded in recent years.

“They’d become a separate police force that seemed to be involved in torture, surveillance, tapping people’s phones,” he said.

“They were able to start cases against people and then actually prosecute people and imprison people. So they were a very hated force.”

“They’ve now been replaced by a new national security agency; new staff are being recruited for that agency and we’re told it will have a more defined role.”

Yet, there will be some among the pro-democracy activists who say that does not go far enough, and who would like to see prosecutions against those who were leading the old agency.

Protesters stormed several state security buildings in Egypt earlier this month, seizing documents to keep them from being destroyed to hide evidence of human rights abuses.

Many official documents were already shredded in piles or burned in what protesters believe was an attempt to hide evidence incriminating senior officials in abuses. Some also searched the building for secret detention rooms.

Egypt’s State Security Investigations (SSI), which were given a free hand by emergency laws under Mubarak, were some of the most powerful symbols of the former regime.

With the disbanding of the current Egyptian State Security Agency and the election of new representatives- perhaps Egypt really is on the road to recovery. One can only hope.

Copyright (c) March 15, 2011. All rights reserved.

Libya: Rebels flee Ras Lanuf, signaling a shift in momentum


Loyalists of Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi forced rebel fighters to flee the strategic oil town of Ras Lanuf Thursday after being assaulted by land, sea and air.

The city mosque was hit by an air strike, and the hospital was evacuated in the afternoon after several attacks nearby.

Commercial and military ships hit the town with artillery and rockets, adding a third dimension to the usual mix of ground and air attacks that have become a part of the daily menu of fighting along the east-west highway between Bin Jawwad and Ras Lanuf.

At least one air strike was aimed at a rebel checkpoint on the edge of Brega, about a hundred miles east of Ras Lanuf, suggesting that the pro-Qaddafi forces may be ranging further east.

At the Red Crescent Hospital outside of Brega, which was receiving the dead and wounded from today’s battle following the closure of the Ras Lanuf hospital, four were reported dead and approximately 20 wounded.

The battle for control over Libya has pitted a well-armed, organized and often ruthless military against a group of protesters.

“I’m not a soldier, I’m a student,” said a protester in Ras Lanuf, brandishing his gun, his eyes intense and his voice quivering.

He had just retreated from the east-west highway after a heavy assault by government troops. “I’ve never held a gun before and Qaddafi is killing us from the sea, from the air.”

When the protesters captured Ras Lanuf a week ago, it was seen as a major victory for the opposition. Now, it appears the tide may be turning.

Qaddafi’s son, Seif al-Islam vowed Thursday to retake the eastern half of the country, which has been held by rebel forces for the past few weeks

He told a crowd of supporters in Tripoli: “I have two words to our brothers and sisters in the east: We’re coming” acting as if the Eastern population is held prisoner by the opposition.

Qaddafi troops earlier claimed victory over Zawiya, a town about 30 miles from Tripoli that had been held by rebels.

The town was the scene of intense fighting on Wednesday, with the town’s central square reportedly changing hands several times as rebels tried to hold off an onslaught by Qaddafi tanks and snipers. By the end of the day, government forces claimed to have gained the upper hand.

“Qaddafi is in this for the long haul,” James Clapper said, as reported in the BBC. “I don’t think he has any intention, despite some of the press speculation to the contrary, of leaving. From all evidence that we have… he appears to be hunkering down for the duration.”

American and other intelligence officials claim that Qaddafi has tens of billions of dollars in cash hidden away in Tripoli that will enable him to continue his fight against the rebels.

The money, which is controlled by Qaddafi, enables the leader to pay his troops, mercenaries and political supporters as the uprising continues for a third week.

The EU showed signs of confusion and disunity Thursday over how to handle the Libya crisis, the Independent reports.

As the EU tried to present a unified front, France chose to break out on its own and become the first nation to recognize the rebels’ national council as the country’s “legitimate representative.” Way to go, France.

“France is playing the role of breaking the ice for the European Union. This is the first nail in the coffin of Qaddafi. I expect Europe and Italy to follow as they consume the majority of Libyan oil.” stated, Heart of America’s Executive Editor, Denise Haywald.

