Friday, May 27, 2011

Napolitano in Embarrassing Position with Administration

Napolitano in Embarrassing Position with Administration
Al Ritter

In a ruling by the Supreme Court yesterday, Arizona will now have states power in the enforcement of business hiring practices involving legal versus illegal immigrants. The ironic part of this whole case revolves around the fact that it was Janet Napolitano, then governor of Arizona that signed this legislation into law in 2007.

Napolitano has since reversed her stance on the role of state’s rights versus federal rights. Now she makes it clear that the intent of this Administration is to ignore federal laws already on the books and continue as an “open border” country. It seems funny that this very law sought to give Arizona the right to enforce hiring practices within the state, that the federal government refused to enforce, but now she disagrees with it.

This Supreme Court opinion could give a small glimpse into a future ruling on Arizona bill SB1070 sure to eventually make its way to the higher court. The left says this is a victory for the conservatives, when in actuality it is a victory for our homeland security……… ironic for Janet Napolitano!

Wednesday, May 25, 2011


Kevin Bryant

“Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it” – There are many versions of this quote attributed to many different people. Though we may never know the true version first spoken or who said it, one thing will always remain true and that is the truth of the statement itself.

To borrow and adapt a line from Michelle Obama, I can honestly say after this past week, for the first time in my life, I AM TRULY ASHAMED OF MY PRESIDENT AND MY GOVERNMENT.

First I would like to say this: How dare the President of the United States think he can speak for me alone much less two thirds of the American people when he stated; “While the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, a secure Israel. The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their full potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state”.

Every time Israel has given successions to a non-existent Palestinian state, it has been repaid with violence and betrayal by the Palestinian people, many times resulting in death of innocent Israeli citizens. To now demand Israel revert back to the 1967 borders is an invitation to the total destruction of Israel and its people. Since the days of the Trumann Administration, American Presidents have publicly backed and supported Israel. Our current President wants to kick Israel to the curb and place blame on the Israeli government for everything wrong in the Middle East. Obama received 70% of the Jewish vote and millions of dollars in support in 2008. For some reason I don’t think he will be getting the same support this time around.

Roughly two thirds of Americans were appalled by the president’s speech, me included. Is President Obama America’s equivalent of Arthur Neville Chamberlain, British Prime Minister May, 1937 to May, 1940 and arguably the world’s most spineless head of state. Does he desire peace though concessions? Does he actually believe Palestine will support Israel of they give up territory that never did belong to imaginary Palestinian state to begin with? History says Israel obtains the land in a war with Jordan. Why not demand Jordan to concede land for a Palestinian state? That would make more sense. Why must Israel pay?

Where are our elected leaders of congress on this? We know 90% of the democrats in congress only care about three things and in this order 1) their political survival, 2) amassing more power and 3) inflating their own bank accounts. I have never been a big fan of John Boehner and Eric Cantor, and from what I have seen over the past year, their spines combined do not equal that of Nancy Pelosi or Steny Hoyer and combined they do not equal half the amount of spine and guts of that of Dennis Kucinich. At least he will stand up on the house floor and speak and vote against the majority of democrats when he disagrees with them. Why are none of the members of either house of congress speaking out and saying the president may believe these things but the congress and the American people are standing with and support the rights of Israel to be a free and secure Middle East state and the President does not speak for us.

Yes, I AM ASHAMED of those in government who are supposed to be leaders, who were elected to be leaders and who are supposed represent me, you and America.

Friday, May 20, 2011

Why are Ron Paul Followers so Anti-Semitic?

Why are Ron Paul Followers so Anti-Semitic?
Al Ritter

Last night I participated in a conversation that was filled so much with hatred against the Israelis that it truly scared me. A woman and a man both in their early 30’s had swayed a conversation from GM cars to how the Israelis should be thrown from their country.

