Posted on 02/28/2006 4:29:52 AM PST by Stepan12
I meant mute as in silence not moot as in having nothing to do with it. I believe in your 2nd para and review and sovereignty. My point was that the law that was posted as a reference was the incorrect law.
Fraudulent Democrat Party talking point. Witnesses to the Senate Committee documented it took 90 days to complete the investigation. Doubtlessly the Democrat stooges screaming this lie will point to some aspect of the investigation that took less then 45 days to claim that "proves their point" but the statement is a lie as Witnesses have all ready repeatedly told the US Senate hearing. Just more Leftist propaganda from AIM. You can see it in their accusation that it was "Right wing talk radio and the blogs" when the people PUSHING this Arab Hating story are Chucky Schumer and the Senate Democrat Election Committee. More nonsense propaganda from the Port Deal Hysterics.
Fraudulent statement on your part. As the Admin witnesses have documented repeatedly, they spend 90 days investigating the deal. Just another Democrat Talking point lie.
Factually incorrect. Witnesses to the US Senate hearings have all ready documented that they spent 90 days reviewing the deal. The 45 day lie is just a fraudlent talking point being thrown out there by the Democrat Senate Election Comittee. It is a lie.
I guess that explains why Dubai is willing to hold off the deal long enough to have the 45-day investigation in question performed.
You really need to get your facts in better order before accusing someone else of lying.
Oh brother. Read this and stop talking through your hat.
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/news/politics/13968628.htm
Man I hate it when they do that. Damn Bush Adminsitration and Arab/Muslim lobby... always getting in te way of MSM factual reporting...
The key word is "competitiveness." The very fact that the UAE company is "state owned" should rule it out from doing business in our country. We are supposed to have free competition in our system, something that cannot exist when governments own businesses. The merging of the roles of government and business is illegitimate in our political and economic system. Free enterprise and competition are seen as necessary to maintain not only our economic freedoms but our political and civil liberties as well. We have absolutely no interest as a free and self-governing people in rewarding and encouraging the business model of this UAE "firm" -- government ownership -- that has more in common with mercantilism than with free market principles.
It seems to me that the lack of discussion of this subject indicates that either our elected officials and media elites do not understand the requirements for maintaining a free and competitive economy as well as our individual freedoms or they have already given up on it. I am beginning to wonder if the brave new globalist world we are being marched toward by our elites will consist of ceding our rights to self-government to autocratic government/corporations and international mega-businesses around the world whose purposes extend only to gaining and maintaining power and to profit and who are not accountable to anyone.
I appreciate the information you provided but it doesn't speak to the principle that I asserted, that government ownership of business is incompatible with our freedoms and that state owned companies should not be allowed to do business in our country. The fact that two government owned businesses were competing for the contract or that a Chinese government owned company may be doing some business here already doesn't change the principle or the need to address the question. We as a self-governing people must decide whether we will demand observance of our free market principles or not.
I understand your concern. I think in the global economy, we will be facing more and more of this same situation.
This debate involves an argument over what business model will prevail in our brave new globalist world: a mercantilist merging of business and government or a free market, competitive system that the is the basis of our society's freedoms. We should at least demand observance of our free market economic principles here in our own country and should be advocating these principles to the rest of the world. I don't think that taking this position in defense of our American way of life is too much to ask of our President and Congress.
The Exon-Florio amendment that mandated the 45 day investigation refers to foreign purchase of U.S. companies. This is a foreign purchase of a foreign company.
Nobody has been able to explain how the amendment applies to this situation at all, yet that's what all the talking points are hitting.
What we think isn't relevant. Only the law as written is relevent.
And again, this is not a foreign purchase of a U.S. company.
If Chuckie Schumer knew about this, and waited for the chance to spring, why didn't Bush know, and why did he put his foot in his mouth and say he would veto any attempt to stop something he knew nothing about?
The use of "gate" has jumped the shark....literally around the same time the Fonz did.
It's childish. It's old. It's tedious. It's a grasping for a turn of the phrase by someone who is incapable of original thought. People who use it should be ignored for the morons they are.
Don't perpetuate the slack-jawed, drooling incompetence of "gate".
No? Mr. Kincaid quotes the law (wherever it is) as thusly:>>>Some of the negative reaction to the deal stems not from racism or Arab-bashing but the fact that initial federal approval of the deal sidestepped a legally authorized 45-day investigation. The law requires such a probe when "the acquirer is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government" and when the acquisition "could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. that could affect the national security of the U.S." By reluctantly agreeing to have a 45-day investigation, Dubai Ports World only recognized what the law required<<<<<<<
Sounds like a 45 day investigation of this deal is mandated in my humble view. The company is engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. and it concerns national security. Cliff Kincaid doesn't say it has to do with it being an american company that is acquired.
Here's where I think it gets squishy... what you quoted is true but there's more to the statute. A literal read of the statute says those conditions apply but only to foreign aquisition of U.S. firms. Not to get into a discussion of "is", but it's simply the difference between AND and OR.
If in fact these conditions apply to foreign aquisition of a foreign firm that would AFFECT the U.S., then it's a badly written law and needs to be clarified. I can understand the interpretive differences that are being bandied about.
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.