A Fact Check of Democrats Big Lie!

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —Ronald Reagan

The Democrats are using the same lie that they have used for decades. Blaming the Republicans for any economic slow down!
Even the New Deal did not save Americans from the Great Depression. It was World War II that put thousands of people to work and built the still dominant military industrial complex.

Obama is trying to ride the housing crisis into the oval office by stating it is a time for change. What he does not tell you is that the mess we find ourselves in today, was caused by the Democrats. The following time line will show the truth about why and who caused our housing crisis and the continuing failure of too many banks!


1977: Pres. Jimmy Carter signs the Community Reinvestment Act into Law.
The law pressured financial institutions to extend home loans to those who would otherwise not qualify. The Premise: Home ownership would improve
poor and crime-ridden communities and neighborhoods in terms of crime,
investment, jobs, etc.


Results: Statistics bear out that it did not help.

How did the government get so deeply involved in the housing market?
Answer: Bill Clinton wanted it that way.

1992: Republican representative Jim Leach (IO) warned of the danger that
Fannie and Freddie were changing from being agencies of the public at
large to money machines for the principals and the stock holding few.

1993: Clinton extensively rewrote Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's rules
turning the quasi-private mortgage-funding firms into semi-nationalized
monopolies dispensing cash and loans to large Democratic voting blocks &
handing favors, jobs and contributions to political allies. This potent mix led inevitably to corruption and now the collapse of Freddie and Fannie.

1994: Despite warnings, Clinton unveiled his National Home-Ownership Strategy which broadened the CRA in ways congress never intended.

1995: Congress, about to change from a Democrat majority to Republican, Clinton orders Robert Rubin's Treasury Dept to rewrite the rules. Robt. Rubin's Treasury reworked rules, forcing banks to satisfy quotas for sub-prime
and minority loans to get a satisfactory CRA rating. The rating was key to
expansion or mergers for banks. Loans began to be made on the basis of
race and little else.

1997 - 1999: Clinton, bypassing Republicans, enlisted Andrew Cuomo, then
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, allowing Freddie and Fannie
to get into the sub-prime market in a BIG way. Led by Rep. Barney Frank & Sen. Chris Dodd, congress doubled down on the risk by easing capital limits and
allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments vs.
10% for banks. Since they could borrow at lower rates than banks their
enterprises boomed.

With incentives in place, banks poured billions in loans into poor communities, often "no doc", "no income", requiring no money down and no
verification of income.
Worse still was the cronyism: Fannie and Freddie became
home to out-of work-politicians, mostly Clinton Democrats. 384 politicians got
big campaign donations from Fannie and Freddie. Over $200 million had been
spent on lobbying and political activities. During the 1990's Fannie & Freddie
enjoyed a subsidy of as much as $182 Billion, most of it going to
principals and shareholders, not poor borrowers as claimed.

Did it work? Minorities made up 49% of the 12.5 million new homeowners
but many of those loans have gone bad and the minority home ownership rates are
shrinking fast.

1999: New Treasury Secretary, Lawrence Summers, became alarmed at Fannie
and Freddie's excesses. Congress held hearings the ensuing year but nothing
was done because Fannie and Freddie had donated millions to key congressmen
and radical groups, ensuring no meaningful changes would take place. "We
manage our political risk with the same intensity that we manage our credit and
interest rate risks," Fannie CEO Franklin Raines, a former Clinton
official and current Barrack Obama advisor, bragged to investors in 1999.

2000: Secretary Summers sent Undersecretary Gary Gensler to Congress seeking an end to the "special status". Democrats raised a ruckus as did
Fannie and Freddie, headed by politically connected CEO's who knew how to reward
and punish. "We think that the statements evidence a contempt for the
nation's housing and mortgage markets" Freddie spokesperson Sharon McHale said. It
was the last chance during the Clinton era for reform.

