Posted on 03/12/2006 4:51:30 PM PST by Chickenhawk Warmonger
The opponents of the DP World purchase of terminal leases at six US ports owe Sen. Chuck Schumer a bottle of champagne. If not for the Herculean efforts of Sen. Schumer, Arabs would control several terminals at the ports in New York, New Jersey, New Orleans, Miami, Philadelphia and Baltimore. Without even having to get involved in a bidding war, some US based terminal operator is going to own the leases that DP World is giving up. By using a campaign of complete and total misinformation while under the influence of a jilted US terminal operator and fanning the flames of fear, Sen. Schumer has risen to the level of fairy godfather to the lucky winner of the Portgate Lotto.
The whole port issue was not about national security. At least it did not start out that way. Portgate started out as nothing more than a bitter falling out between P&O and Eller & Co. In 2005, Eller & Co.(1) claimed that P&O was trying to increase control of Continental Stevedoring and Terminals Inc., a subsidiary of Eller & Co. Once word got out the P&O and DP World were in negotiations, Eller started sowing seeds of “endangering port operations” and “national security implications” if the deal went through. Attorney and lobbyist Joe Muldoon began educating lawmakers about the negative implications of DP World buying out P&O in the latter part of January 2006. Another Eller representative, Attorney Michael Kreitzer, tried to educate CFIUS but the confidential nature of CFIUS prevented him from getting through the door.
Representatives of Eller & Co lobbied Democratic members of Congress, specifically Senators Schumer and Clinton and Rep. Bob Menendez. As anyone that has followed any tiny moment of the Portgate drama knows, Sen. Schumer ended up leading the charge against the deal. On February 13, 2006, Schumer issued the first of three press (2) releases about the “port takeover by UAE government-owned firm”. Each press release described the deal as “taking control of operations at six ports”. Schumer reported that the “Port Operator is responsible for securing cargo coming in and out of the port, the port facility itself and the hiring of security personnel.” He claimed that the deal was quietly cleared by a government panel without public scrutiny. The first press release featured Schumer’s concerns about “port operators controlling all cargo not set aside for DHS screening, which could be as much as 95% of cargo at each port, managing access to secure areas and background checking all personnel.” Schumer feared that since “only 5 percent of containers entering our ports are actually inspected” the chances of nuclear, chemical or biological material being delivered right to the ports’ doorstep were increased with UAE in the picture. Muldoon’s arguments (3)against the sale were essentially the same as those cited by Schumer’s press releases.
Once the deal was done, Eller & Co filed two lawsuits – one in London and one in Florida- to stop the sale. The lawsuit in London was filed on Feb. 24. Eller’s representatives cited “a number of grounds for its objection, including a ‘real prospect’ that US authorities would revoke their approval of the deal.” Duncan Roberston,(4) a London-based spokesman for Eller stated, “There is no point in the court approving something that next week might become illegal.” In its petition, Eller argued “There is a real prospect that the arrangement will lead to US port authorities revoking licenses and/or leases held by joint venture companies which will cause severe financial losses.” Paul Downes (5), a lawyer for Eller & Co told Britain’s High Court that “Eller would be affected because some companies have threatened to withdraw business from US ports that would be run by Dubai’s DP World if the deal goes through. He said it was not relevant to Eller’s case that the worries in the United States over the deal were justified or not.” Meanwhile in the USA, the 45 day extension offered by DP World to ease concerns was underway. Martin Moore, a lawyer for P&O said the hearing was “being used for collateral purposes to encourage opposition to the deal in the United States.”
The Florida suit cited Eller & Co being an “involuntary partner with Dubai’s government”. Eller’s subsidiary Continental Stevedoring and Terminals Inc. claimed that the sale was “prohibited under its partnership agreement” with P&O. The lawsuit said the deal “may endanger the national security of the United States.” The company also reported that it may seek more that $10 million in damages should the deal take place.
Attorney Muldoon confirmed that Schumer was ace in the hole for Eller & Co. In “Deal Gives Dubai Firm Control of 23 US Ports” in The Buffalo News (6) on 3/4/06, Muldoon stated “If this hadn’t been for Sen. Schumer this issue would never had gotten any traction”. Schumer said he sensed the public would be outraged if they knew about the deal and heard bipartisan objections. Schumer spokesman Israel Klein (7) said “Eller was really the canary in the mineshaft for many people on the Hill and in the media.” According to the Washington Post (8)on 2/26/06, “it was on Feb. 13 that the Dubai Ports World deal – after simmering unnoticed for months in the federal bureaucracy and the transportation trade press – started to boil, as a result of (Michael) Savage’s blustery on-air alarms and an event by Schumer at the New York harbor with families who lost loved ones on Sept. 11, 2001.”
According to media reports on Thursday and Friday, Eller & Co (9) said it was “considering an offer to buy out Peninsular & Oriental’s operations in Miami (10) and possibly at other ports.” Attorney Michael Kreitzer said “This wasn’t on our agenda and not something we had considered. But as Congress started to speak out and say there was a dearth of American companies doing this, we started talking to our board of directors about putting a proposal together. We could move very quickly, and we’re certainly reaching out to see if there is an opportunity for us.” What a great deal for Eller & Co!