Ron Paul claims that he thinks that Israel should have their foreign aid cut along with every other country, but has no animosity towards Israel. Whatever he has done to brainwash the youth of this country is dangerous to well-being of our country. He denies that he himself is anti-Semitic but does nothing to change the stance of his followers.

Paul’s followers are an enigma to me, they follow no normal pattern, although they are young, they blindly follow a 76 year old who is clearly a confrontational bigot, and their allegiance is carried out in the typical way SEIU and Acorn handle theirs…….rudely and violently. The Libertarian Party claims to be the party of the “founding fathers,” but to anyone who has read the founding father‘s documents, it is clear that the founding fathers would be insulted by such an association.

Paul claims to have some exclusive connection to the Constitution, and to anyone who questions his motives, he answers with hostility and belligerence, and as a result his followers act in the same manner.

I urge everyone of sound mind to read ALL the founding father’s documents from the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, to the Federalist Papers, to the Constitution itself, and judge for yourself whether or not you fall into the category of a Ron Paul follower or a Constitutional thinker!

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Differences in a Republic and Democracy According to Madison

Differences in a Republic and Democracy According to Madison
Al Ritter

I recently embarked on a quest for knowledge about the evolution of our government. I knew of course about the Declaration of Independence in 1776, but from that point forward my grasp on how we came to be took a clouded turn.

Our country formally began in 1776, but not under the Constitution as we know it now, but under “Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.” This was our first “Constitution.” It only took 10 years for this document to be outdated, and as George Washington opined, “The problem is money, and we have none.” The original Constitution had no teeth from which to collect taxes from the various states. Certain states became the darlings of the Federal Government, and others flatly refused to pay taxes based on preferential treatment of others.

On September 17, 1787 a Constitutional Convention was convened in Philadelphia. The person whom presided over the convention was given the title of President of the Convention, and that person happened to be later the first president of our country, George Washington. The writing of the Constitution was accomplished in rather quick order, but the ratification process took almost 3 years. 13 original states ratified the document from December 1787 to May of 1790.

Three or our founding fathers who worked in anonymity took on the task of convincing the country through a series of 85 essays published at first In New York but eventually cross country of the importance of ratification of this new document known as the Constitution. So prolific were these essays (as often as three a week) that the people were totally mesmerized by the thought that went into them. It would later be known that the authors of these papers later to be known as the Federalist Papers were written by Alexander Hamilton (51 articles) James Madison (26 articles) and John Jay (5 articles).

These papers are used today as a peek into the past of the rationalization of though on the making of the Constitution. In these papers is the exploration of the history of governments throughout time and the reasons for their demise. It was determined that the best form of government would be a republic rather than a democracy. Madison opined that a republic is a representative government rather than a democratic government which needed to be done in person rather than by representative. He sighted the governments of Rome and Greece as having democratic rule and thus was the lead reason of their downfall. Sighted below are Madison’s remarks pertaining to the two different style governments.

“The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations:

In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.

In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters.
It must be confessed that in this, as in most other cases, there is a mean, on both sides of which inconveniences will be found to lie. By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects. The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures.

The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other.

Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.

Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic,--is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage.”

James Madison, Federalist Papers # 10 Nov. 23, 1787

Wednesday, May 11, 2011

Dear Patriots

Dear Patriots:
William G. Burmer

It appears as each new day passes we are forced to endure more and more lies and distortions from our elected officials at all levels of government. I would say government service; but I purposely omitted the term because it has become all too obvious that they are where they are to serve themselves and not the people who elected them. I remain hopeful that some will be more forceful and (using the adjective) forthright in their efforts as time moves forward. I have taken the liberty to borrow sentences and phrases in the following paragraphs which have come from others much more gifted in speech than I. The words are not mine, I however endorse them and wish they were; for all of my efforts I could do no better.

Next to life itself I am thankful for the gift of free agency, indeed a free gift from God for which each of us should be grateful. It is the source from which Liberty is spoken, and from which conscience became an integral part of human nature; freedom not only to think, but to speak and act, I might add, intelligently, using common sense, not, non-sense.