2001: Republicans try repeatedly to bring fiscal sanity to Fannie and Freddie but Democrats blocked any attempt at reform; especially Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Chris Dodd who now run key banking committees and were huge
beneficiaries of campaign contributions from the mortgage giants.

2003: Bush proposes what the NY Times called "the most significant
regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and
loan crisis a decade ago". Even after discovering a scheme by Fannie and Freddie to
overstate earnings by $10.6 billion to boost their bonuses, the Democrats
killed reform.

2005: Then Fed chairman Alan Greenspan warns Congress: "We are placing the total financial system at substantial risk". Sen. McCain, with two others, sponsored a Fannie/Freddie reform bill and said, "If congress does not act,
American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall
financial system and the economy as a whole". Sen. Harry Reid accused the GOP ;of
trying to "cripple the ability of Fannie and Freddie to carry out their mission of
expanding home ownership" The bill went nowhere.

2007: By now Fannie and Freddie own or guarantee over HALF of the $12
trillion US mortgage market. The mortgage giants, whose executive suites
were top-heavy with former Democratic officials, had been working with Wall St.
to repackage the bad loans and sell them to investors. As the housing market
fell in '07, sub prime mortgage portfolios suffered major losses. The
crisis was on, though it was 15 years in the making.

2008: McCain has repeatedly called for reforming the behemoths, Bush urged reform 17 times. Still the media have repeated Democrats' talking points
about this being a "Republican" disaster. A few Republicans are complicit
but Fannie and Freddie were created by Democrats, regulated by Democrats,
largely run by Democrats and protected by Democrats. That's why taxpayers are now
being asked for $700 billion!! source:Investors Business Daily

If you doubt any of this, just click the links below and listen to your
lawmakers own words. They are condemning!

_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68D9XrqyrWo&feature=related_
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68D9XrqyrWo&feature=related) #
(http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/financial_crisis_08_democrat_policy_comes_home_to_roost/)

The chronology and facts above are not only fair but entirely accurate. The only thing I would add is that the bad loans were also sold to foreign banks and it is these troubled foreign banks that pressured the feds to step in with the bail out, not just “Wall Street”. That’s the dirty little secret. This is an international banking and investment bail out. Bush was getting pressure from the Europeans to back Fanny and Freddy bad debt instruments.

But it won’t matter. The majority of journalists are Socialist idealists who still delude themselves with fantasies that “if only we were in charge, we could make everything fair”. They ignore the misery and slavery these utopian fantasies have created around the world, and believe they can do it better. They are in the tank for Obama, so you won’t hear the truth on your local broadcast station, CNN, The New York Time or Comedy Central.

Hang on; things are going to get a LOT worse… Bush, McCain and the rest of the Republicans are inept at communicating this message and most Americans these days either have their hands out to the government or are too stupid to turn off Comedy Central and MTV. We are going to FEEL another colossal socialist experiment failure before everyone wakes up. In fact we are already feeling it, because Fanny and Freddy are a socialist experiment. We just might not be able to come back from this one without another revolution, after the democrats stack the Supreme Court and the federal bureaucracies with socialists. source:Ann and WM. Namgew

THE BUYING OF THE PRESIDENCY!!!

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —Ronald Reagan

t
TODAY'S NEWS REVEALS THAT CBS WILL PREEMPT their regular programing for thirty minutes on October 29th,just six days before the election, to allow Obama to give a campaign speech.Since CBS has spent the last eight years attacking President Bush I imagine that the "Price Is Right" for the thirty minutes of valuable time.

Someone with knowledge of the mechanics of purchasing television time should investigate this deal. If is a "gift" at discounted price the public should know about the campaign contribution, and demand equal time for McCain!

