Posted on 02/28/2006 7:07:39 AM PST by Mikey
I'm glad to see America up in arms over the issue of who controls America's ports.
But I'm afraid everyone is missing the real issue.
The real issue is security.
Now, for my money, you can't have port security by turning over routine operations to an Arab oil tyranny. That's just common sense.
The move by the Bush administration is akin to what is happening with border security. Because George Bush doesn't want to hurt Vicente Fox's feelings, he is jeopardizing U.S. national security. Likewise, with the ports deal, Bush suggests it would be unfair to this "ally" in the war on terrorism to deny it control of our ports.
Maybe he should have thought of that before the issue came up. Perhaps he should have headed off this embarrassing diplomatic issue by ensuring the matter never reached this crisis point.
Diplomacy is nice. But it is no substitute for a secure America.
And to achieve a secure America, we've got to get control of our borders and control of our ports.
As the latest issue of my G2 Bulletin online newsletter details, only 2 percent of cargo containers entering America's ports are ever inspected. And the inspections performed are inferior to say the least.
For instance, ABC News, as part of an investigative story, shipped a container full of depleted uranium to a New York port. There were sufficient red flags to make it one of the one in 50 containers singled out for examination. Had radiation detectors been used, they would have indicated a problem. They were not.
There were all kinds of excuses from the Customs department. But the episode pointed out the distressing state of port security. That depleted uranium could have been a nuclear weapon.
Would it surprise you to learn that this offer would involve no government financing at all?
Would it surprise you that American companies, with the best interests of the U.S. at heart, are being turned away in favor of foreign companies with no plans to keep nuclear weapons away from our shores?
That's the real story – the one no one else is telling.
Robert Pfriender, president of Allied International Development, tells G2 Bulletin: "The real concern is that if a weapon of mass destruction arrives at one of mainland ports, it will be much too late for any possible security measure to have any effect."
We're talking about maybe 2 million people dead – even if a nuclear device is detected once it reaches a port in the United States.
"Such an event which is unfortunately entirely plausible at the current time would change the nature of our free society in profoundly negative ways and would likely ruin the national economy aside from the great human tragedy of immeasurable proportions," he adds.
And that's why Allied International Development put together a comprehensive plan for Customs and Border Protection to develop three offshore cargo container security inspection ports to inspect each and every container prior to it being cleared for entry to the U.S. mainland. The ports would be located 25 miles offshore to mitigate the effects of a detonation and so any fallout (which is minimal over water) would not pass over land.
"We offered to develop these ports with private financing and at no cost to the government," he said. "The operation of the ports would generate revenue from a small inspection fee for each container. The fully automated robotic process would add only a slight delay to the container delivery time."
Not only did Pfriender ensure the proposal was seen by Customs officials as far back as August 2002, less than a year after the Sept. 11 attacks, he also took the time to see that virtually every member of Congress received this proposal – along with officials in the White House, the Department of Defense, the Coast Guard and the Department of Homeland Security.
Who the heck is paying attention to the big issue, the real issue, of U.S. national security?
Joseph Farah is founder, editor and CEO of WND and a nationally syndicated columnist with Creators Syndicate. His latest book is "Taking America Back." He also edits the weekly online intelligence newsletter Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, in which he utilizes his sources developed over 30 years in the news business.
Yes lets do warrant less searches, tap phones without a court order, spy on ALL Americans, treat all Americans like criminals. Yet lets keep the borders wide open.
Let us also allow Arabs to have full control over our ports. Let all containers enter our country w/o adequate inspections .
I believe all of this is being set in place to usher in the New World Order under the tender loving care (and whip) of the United Nations.
I don't like the idea of an Arab country in charge of a few ports, but it blows my mind that we are up in arms about this, when everything at walmart is made in china (our dollars build their military), and the border to the south is as sealed about as tightly as a funnel. either shut the borders and get serious, or just disband the border patrol and charge a small tax to get in. current system is a joke.
I noticed that the New York Port Authority still fully owns the Port of New York.
And, the Saudi company that owns a "terminal" there still owns its terminal.
I think these guys were intending to buy a company that owned a couple of terminals at the Port of New York ~ did you understand that too?
Did you ever sometime get the feeling that you were "had"?
Here's what the deal is ~ we have 77,000 troops at any one time present in UAE on R&R. There are several more tens of thousands of troops there at work training, or doing work for the Navy which serves TWO FLEETS there. We also have airbases.
What's going on is that we are mounting our war in Iraq from UAE. The anti-war people (who all support returning Iraq to Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athist party) have found what they believe is a weak spot in our supply lines. That is our continued use of UAE. If they can drive us out of UAE, then they figure they can force us to withdraw from Iraq and give the place back to their friend Saddam.
Most people weren't paying much attention to our use of UAE.
So, do you support our continued presence in Iraq, or do you want to pull everybody and everything out and give 60% of potential world oil reserves back to the Ba'athist party?
I like to think I'm pretty well informed, but this is the first time I've heard that.
Well, I wasn't aware of this. Lord, what a mess. Please understand why the average person thinks this is a mistake. Lack of information, plus many people are aware of Koran verses which states a duty to lie to infidels, and kill them, convert them, or enslave them. Btw, we're the infidels. I'm very uneasy about this whole deal.
There are Koranic verses to that effect.
There are several "schools" that specify different ways to read the Koran anyway. "Modern Protestant" ain't one of them so you have to be careful what you conclude about it.
The Osama Bin Laden thing has virtually nothing to do with religion ~ his ambition is to overthrow the Saudi royal family, and begin re-establishing what was known as the Islamic Caliphate (which used to stretch from Spain to India). That sort of thing is a political and military issue which is why we are engaged in a war against him and his running dog lackeys.
UAE already got burnt by the Salafists.
Apparantly you have not been reading FR very carefully.
And even the cheap WalMart junk isn't as worriesome as the more advanced technologies that are being outsourced to China.
Reform CFIUS to Stop Foreign Raiders from Dismantling the Defense Industrial Base
"Good thing that isn't what's happening. Farah just keeps sliding into irrelevance..."
And ingnorance. Stuck on stupid perhaps?
Let us also allow Arabs to have full control over our ports. Let all containers enter our country w/o adequate inspections .
I am against the port deal as many know here. But this comment you made is by far irresponsible. There is enough of a basic issue to keep the argument alive and well. exaggerating it like you did only defeats the purpose.
What's that got to do with The anti-war people (who all support returning Iraq to Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athist party? I haven't heard of any anti-war people who want to return Saddam or the Ba'athist party to power.
Didn't Ramsey Clark becoming his lead defense attorney mean anything to you?
I am always a little suspicious of those who are able to divine the the unexpressed intentions of others.
Didn't Ramsey Clark becoming his lead defense attorney mean anything to you?
Ramsey Clark is defiantly a nut bar. I don't know any anti-war people who take him seriously either. Its interesting though that both Ramsey Clark and Neocons have Trotskyist roots.
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.