Divisions also emerged over a decision to implement a no fly zone over Libya. Some European countries and the United States have expressed hesitation over being drawn into what could become a civil war.

“We do not want to get sucked into a war in North Africa,” said German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle.

I cant say I blame the hesitation as placing sanctions and removing military and embassy operations is one but instituting a no fly zone which can only be done by controlling the Libyan air space, is quite another.

Copyright (c) March 10, 2011. All rights reserved.

Europe, Britian, Canada, US, Germany & Switzerland move to freeze the assets of Libyan President.


Nations around the world are moving to freeze the assets of  Libya’s President- Muammar Gaddafi in an attempt to pressure the Libyan leader to stand down.  As of date, these nations include:

Britain

Britain on Sunday became the latest country to freeze billions of dollars worth of investments including those of Gaddafi’s children, and lifted his diplomatic immunity.

“We are now putting serious pressure on this regime,” David Cameron, the British prime minister, said on Sunday.

“The travel ban and the asset freeze are the measures we are taking against the regime to show just how isolated they are.”

The British government has also barred the export of uncirculated Libyan banknotes from Britain without a license, amid reports that there have been attempts to move around $1.5bn in uncirculated Libyan banknotes out of the UK.

Canada

Canada also made moves on Sunday to freeze the assets of Gaddafi and his family, and to halt financial transactions between Ottawa and the government in Tripoli.

“Far from protecting the Libyan people against peril, he [Gaddafi] is the root cause of the dangers they face,” Stephen Harper, the Canadian prime minister, said in a televised statement.

“It is clear that the only acceptable course of action for him is to halt the bloodshed and to immediately vacate his position and authority,” he said.

United States

The moves by Britain and Canada came after the US announced it was placing sanctions on Libya. Barack Obama, the president, signed an executive order on Friday freezing any financial assets tied to Gaddafi’s government that were held by US banks and institutions throughout the world.

“The Libyan government’s continued violation of human rights, brutalization of its people, and outrageous threats have rightly drawn the strong and broad condemnation of the international community,” Obama said in a statement.

“These sanctions therefore target the Gaddafi government, while protecting the assets that belong to the people of Libya.”

Germany

Germany said on Monday it was proposing a 60-day freeze on all financial payments to Libya in a bid to stop funds from reaching Gaddafi.

“We are therefore working to ensure that all financial flows are cut off,” Guido Westerwelle, the German finance minister said.

Switzerland

Switzerland has also frozen the assets of Gaddafi and his family, condemning the use of violence by Libyan forces against civilians.

Australia has stated that it is investigating claims that the Libyan leader has stashed millions of dollars in the country.

Kevin Rudd, the country’s foreign minister, said it was time for Gaddafi to step down.

“For the sake of humanity, go now!” he said, comparing the leader’s actions to genocides in Rwanda, Srebrenica and Darfur.

Finally, Europe!

Read more about the steps that the European Union uses and their 80% consumption of Libyan oil, by visiting: https://theheartofamerica.wordpress.com/2011/02/28/eu-approves-sanctions-against-libya/

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

EU approves sanctions against Libya


The European Union has agreed upon sanctions against Libyan strongman Moammar Gadhafi, including an arms embargo, asset freeze and visa ban.

Monday’s decision was made by the EU ambassadors meeting to assess the rapidly deteriorating situation in the north African nation, said Hungarian Energy Minister Tamas Fellegi.

The EU “imposed an arms embargo on Libya and sanctions on those responsible for the violent crackdown on the civilian population,” Fellegi said.

The asset freeze and visa ban was targeted against Gadhafi and two dozen of his closest family and government associates.

The move came after days of increasing protest against the hundreds of deaths caused by Gadhafi military resistance against the popular uprising in his country.

The measures are aimed at reinforcing Saturday’s U.N. Security Council measures. The EU also includes measures to ban sale of any equipment that might be used for repression by Gadhafi.

Great call, Europe! I agree with all steps taken.

I will be watching your nation in your dealing with Libya as you consume 80% of their oil.

You will be leading by example. God bless and God speed.

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