Not since 1992 , when Ross Perot bought 30 minutes of television time for his Independent campaign for President, has the preemption of regular scheduled TV programing been done. In early October, Ross Perot went on the air with a set of cardboard graphics and 16.5 million people tuned in for what amounted to a 30-minute lecture that attracted 10.5 million viewers, according to Nielsen Media Research

Perot only garnered a small percentage of the vote, but his message was true in 1992 and it is even more on point today. Perot had four 60-second TV ads and seven radio spots. In a half-hour "infomercial", he described how he built up his computer company, the rescue of two employees from an Iranian jail and his efforts on behalf of POWs.
One 60-second spot seemed to capture the essence of Perot's anti-Washington appeal. It says the federal government "has poured $100,000 into a study of how to avoid falling spacecraft; $250,000 to study TV lighting for the U.S. Senate; $19 million to study gas emissions from cows." It sounds like the Bail-out package passed this week!
In a 30-minute program, Perot stressed that voters not waste their vote on "traditional politicians who promise you everything to get elected but never deliver." Sounds to me like BOH and his promise of "CHANGE"!

A two-minute commercial can range in cost from $15,000 to $50,000 for production costs alone. This depends on the creative approach and the quality of the commercial. The average production cost of an acceptable quality two-minute commercial is approximately $25,000.
I do not have access to the cost of Television commercial time today, but In February 2006, the price of running one thirty-second ad during a sports game reached $2.5 million, certainly it has to be more today. From these facts and figures you can easily do the numbers and see that Obama's propagandists will spend close to one hundred million, unless they get a discount from the CBS executives who want him to win!

Of all the long-form half hour infomercials produced today, the average production cost is approximately $150,000. The higher quality productions can be as high as $300,000. But we have even produced infomercials in the $100,000 range.

Assuming that the charge will be commensurate with the significance of the "infomercial" given by Obama. This 30 minute campaign propaganda should cost at least well over a million dollars! And then Obama's people will have to pay for the TV time, so this is a possible Huge "in kind" contribution to BHO if the fees are reduced because of partisanship! source: DirectoryM.com

This issue is too importnt to ignore!

THE CREEPING PYTHON OF SOCIALISM IN THE USA

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —Ronald Reagan

An administration official, who spoke late Tuesday on condition of anonymity because no decision has been made, said the $700 billion rescue package passed by Congress last week allows the Treasury Department to inject fresh capital into financial institutions and get ownership shares in return.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson told reporters that Treasury was moving quickly to implement the $700 billion rescue effort and he specifically mentioned reviewing ways to bolster the capital of banks.

“We will use all the tools we’ve been given to maximum effectiveness, including strengthening the capitalization of financial institutions of every size,” Paulson said at a Wednesday news conference.

His statements came on the heels of Britain’s move to pour cash into troubled banks in exchange for stakes in them — a partial nationalization.

Asked whether he would try something like the British plan, Paulson said: “We have a broad range of authorities and tools. ... We’ve emphasized the purchase of liquid assets, but we have a broad range of authorities. And I’m confident we have the authorities we need to work with going forward.”SOURCE:AP NEWS

"Corporations employ accounting practices promulgated by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) that established Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).

Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and government agencies have accounting practices that don't come close to, and never did, the honesty of private accounting practices. Accounting fraud and deception are the dominant features of government agencies. If a private business kept and cooked the books, like government agencies do,(example is the non-existent Social Security Trust Fund) the top executives would go to jail. Shouldn't the accounting standards businesses have to meet be applied to Washington? My answer is yes and if a congressman says no, I'd like for him to tell us why?" SOURCE; WALTER WILLIAMS

The dictionary describes Socialism thus:
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.

WE have entered the first stage of socialism with he so called "bail-out", and we are moving even deeper into the beginning of item two above, by the Federal government announcing that IT will put money into banks.
Since the government makes no money! What this announcement means, is they will make more worthless paper available, and the tax payers will have to pay for it in higher taxes. All this is nothing more than taking control of the banking system, with incumbent regulations and demands that ran the Freddie and Fannie into the ground!

In the 1930's Roosevelt called in all the privately held gold and closed the banks, and now we have a sitting President who is reacting to the fear tactics and politics of the moment to push the USA further down the road to Socialism!