Only time will tell if Sen. Schumer’s intervention and massive propaganda campaign will pay off in dividends for Eller & Co. Meanwhile, the Republicans who failed to separate fact from fiction are crossing their fingers that their random and rare display of backbone will help fill their campaign coffers. All this time we have been clamoring for the GOP Congress to stand up and take control, without any results. When they finally do stand up, it is only to place Sen. Schumer on their shoulders and carry him to across the finish line. When the time comes, I hope the GOP Congress has the backbone to investigate what influences advocated on behalf of Eller & Co. I guess that would be impossible because they would be investigating their selves.
(1) "Small Florida Firm Sowed Seed of Port Dispute" - Wall Street Journal. Feb. 28. page A3 (2)"Multi-Billion Dollar Company that Operates NYC Port to be Taken over by United Arab Emirates Government Owned Firm Today" - Press Release Sen. Chuck Schumer. Feb 13 (3)"UAE Terminal takeover extends to 21 ports" - UPI 2/23/06 (4)"US company files petition in London to block DP World takeover of P&O" -The Star Online AP World 2/25/06 (5)"Miami Co. Says Ports Deal Will Hurt Business" - Newsmax.com 2/28/06 (6)"Deal gives Dubai Firm control of 23 US ports" - Buffalo News 3/4/06 (7)"Miami firm behind Arab ports deal flap" - Middle East Times. 2/28/06 (8) "Bush's Response to the Ports Deal Faulted as Tardy" - Washington Post. Feb. 26 (9)"Bush: Ports Storm Sends Bad Message" - CBS News. 3/10/06 (10)"Arabs drop ports deal; S. Fla firm in running" - Miami Herald 3/10/06
Stevedoring is a waste of good sailors.
|
There's several dozen if not a hundred issues where government has overstepped the power granted to it by the people. A person could write a hundred articles, one article per issue, that exposes each government abuse of power and abuse of citizens. What if there was one article that could do the job of one hundred separate articles? First, the article would have to identify a common denominator that runs through all the issues. Government abuse is a common denominator but that's not the only focus of this article. This identifies a common denominator that politicians, bureaucrats and the facilitating main stream media use to justify government abuse. It applies at all levels of government -- federal, state and local. It snatches the rug out from under, followed by the expected collapse. Not a leg to stand on. Here's a generalized identification of a common denominator that extends its reach to almost all political agenda laws and regulations that parasitical elites in government create and that is at the root of government abuse. What's the general argument, one-size-fits-all argument, given to the people that politicians, bureaucrats, lobbyists and MSM facilitators use to justify the need for a new law and/or regulation? Their argument is that the people must have the new law and/or regulation to protect the "little guy," the children and/or society from ______ (fill in the blank) frightening consequence that will be inflicted on the people and/or society without the new law or regulation. The fill-in-the-blank is a boogieman. It's a problem that does not exist or is not the responsibility of government to resolve.. ...A non-problem void filled with a politician created problem. That's the general argument put forth for each new law and regulation. A fabricated illusion foisted on the people as though it were a real problem that only the government can fix. The premise of the argument is that persons and society will run headlong toward destruction without the new law and/or regulation. General chaos would occur. It's a grander illusion than the above. It's a must-have law. Got that? Without the new law you and society will self-destruct. So says politicians, bureaucrats and a facilitating main stream media -- parasitical elites. On average the federal government creates 3,000 new laws and regulations each year. Each state legislature creates probably a third to half that many each year. Question: for the past two-hundred years have individuals increased prosperity for themselves, their families and society? Laying the ground work for the next generation to further increase their own and society's prosperity? Yes and yes. Next question: how did people manage to continually increase prosperity while always perched on the cliff-edge of running themselves and society headlong toward destruction? How did persons and society increasingly prosper in any decade, much less the 1990's without the supposed benefits of 15,000 new laws and regulations that came in the years 2000 to 2005? Surely, according to the arguments and underlying premise told to us by parasites in the legislature person's should have lead themselves and society into destruction during the 1990's. Why? Because during the 1990's we didn't have the new laws that would be created at the start of the 21st century to protect us from self-destructing. How did people and society not self destruct Pick virtually any time in history and similar boogieman arguments and premise were put forth by the politicians or church in power at that time in history. They abused their power to control the people so that they -- the parasitical elites -- could justify their unearned paychecks or high-and-mighty lifestyles to the peasants, subjects and taxpayers. This problem is anything but new. For thousands of years they -- parasitical elites -- What is the primary tool -- another common denominator -- that allows for parasitical elites to manipulate people from one generation to the next? It resides with the individual. Each person's conscious mind is inflicted to some degree with the vestiges of the bicameral mind. As Julian Jaynes, who authored The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind explained, an over- abundance of contradicting auditory hallucinations caused bicameral-mind man to create or discover consciousness. Mysticism is a vestige of the bicameral mind. Mysticism: acting on the non-real as though it were real. Acting on feel-good or feel-fear arguments regardless of the argument and premise being invalid. Aside from parasitical elites that know their arguments and premise are invalid, for each boogieman law and regulation there are "peasants", "subjects", "sheeple" (people