I have made it no secret that my faith teaches me that the Constitution is not only the true and only Law of the land, but that, in addition, the Lord affixed his personal approval of its very existence.

Preceding this great document was the Declaration of Independence which, in truth contains our rights as free men and woman in America. Scarcely one year after the “shot heard round the world” was sounded, during the speeches prior to its adoption and transmission to King George III, our great patriot John Adams said this:

“Sink or swim, live or die, survive or perish, I have my hand and my heart to this vote. It is true, indeed, that in the beginning we aimed not at independence. But there’s a Divinity which shapes our ends . . . Why, then, should we defer the Declaration? . . . You and I, indeed, may rue it. We may not live to the time when this Declaration shall be made good. We May die; die Colonists, die slaves, die, it may be, ignominiously and on the scaffold.

Be it so. Be it so.

It may be the pleasure of Heaven that my country shall require the poor offering of my life; the victim shall be ready. . . But while I do live, let me have a country, or at least the hope of a country, and that a free country.

But whatever may be our fate, be assured . . . that this Declaration will stand. It may cost treasure, and it may cost blood; but it will stand and it will richly compensate for both.

Through the thick gloom of the present, I see the brightness of the future as the sun in heaven. We shall make this a glorious, an immortal day. When we are in our graves, our children will honor it. They will celebrate it with thanksgiving, with festivity, with bonfires, and illuminations. On its annual return they will shed tears, copious, gushing tears, not of subjection and slavery, not of agony and distress, but of exultation, of gratitude and of joy.

Sir, before God, I believe the hour is come. My judgment approves this measure, and my whole heart is in it. All that I have, and all that I am, and all that I hope, in this life, I am now ready here to stake upon it; and I leave off as I began, that live or die, survive or perish, I am for the Declaration. It is my living sentiment, and by the blessing of God it shall be my dying sentiment, Independence now, and Independence forever. [The Works of Daniel Webster, 4th ed., 1:133–:36]”

Thus it was in those colonial days that men such as Adams came, who were to stand firm against any form of dictatorship. Their faith flourished in the bright sunlight of free agency, and their ability to govern themselves. Thus the seed of freedom began to grow. These may have been the horse and buggy days of which our modern leaders besmirch and deride but the idea of freedom has never at any time in history taken a back seat to time or place.

Yes, I love this nation. To me it is not just another nation, not just a member of the family of nations. It is a great and glorious nation with a divine mission, brought into being under the inspiration of heaven. I make no apologies for this fact. Our founders, and the freedoms, and principles they sacrificed for were inspired of God; for they turned to the scriptures, and to religion, in order to have their great experiment make sense to them.

In these challenging days, when there are so many influences which would divert us, there is a need to rededicate ourselves to the lofty principles and practices of our Founding Fathers.

We have allowed our courts, through their anti-prayer, anti-God decisions, to outlaw in the schools the positive belief of the truths contained in the Declaration of Independence, and the very foundation of our nation.

What are needed today is the same faith and fearless attitudes that our founders displayed. To be steady as we teach our children and grandchildren that freedom is not free. It take diligence but more, it takes a knowledge of the truth; we must dedicate ourselves to preserving and teaching the truth about our great Nation , we must shout it from the housetops and in every breath, and in every action we take.. We must stand firm with an unwavering faith in God. , we must not be distracted by the liberal children on the Marxist left.

Governmental Policy of Regressive Energy

Governmental Policy of Regressive Energy
Al Ritter

The year was 1977, and then President Carter was still reeling from the gas embargo. As a direct result of the gas crisis the Department of Energy was formed to “release us from the dependency on foreign oil.” As time went on the Department of Energy was saddled with other responsibilities, and as often happens with governmental excess the original reason for its inception was lost in bureaucracy.