An example of the road map we are following is the small country of Iceland, where people and corporations did the same thing as Americans. Over extended their liabilities via cheap loans, and the consequences are so dire that the government took complete control, as this following excerpt indicates.


People go bankrupt all the time. Companies do, too. But countries?

The global financial crisis has laid waste to some major banks and other financial institutions in the United States and Europe, but Iceland may be the first country to face the prospect of going bust along with them.

After a decade-long binge in which Iceland's banks, and some of its citizens, expanded beyond their means, the bill has come due. While the full effects of the potential crash have not hit yet, some Icelanders like Bubbi Morthens are already feeling the pain.

"There is a lot of fear in society and there are people who are losing everything," Morthens said Wednesday after singing at an impromptu midday concert in central Reykjavik intended to lift people's spirits.

Morthens is a former fish industry worker turned rock singer who is now known as the Elvis of Iceland. Like many of his compatriots, he did well when Iceland was riding high, accumulating considerable wealth.
Then, the financial crisis gripping his country intensified last month. The government seized control of Iceland's third-largest bank. Morthens said he lost his life savings, which he had invested mostly in the bank's stock.

Government attempts to get ahead of the problems cascading through its financial system have not restored confidence. In just 24 hours, for instance, it abandoned an effort to peg its currency to a basket of others.

And on Thursday, the government seized Kaupthing Bank, the country's largest lender, effectively completing the nationalization of the banking system.

Meanwhile the prime minister,Mr. Haarde, was drawing some practical conclusions, as Fitch Ratings downgraded the country's debt and Iceland awaited a possible loan from Russia! source :Reuters News

It is not unusual to learn of government intrusion into private industry in Europe and Great Britain. Most of the Countries in the EU and Britain have or have had Socialist governments for years. The situation at this time, in England, is a radical shift to the left for the present government.
The British government's plan to inject capital into its ailing banks has been embraced by a European continent with a long tradition of encouraging a state role in the economy. And it is rapidly being seen here as an improvement - philosophical as well as functional - over America's $700 billion fund to purchase defunct mortgage assets from troubled financial institutions.In announcing his take over, Prime Minister Gordon Brown had this to say.
"Brown pointed out that time for buying toxic assets had passed - a not so subtle dig at the plan sponsored by the U.S. Treasury secretary, Henry Paulson Jr. Many analysts agree that the U.S. government will have to move beyond its own $700 billion fund to ultimately stabilize the housing market and recapitalize American banks". source: International Herald Tribune

There is plenty of blame for this financial crisis to go around. Congress with the leadership of Senator Dodd and Congressman Frank over looked or ignored the facts that government mandates on Banking and Mortgage companies to accomplish ideological,and Social/welfare aims were bad business!
But also some blame has to be laid at the feet of the Economic "guru" Greenspan. It was he that promoted and supported HEDGE Funds that helped make billionaires like George Sorros richer, and when they were adversely affected by the housing slow down, they were the tipping point for the "house of cards" that is our Economy!

Greenspan's credentials and confidence reinforced his reputation — helping him to persuade Congress to repeal Depression-era laws that separated commercial and investment banking in order to reduce overall risk in the financial system.

"He had a way of speaking that made you think he knew exactly what he was talking about at all times," said Senator Tom Harkin, a Democrat from Iowa. "He was able to say things in a way that made people not want to question him on anything, like he knew it all. He was the Oracle, and who were you to question him?"

In 2000, Harkin asked what might happen if Congress weakened the CFTC's authority.

"If you have this exclusion and something unforeseen happens, who does something about it?" he asked Greenspan in a hearing.

Greenspan said that Wall Street could be trusted. "There is a very fundamental trade-off of what type of economy you wish to have," he said. "You can have huge amounts of regulation and I will guarantee nothing will go wrong, but nothing will go right either," he said. It would seem that the "worm has turned"!