that follow the heard) and taxpayers that will vigorously support their pet law or regulation. ...Support the boogieman law regardless of the invalid argument and underlying premise put forth by parasitical elites. When a person does that they are playing right into the hands of the parasitical elites. ...Acting like good little indoctrinated "peasants"/"subjects"/"sheeple"/taxpayers; towing the status-quo line. Perhaps you don't think it's really that bad. That's what the parasitical elite would have you believe. It is that bad. Reality check: virtually every adult breaks the law several times a year. The more laws there are the more difficult it becomes to not break the law. It's so bad that most people when violating a law don't even know they're breaking the law. Question: with that massive amount of lawlessness -- laws being violated -- how is it that person's and society have not run headlong into destruction? Equally important, shouldn't the laws apply to every person and be applied uniformly? If a person breaks the law should not the law be respected by enforcing/apprehending the person that disrespected the law? Surely the argument and premise told to us by parasitical elites supports apprehending each person that breaks the law. Yet not one-tenth of one-percent of people that violate the law are ever held accountable . Each time a person violates the law it moves the person and society toward destruction. And everybody does that. Reality check #2 If the one-tenth of one-percent didn't get caught and held accountable for breaking the law how much would that effect society when the 99.9% of the adult population that isn't caught and held accountable is doing the same thing. Surely if 99.9% of people committing the same violations haven't run themselves and society into destruction then the one-tenth of one-percent aren't going to destroy themselves and society. The one-tenth of one-percent pay a heavy price for getting caught. Snared in the parasitical elites' web of political agenda laws and regulations. However, the 99.9% pay the bills (taxes). Actually the money is extorted from them to pay the bills. For no person in their right mind would knowingly and willingly pay for such government abuse. The clincher. Consider this: if it were physically possible to apprehend every person that broke the law in the past twelve months chaos would swiftly overcome persons and society. The market and economy would come to a screeching halt. Almost every adult person including politicians, bureaucrats, judges and LEOs would be apprehended and wasting time in holding jails and courts. Having successfully brought the economy and free market to a screeching halt the parasitical elites can explain to the children home-alone that they did it for them--the children.
|
"National security concerns" was the only way Schmuckie Schumer could "sell" it to the American public and get the desired effect and result.
If he'd jumped up and down simply about a lost bid or business deal there'd have been no traction.
Do you know if anyone has e-mailed this stuff to Rush yet?If he could come out wit this today, if nothing else it might get the truth started. We will need his expertise getting this out because it is somewhat complex, not a good topic for radio but he could do it.
Hopefully some front running pubbie phonies will think twice about second guessing GW next time.
By the way thanks for this thread.
I do not have Rush 24/7, if you don't could you send a mail to AliVeritas? She does have it. I'm at work, got to run!
Fantastic job, CW! I hope this info gets out.
Thanks for the ping, onyx.
I used to think Lou Dobbs was fair and somewhat balanced ,then I remembered what network he works for.
Britt Hume gets it. His comments on FNSunday were right on target.
"Schumer fiddles".....The devil went down to congress...paging little Johnny!Paging little Johnny! bring your fiddle, boy! the devil's up to his old tricks again.
I'll do it from work, not set up here yet.
Tony Snow. He was a rock. He has to be on the good guys list on this one.
I might get a second to talk to Coburn at a fundraiser on Thursday. If so I plan to mention this.
Bump to re-read later.
I summarise: At the end of every session, the lawmakers pat themselves on the back at how they have saved the world.
Then next year they come back, and say there's a whole new list of bills that must be passed because the world is coming to an end.
You'd think at some point we would have the country pretty much running on auto-pilot, and the congress would just have to check in once in a while to see how things are going. But it's hard to justify millions of dollars of lobbyist money that way.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1594261/posts?page=12#12 <- read this one, click thru
Reason: You were in Washington recently to do a story. What was it like there?
Barry: It's like going to Mars. When you come back out no one is talking about any of the things the people in Washington are talking about.
If we're spending $853 trillion on some program now, and next year we spend any less, that's "budget-cutting" to them. For them, the question is always, "What kind of government intervention should we impose on the world?" They never think that maybe we shouldn't.
It gives me a real advantage as a humorist because I get credit for having insight and understanding--and I don't. I don't have any insight or understanding on anything about the government. All I think is that it's stupid--which is the one perspective that's almost completely lacking in Washington. Reason magazine -- Dave Barry Interview
I stand by what I said. Telling me that Chucky is corrupt, opportunistic and hates Bush is somehow news?
The only reason Chucky got traction on this issue was the lemming-like behavior of the Republicans in Congress and the shallow commentators on the Right who all reacted as if this country was Bolivia or Argentina, not the United States of America.
If Dubai actually wanted to commit a terrorist act on American soil they could easily fly an airplane from Emirates Airlines into a skyscaper. They have daily flights from JFK to Dubai - nonstop.
I never had any trust of belief that Chucky would act responsibly. I hold Republicans to a much higher standard than 'Rats.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.