Obama has declared the burning of fossil fuels as harmful to the world, even though Al Gore’s original claim has been shown to be a scam on the public. Cap and Trade is what this greedy President believes in, and he is poised to present it one way or another, even if it circumvents the senate through executive order. Originally Obama claimed that our aim was much like President Carter……to decrease our dependency on foreign oil. Obama has now proved that his REAL aim is to drive the price of oil so high that it can compete on an even scale with renewable resources.

Unfortunately the Administration is driving prices through the ceiling by driving more people into the unemployment line. Denying America the oil industry denies Americans jobs. This isn’t a big secret, the less domestic production of oil ties the hands of capitalism. We don’t need one man’s personal vendetta on fossil fuel we need JOBS to recover our economic status in the world. We need a fast line to approve drilling permits to put people back to work, and to lower fuel prices.

The Department of Energy needs to either reorganize, or the responsibilities need to be redistributed and the whole department dissolved. The bureaucracy of government has once again lost its way.

Obama wants to blame high oil prices on price gouging and speculation, but his view is rather skewed. Let’s look at supply and demand this way. China and India, along with the US are the largest oil users in the world, and at present they produce more oil than we do. This figure doesn’t just happen by choice. China and India run their oil exploration at full capacity, but we do not. We artificially hold production low……our country only produces 2% of the earth’s oil production, we could be MUCH higher. Now take into account that countries such as China, India, Egypt, Venezuela, etc. not only don’t charge tax on fuel, they actually subsidize gasoline and diesel to their citizens! Is there any incentive for their citizens to use less fuel when they can buy gasoline for 18 cents a gallon? You have to understand, when in a country of poverty, (making less than $2 a day), they can’t compete with a world price on oil, so the government has to subsidize it.

Obama has actually increased our dependency on foreign oil, and thusly puts our national security in jeopardy. He has shown his hand in the oil problem as being a grand falsehood, he doesn’t care at all about being dependent on foreign, in fact it plays better for his “one world order” intent. The people who suffer are Americans, and it’s up to us to change the direction of self-destruction.

Monday, May 9, 2011

The Country Suffers While Obama Shifts Attention

The Country Suffers While Obama Shifts Attention
Al Ritter

They latest trick is the Obama Administration’s ability to shift attention to various issues while they stay perplexed over the main problems in our country. Last week’s recent filing figures for unemployment rose to 474,000 staggering our economy even further. The Administration continues to artificially prop up the stock market through the Federal Bank, claiming that the jobs that have been lost “might never come back.”

No country has ever had an economic recovery without putting people back to work, and yet the Obama Administration continually claims that we are in a “jobless recovery.” To further confuse the public, the way the unemployment figure is calculated was changed by Bill Clinton in his Welfare Reform Act. Once all benefits are exhausted and the recipient doesn’t return to work they are taken off the roles of the “unemployed.” The real figure is closer to double the 9% the Administration claims.

All the while the important issues are continuing the sleight of hand tricks continue with the Administration. I am not minimizing the fact that Osama bin laden has been killed, or that President has finally presented his long form birth certificate, but it does seem odd that those two things have come to light in the last two weeks amidst the president’s falling approval numbers.

Albert Einstein once said that insanity is doing things over and over again the same way and expecting a different outcome. Our president continues on the same trail merely throwing money we don’t have at a problem that isn’t fixed by money alone. Obviously the current cure isn’t working, and the liberals refuse to admit it.

Friday, May 6, 2011

Trickle Down Destruction, A Conspiracy Theory

Trickle Down Destruction, A Conspiracy Theory
Kevin Bryant

Ronald Reagan may not have coined the phrase Trickle Down Economics but he made it a household phrase in the 80”s. I call this piece Trickle Down Destruction because it works on basically the same theory but just with different players.

First I would like to say, welcome to Kevin’s wonderful world of conspiracy theories. To many of you this is going to sound a little Glenn Beckish and probably rightfully so. This has been floating around in my head for several weeks but I couldn’t put all the pieces of it together. A Glenn Beck show managed to fill in some of the pieces I found myself looking for but couldn’t quite come up with.