Brown's political salvo could well serve as a model across Europe, as well as other emerging economies where the idea of the state taking supervisory stakes in strategic economic entities is an accepted one. Already, governments in France and Italy have said they would consider buying stakes in their banks if it would improve their financial conditions.


Britain's decision to effectively nationalize any bank that accepts public funds to rebuild its shrunken capital base rolls back more than 20 years of accepted political and economic thought. That view held that financial institutions, charged with the responsibility of protecting a nation's savings, should do so with minimal supervision and aid from the government.

Look for the USA banks to follow the path of the Iceland and Banks in England toward more decimation of the Constitutional rights of Americans, in the ruse of saving US from financial disaster.

OBAMA'S SOCIAL SECURITY FINE PRINT!

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —Ronald Reagan

During last nights Presidential "debate" Tom Brokaw asked both candidates how they would prioritize the three issues that most trouble the American public. He listed economy, social security and energy , and asked which would be the first to be acted on when one of the candidates was elected President?

McCain choose all three, and said no one issue is more important than the other two, and they all tie into a strong economy and our way of life.
Obama gave his usual "gobbly-gook" answer, that did not really offer any solutions to any of the three!
McCain missed an opportunity to reveal the true Obama,who speaks about lofty ideas but has a history of having no princiles, by not responding that Obama's real plan for Social Security will drive it further into default as the following facts will show.

Last week, Barack Obama revealed his plan to shore up Social Security's shaky finances by raising the income level on which the payroll tax is applied, says Donald L. Luskin, chief investment officer of Trend Macrolytics LLC.
Currently, incomes above $102,000 are exempt from paying the payroll tax, with that threshold rising every year indexed to wage inflation.

Obama would keep that limit in place, but then assess payroll taxes on incomes above $250,000.
Combined with Obama's other tax-hike initiatives, the total tax on labor would be close to 60 percent; in high-tax states like California and New York, the top rate would be even higher.This would take us back to top tax rates not seen since the 1970s. Obama's new tax would siphon off 0.4 percent of gross domestic product annually, says the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.For all those tax increases, Obama's proposal won't help Social Security's long-run solvency problems, says Luskin.

According to the Social Security Administration actuaries, uncapping all wages subject to the payroll tax (not just those above $250,000) doesn't make much difference to the system's long-run solvency.

If the increased payroll tax payments earn increased benefits, then only about one third of the system's 75-year shortfall is addressed. Even if there is no corresponding benefit increase, only about half the shortfall is addressed.The more taxes Obama's plan collects, the worse Social Security's long-term situation gets, says Luskin. That's because all plans based on collecting taxes and saving them in the Social Security Trust Fund for future benefit payments rely on the U.S. government being able to redeem the Treasury bonds that trust fund holds; the money to redeem those bonds can only come from taxes.

So ironically, any tax dollars collected today will have to be collected all over again -- plus interest, says Luskin.
Source: Donald L. Luskin, "Obama's Social Security Fine Print," Wall Street Journal, June 25, 2008. SOURCE:NATIONAL CENTER FO POLICY ANALYSIS

Social Security returned an average of slightly less than three percent on retirees' contributions, adjusting for inflation.Had they invested their contributions in a balanced portfolio (60 percent stocks, 40 percent bonds), those retirees would have earned, on average, 5.5 percent - a huge difference when compounded over a lifetime.In fact, the annual retirement income provided by a 5.5 percent return is double that provided by the three percent return of Social Security; even more compelling, an investment in the stock market averages seven percent real return, which would mean an annual income of three times what Social Security provides.

