The New Protectionists

Dubai Ports World finally threw in the kaffiyah on its American operations yesterday, agreeing to sell them "to a U.S. entity." We hope that entity turns out to be Halliburton, if only for the torment that would cause certain eminences on Capitol Hill.

Dubai Ports was susceptible to this political stampede because it was an Arab-owned company buying port operations, which Democrats have played up as uniquely vulnerable. But this is also the second such mugging of a foreign investor in recent months, following last year's demagoguery against a Chinese company's bid to buy Unocal, a middling American oil company. If Members of Congress want a real security crisis--a financial security crisis--they'll keep this up.

What's especially dangerous here is that we're seeing the re-emergence of the "national security" protectionists. They were last seen in the late 1980s, when Japan in particular was the target of a political foreign-investment panic. The Japanese were buying Pebble Beach and Rockefeller Center, and so America was soon going to be a colony of Tokyo. A Japanese bid for Fairchild Semiconductor of Silicon Valley was seen as a threat to American defense. Those fears seem laughable now. But here we go again, with new targets of anxiety.

Nationalism has been under assault for quite a while by the globalists and free trade in it's latest go round is just another tool being used by the globalists to destroy nationalism in attempt to cow America into accepting a one world government. And that isn't a conspiracy theory, it has as much been stated by at least one of the guys involved in doing it. There has been this anti-god, anti-Christian, anti-nationalist, anti-freedom globalist movement around for sometime spreading it's disease as the end-all be-all - that service to man is the greatest thing one can aspire to. And they don't mind using the Marxist playbook to serve their ends anymore than anyone elses. Which seems to be why "free traitors" tend to slap that lable on their opposition knowing it is an evil and hoping nobody catches on.

You've got to understand the mentality. For these guys, it isn't about you, it's about them and what they think they're accomplishing by stepping on you. Gotta break a few eggs and if you protest, you've gone from being trivial to being an enemy of the state as it were - something vile to be squished and destroyed at all cost to preserve the purity of the goal - global rule. Free trade is about the "new world order" and global governance which is what the UN aspires to and which is the reason we haven't extricated ourselves from its membership roles when we should have long ago. Free trade is nothing more than the latest thing in a long line of concerted efforts toward the subversion of American soveriegnty.

If you believe in an Original view of the Constitution then you MUST disagree with CIFUS.

Nonsense, under the Commerce Clause the Constution gives the power to Congress to regulate commerce. Under the necessary and proper clause, Congress has the ability to divest itself of power. The brillance of the Constitution is that it tells what the maximum power of each branch of the government, but the government doesn't have to take all that power. So if Congress thinks that it is better that a committee look at approval of these type of deals, then Congress can do it. Another example is federal court jurisdiction. The Constitution lays out all areas in which federal courts can possibly have jurisdiction, but Congress has not given the Court all the powers that they possibly could.

The Committee for Foreign Investment review process was set up to be confidential and beyond Congress' reach specifically to insulate sensitive business investments from political forces,

Which is an excellent idea. Congress can't be trusted to keep national security secrets, secret. If this had come before a Congressional panel, it would have been leaked long ago, along with confidential trade secrets. Now, I am not saying that Congress shouldn'y have more oversight, I am sure they probably do, (Throw a couple of Congressmen on the Committee or something along those lines) but to leave stuff like this under Congress' total control would be a mistake.

That's the problem, security would never have changed hands. That is what this whole sh*t storm was over, nothing. The same US Coast Guard, the same US Customs, would be providing the security. We were not selling ports, we were not giving up security but Schumer, Clinton, and the mainstream media managed to hoodwink the American public over this.

Schumer and Clinton had motives other than security on their minds. Schumer and Clinton are in bed with longshormen unions and Schumer's wife is connected to the New York port authority. There is a company in Miami that started all this because they didn't want P&O selling out. They sued, by the way, in a London court...and were promptly laughed out on their collective a**es. But Republicans and a hysterical public were suckered into believing lies....and I'm ashamed of what has happened.

The UAE are secure enough to service our naval vessels in their port, they are secure enough to serve beside our troops in Afghanistan, and they are secure enough to provide us with intelligence on terrorists....but damn, they are not secure enough to operate, I say again, operate a few terminals in some US ports.

I said:
"I prefer being an American that does not advocate the slow surrender to globalism and a one world government, that's what I prefer."

By some miracle of nature it appears that both of your brain cells have collided and formed a thought and from that thought you interpret what I said as being anti-capitalist!!??!!

Listen buddy, you may march to the tune of Globalism under a One World Government, but not me. Do you really think that your envisioned globalist world will practice capitalism? Think about that when the blue helmeted globalists come to take your property and whatever else they want of yours, to include your freedom.

sure, the coast guard does what you say - but with only 5-7% of the cargo inspected, there is an implicit security component that is a de-facto consequence of them running the facility. the security concerns were always "backdoor", its not like we expect the Emir to walk into a DPW board meeting and say "when are we shipping the dirty bomb into NY harbor". it was always a fear that the company could be infiltrated on the UAE side, perhaps setting up a conduit with jihadis in the US, setup as a subcontractor at one of the port facilities.