Had it not been for a younger black senator from Illinois who had terrific speechwriters, the weight of the Chicago political machine behind him coming out of nowhere with a list of friends even more devious and better behind the scenes players than those of the Clinton political machine, she would be president right now. Let’s be real now, there is no way she would have ever lost to John McCain. Hillary won almost all the primary states against Obama where left leaning independents outnumber left wing democrats.

Once the primaries were over, Obama faced an even bigger hurdle than beating Hillary. He needed her and Bill’s support. We all know Obama is a mere puppet of the radical left which is something Hillary would have never been. Obama verbally trash talked Hillary in the primaries, all but called her husband a racist and a second rate president. How do you convince these people to help you win an election? Enter the two best married political minds of the latter 20th century along with John Podesta and the George Soros and Hillary Clinton founded Center for American Progress.

Shortly after Obama took office, it “slipped” that Joe Biden was given his choice of either VP or Secretary of State. If you believe this to be fact, I have some great ocean front property in Kansas that I would love to sell you. Look at the facts, Joe Biden was whipped in the democratic primaries by almost every candidate. Obama knew he could not be elected if he did not have the support of the Clintons regardless of who his running mate was. Then it is leaked he gave the choice of office to Biden while Hillary is just to roll over and play second fiddle to Biden, I don’t think so.

Hillary, since the middle of 2010 has not done Obama any favors. She has publicly second guessed Obama’s choices a few times while you never hear her single him out in praise. As Secretary of State, she gets to fly under the radar more-so than that of a VP and at the same time she is in the position of meeting a lot more global players in private. Hillary is too smart to do anything publicly to undermine the president and too smart to do anything to boost his ratings.

Conspiracy Time:

Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton are the only two people elected to the office of President of the United States in the past 75 years who unseated a current sitting president. George Soros has publicly stated on more than a few occasions that Obama is not living up to the expectations of Soros’s Center for American Progress or Soros’s Tides Foundation or the 50+ satellite organizations where Soros is a major contributor.

Obama has to have the Clintons to get elected, no way around this. You don’t think there was some back door deals made for that support? Who heads Obama’s transition team but the one and only John Podesta, former Clinton insider. Who heads the CIA, another former Clinton insider. Some of Obama’s highest advisors are former Clinton insiders. Obama’s entire administration is either former Clinton insiders or Marxist revolutionaries who are going to exactly what the Clintons and Soros want, which is in line with Obama’s views of how things should be.

Obama is likely to go by the wayside like Jimmy Carter. Most smart democrats know this and it won’t take an overly popular republican candidate to defeat him. I once thought Hillary might run against Obama in 2012 but that was never her intention. I now believe it was a well thought out misdirection move on the part of the Clintons to maintain control of Obama’s actions. Make a move that appears to be a threatening one and Obama backs down. That is his nature. I once like many others believed it was Soros who was pulling Obama’s puppet strings. I was wrong. If Washington DC were a theatre, Soros would be the production manager and show’s producer, Obama would still be a mere puppet but it is the Clintons would be the directing the show and pulling Obama’s strings.

Hillary is not going to run in 2012. The Clintons and George Soros could care less who wins the white house in 2012. If Obama is somehow re-elected, the puppet stays in place to do their bidding. If he is defeated, he will have already caused so much damage that it can’t be repaired in a mere 3 years and the republican 2012 winner will take a fall despite his or her best efforts to right a sinking ship. The Clintons, with the financial backing of Soros will make an all out assault on capturing the white house in 2016 and unless some miracle happens between 2013 & 2015, Hillary will win the 2016 election. Remember, Bill beat a sitting president, George Herbert Walker Bush and his popularity numbers were higher than those of George W. Bush when he was re-elected to office.