National Center for Policy AnalysisSTATES THAT Social Security, rather being a safety net, actually produces old age poverty in many senior citizens.
"SS" is often touted as a crucial safety net that protects American retirees from abject poverty. In reality, Social Security has made it harder for retirees to grow wealthier by reducing their ability to save and thus has contributed to poverty in old age, argues Texas A&M economist and Independent Institute Research Fellow Edgar K. Browning


The yield from Social Security looks even worse when considering that savings fuel investment and economic growth.It is likely that we would have fewer poor among the elderly had they been free to invest their taxes in private assets. Once Social Security's rate of return drops to below two percent, it will only continue to aggravate poverty in the future.
Policymakers are left with the decision to cut benefits or double the tax rates. Neither option is attractive, but the longer we wait, the harder it is to implement change and the more likely we will be forced to accept substantially higher taxes, concludes Browning OF THE INDEPENDENT INSTITUTE

Senior Citizens and those "Boomers" about to enter the "SS" system, think on this before you fall for slick BHO in Novemeber!

DO PEOPLE WANT TO HEAR WHAT THEY WISH OR DO THEY WANT THE TRUTH?

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —Ronald Reagan

Never was the above statement more true than the present time. It appears that the "bail-out" is only the beginning of what could be the largest government intrusion into the private business sector in the history of this once great Republic.The existing legislation is a bandage at best. Americans are closing in on three trillion dollars in consumer debt. This liability leviathan is composed of our credit card debt and personal loans for items like automobiles and college. It does not include our mortgage debt. Seven hundred billion dollars is barely a band-aid on the credit market crunch; it is not a tourniquet. source: American Thinker.com

If you listen only to the Main Stream media, you will believe that it was President Bush and his administration that put the United States on the precipice of a "great recession". The television, newspapers and radio are filled with "experts" who heap the blame on Bush and say that McCain would be just more of the same.
The fact that the big LIE is wrong does not seem to impress the voting public. The truth has seldom seen the light of day except on the Conservative Internet sites like TownHall.com, The New Media Journal, and the Patriot Post.

"The fact that Senator Dodd and Congressman Frank did the bidding of the Left wing leaders of the Democrats who push affirmative action into the banking and home mortgage business does not seem to bother the majority of those who are potential voters.The following is an insightful analysis of the present economic status and it's cause . It was written by a great Economist Thomas Sowell.

"It was liberal Democrats, led by Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, who for years-- including the present year-- denied that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taking big risks that could lead to a financial crisis.

It was Senator Dodd, Congressman Frank and other liberal Democrats who for years refused requests from the Bush administration to set up an agency to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

It was liberal Democrats, again led by Dodd and Frank, who for years pushed for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to go even further in promoting subprime mortgage loans, which are at the heart of today's financial crisis.

Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury, five years ago.

Yet, today, what are we hearing? That it was the Bush administration “right-wing ideology” of “de-regulation” that set the stage for the financial crisis. Do facts matter?"

The fact that the Obama campaign promises welfare programs that will cost over a trillion dollars more than our present budget allows, does not seem to concern the majority of voters. We have become a society that I call the "gimme-gimme" generation. Use the plastic to buy now and worry about paying for it someday!

The current market turmoil is a product of every bad trait the "Boomer Elite" has long exhibited in other social and political contexts: unbridled greed and hubris, exorbitant self-regard, breathtaking recklessness, insatiable appetite for immediate gratification, and a rollicking sense of entitlement.

Our Markets work because they reward good investments and punish bad ones. The legislation's effort to protect unsound investments seems to assume that investors will not take these protective measures into account in future financial speculations.
This quasi-socialist economics cannot and will not work. When a government nationalizes its country's debt, it makes rational assessments of risks in the private market all but impossible. Is it risky to invest in "The Fiduciary Bank of Loans to Unqualified Borrowers?" Who knows? Depends whether or not the bank's "troubled assets" have made the Treasury Department's list.

Sleaze, thy name name is Government Sponsored Enterprise. The top executives of these two GSEs,(Fannie-Mae and Freddie Mac) politically appointed executives, have stolen hundreds of millions of dollars in so-called "performance bonuses" from Fannie and Freddie. Christopher Dodd, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, has received over a hundred thousand dollars in campaign contributions from the very GSEs he is supposed to oversee. Yet this fact will never be heard on the National TV stations news!And if it was the supporters of the "messiah" Obama, would lie about it and most would believe them. After all it is racist to criticise Obama, don't you know?