Picture any newly elected President taking office in 2013. Now look at the shape of the world in 2014. The only true friend America will have left is Canada. Most of the Middle East governments that were in place in 2010 will have been overthrown and replaced by even more extreme Islamic governments. Those that haven’t been overthrown will capitulate to the will of the others for their own survival. I can easily see Israel in a full blown war with multiple Islamic countries and only Great Britain there fully backing them militarily. We know Obama won’t lift a finger to help. Hillary, as Sec of State will have already brokered her own deals in exchange for keeping America out of the fight. Russia and China could care less if Israel stands or falls and will use their stranglehold on the rest of Europe and Asia to stay out of it. The economy is going to be severely wrecked by 2014 and again, barring a miracle, the economy, unemployment and inflation will have American people lashing out at anyone and everyone because the damage will have been done in such a manner that no administration and no congress can completely turn things around in 3.5 years.

A world in chaos, America is on the edge of imploding and there is no real world leadership. Who better to come to the rescue but the wife of a very popular former president who herself was a United States Senator and a former Secretary of State. Foreign diplomatic experience coupled with first hand American government experience. The only thing she will be missing is a white horse to ride in on. Once Hillary is elected, there is only one miracle left that will save America as we know it today, but will she have the courage to give America that miracle, will she have the guts to defy her master, George Soros and do the right thing by America?

Yes, this is a conspiracy theory and you all probably think it is more whacked out than anything that has come from Glenn Beck. Maybe so, but I promise this, If I do see things shaping up as how I described, you bet your ass I will be on the first plane headed to a yet to be determined destination in South America.

Wednesday, May 4, 2011

Was the Capture of bin Laden a Political Ploy?

Was the Capture of bin Laden a Political Ploy?
Al Ritter

With spiraling approval polls Obama used two issues within a 7 day period to drive up his popularity. The first issue was the production of his long form certificate of live birth, which sought to finally put to rest the question of his citizenship.

It seems to me that the “discovery” of Osama bin Laden’s hideaway was more than just a coincidence some 7 days later. The Seal Team 6 had been practicing mock attacks on a staged area in the Bagram Airbase facility in Afghanistan since April in hopes of catching him off guard in the near future in his makeshift home in Pakistan.

Regardless of the implications of the Pakistani government’s involvement in the hiding of bin Laden, Barack Obama certainly benefitted from his capture and execution. Whether the Islamic world approves or disapproves of his actions Sunday night/Monday morning, it is certain that his approval polls have gone up some 9 points.

I have long said that there are NO coincidences in politics and I certainly believe that this is no exception. Obama has taken a page directly from Rahm Emanuel’s book of, “never let a crisis go to waste.” The larger question is, will this recent climb in his approval rating have any staying power, or will the multitude of his problems drag him back, and if so in what time period?

Monday, May 2, 2011

Osama Bin Laden’s Life comes to an End

Osama Bin Laden’s Life comes to an End
Al Ritter

Mastermind of the attack on the USS Cole, the attack on two African embassies, the infamous attack that toppled both the world trade centers and the attack on the pentagon was killed Sunday evening early by an Elite Seal Unit “Navy Six”.

In a compound built in 2005 very close to a Pakistani Military compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. The raid lasted less than 40 minutes and three males were killed which included Osama and one of his sons, although it wasn’t reported which son was killed. The attack was in a million dollar compound owned by one of bin Laden’s couriers and included 18 foot fencing surrounded with razor ribbon. Fortunately the attack cost no American lives.

Confirmation of the death of Bin Laden was done through DNA and fingerprint then the body was immediately buried at sea. The military said the burial was carried out according to Islamic law. The Whitehouse sited the reason for the burial at sea was because no country would have accepted his remains, but it is clear that a grave site would have created a martyr status for the leading world’s terrorist personally responsible for over 3400 American deaths and countless deaths from other countries.

Obviously this won’t be the end of radical Islamic Attacks around the world, but it certainly cut the head of the snake. The ten year hunt for the most prolific terrorist came to an end when he held a female hostage in front of himself to avoid being shot; he died the same way he lived, as a coward!