WE DON'T BARGAIN WITH TERORISTS, WHY DO IT WITH PIRATES

It is the policy of the USA to not give in to terrorist demands, even when they kidnap Americans.The recent history of terrorist atrocities has included a new element of terror. The Waters off the African coast of Somalia has become the home of the 21st Century pirates.
In the past few years Somalia war lords have successfully pirated a dozen vessels and received 300 million dollars in ransom.The vessels are being held in Eyl, a port town in the semi-autonomous region of Puntland, Somalia.

Today off the Somali coast the pirates hold a Belize flagged, Ukrainian ship filled with 33 Russian tanks,and military weapons. While five US warships steam helplessly just over the horizon, and a Russian frigate is steaming at flank speed to join the watchers, the pirates demand 20million dollars to release the ship!

In my opinion there is no reason for allowing this drama to persist.
Piracy in Somalia is nothing new, as bandits have stalked the seas for years. But this year's surge in attacks,nearly 30 so far,has prompted an unprecedented international response. The Faina has been the highest-profile attack because of its dangerous cargo. The U.S. fears the arms could end up in the hands of al-Qaida-linked militants in a country seen as a key battleground on terror.source:AP News

The United States has been leading international patrols to combat piracy along Somalia's unruly 1,880-mile coast, the longest in Africa and near key shipping routes. In June, the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution that would allow countries to chase and arrest pirates after attacks increased this year.Blogger note: why do we need UN approval?

An analyst in Washington, said that unless the roots of the problem are solved _ poverty, disease, violence _ piracy will only flourish. "You have a population that is frustrated, alienated, angry and hopeless," Dagne said. "This generation of Somalis grew up surrounded by abject poverty and violence."

I beg to differ. The excuse all liberals have for crime is poverty. The implication being that if we eliminate poverty violent criminals will stop their criminal activities. The largest American cities where welfare has been heaped on the citizens, Chicago, Detroit, LA and New York, still have high crime rates.Some of the most heinous serial killers have been from families that were not what we call poor.
Jeffry Damler, killed 17 boys in Milwaukee, Ted Bundy, a law student, killed 35 women in Florida,Gerard Schaefer was a police officer in Florida,he killed 30 women while on the force. And in England, a medical dotor, Harold Shioman killed 215 people, In Russia, Andre Chikatilo killed 52 women. He was a skilled telephone engineer.I could list more , but you get my point. Many people suffer the cross of poverty, and personal abuse as a child and do not become criminals. The answer is to make it not profitable to be a criminal!

The way to eliminate crime and terrorists is not to reward their behavior, but to make our reaction to crimes so drastic that it deters the potential criminal. You cannot kill them all, but if we stand by and do nothing we are only playing their game by their rules!

Knowing the ship is in international waters and carries weapons of population destruction that our intelligence tells us are destined to be in the hands of Muslim terrorists. We should announce to the terrorist that they have one hour to give up, or we will sink the ship and all it's contents! A couple of torpedoes would do the job!

If you think this is too violent I remind you of what happened in Beirut on October 23,1983. Why did over 240 Marines and sailors die while performing a mission described as peacekeeping and non-combatant?
The answer is both simple and complex at the same time. Terrorism defies the normal application of logic and reason.It transcends the bounds of human decency and makes a
mockery of any semblance of morality. It respects no laws,beliefs, or norms. It is ruthless, mindless violence designed to shock and horrify both its victims and its
audience. It is effective. It is here to stay! Unless we act and not participate in the watch and wait game!

To better understand our specific national policy regarding terrorism, the following three principles are
listed.
(1) All terrorist actions are criminal and intolerable whatever their motivation, and
should be condemned.
(2) All lawful measures to prevent such acts and to bring to justice those who commit them will be taken.
(3) No concessions to terrorist blackmail will be made, because to do so will merely invite further demands.