Schumers wife is the NYC DOT commissioner.

this deal was a mess from the moment it was revealed, at every level. you cannot have the president out there - talking about security every single day, asking for support for things like the Patriot Act, sensitizing americans to security concerns domestically, searching grandma at airport check-in - you cannot do all these things, and then turn over some port operations to a state owned Arab company and say "its no big deal, trust us". no way you can make that sale.

I agree that Congress has divested many of its powers over the course of its history while picking up some that it never had. That being said if Congress would have had a hearing on this I don't think Bush's approval rating would have hit 24%. I don't think secrecy is ever a good thing in the long run. The more secrets that are kept the more the powers that be want to keep secrets (Bush admin is a prime example, the secercy thing is killing them in the polls even if some is necessary). Congress like it or not is the people's leaders. If we can not trust them to keep State Security secrets than who can we trust? The problem with divestiture of powers is that it does not happen in a vacuum. If Congress losses power, the President or the Court gains powers. I believe all power should be parceled out as equally as possible. A super strong president is as much of a danger to this country as a super strong congress or a super strong court. Look at the social problems caused by the court over the last 30 years because Congress has seeded some of its powers to the Court. Same for military matters, Korea,Vietnam, now Iraq have all turned into problems because Congress seeded its power to declare war thus unpopular wars are being fought without the backing of the people. If Congress would stand up and declare war then they are held responsible not the president. I think we are seeing a shift in the power base of Washington. Bush it appears may have done in the last year what Congress has been unable to do since FDR and that is to become an equal or perhaps greater power in Washington than the President.

With all that being said:

Should the US block container ships from entering US ports which came from the ports of Germersheim in Germany, Constanta in Romania, Puerto Cabello in Venezuela, Puerto Caucedo in the Dominican Republic, Jeddah in Saudi Arabia, Cochin and Visakha Patnam in India, Djibouti in Djibouti, Adelaide in Australia, Yantian, Shanghai Ji Fa and Tiajin in China and three ports from Hong Kong?

From what it seems is that your basic assumption is that one branch has too much power and I don't agree. All three branches still have their checks on the others power which is still the more important thing. The basic fact is that Congress can't keep a secret that is why they aren't told is because they are politicians. If Chuckles Schumner is told of the NSA program he leaks it out three weeks before an elections and hammers the President and the GOP with it. Which is why so few people are told about sensitive information. I agree with the basic premise that the more open the better, but the real question is; since we can't trust Congress to keep the nations secrets, who can we trust?

Iraq, and in general the WOT, is not unpopular because Congress ceeded (which I don't necessarily agree with) power, it's unpopular because the Bush administration has a PR IQ of about 2 and the MSM and Congressional D's (and some R's for that matter) are out there everyday bashing Bush and the war. Not being alive for Korea and Vietnam I cannot speak towards what was going on then, but from what I have read, it was more the media focusing on a small minority of dissenters than there being a real opposition to the war.

Honestly, is a strong Congress better than a strong President?

If the US has reason to believe that those ports are light on security then yes. Just because you are a port does not mean we have to allow you to ship whatever you want into the country. Would we allow a North Korea frigate to sail unmolested into NY harbor?

Once again, that isn't the answer to the question. Yes or no is all I am asking for. This is not a gray area. If DPW cannot be trusted in American ports, they can't be trusted in foreign ports. So once again, should the US block containers from the ports I mentioned above?

and I have told you - security reviews are going to be conducted if this new legislation that is moving now passes. if these terminal operators you are obsessesed with fail to comply - then they should be shut down.

Just answer the question, stop acting like Kerry and waffling. Yes or no. If DPW cannot be trusted in US ports, surely they cannot be trusted in foreign ports. It is a simple yes or no question.

And yet, somehow, I'm for free trade and against a one world government.

And that isn't a conspiracy theory, it has as much been stated by at least one of the guys involved in doing it.

Well, if one guy admitted it, it must be true. LOL!!

What I mean is that the word "freedom" has now joined the ranks of other abused words such as justice, to justify less than desireable practices. To me, when people use the word "freedom" to justify insane and unfair trade practices, to justify people not having any sense of responsibility what so ever just to increase their bottom line, then that word has joined the ranks of abused words.

A strong Congress is better that a strong president in many ways. A strong Congress safeguards more of our freedoms because of the nature of Congress. As far as Iraq my point is that if the President went in front of Congress and asked for a declaration of war and if Congress granted that request than the MSM could not have said this is Bush's war. They could have complained about the way Bush has handled it...true but they could not have label Bush a warmonger. They would have had to label the entire government that. The people would have been behind it more because they would have had a voice in it. You can not lead a fractured nation into war. The pot shots that the DEMS and some REP are taking at the President over Iraq would not have been possible if the Congress was on record with a vote. The resolution they passed was so watered down that congress could say it meant whatever they said it meant. Congress should have taken an up or down vote to either go to war or to stay home.
There are way for Congress to keep a secret if they wanted too. Committee postings, signed oaths of secrecy, etc. Just because it is hard to do should not mean that you should not do something. But look at the problems secrecy has caused the Bush White House just in the last year (wiretaps, patriot act held up in Congress, secret jails in Europe, Gitmo, Portgate, Katrina response, Libby scandal) if the White house would have had a less secret atmosphere just about all of these would have been mole hills instead with each new revelation about a secret program the President's approval falls threatening his domestic programs, his war fighting ability, his standing with other nations etc.

I believe the less government the better but equal branches above all

A very good post. I see that you have already been shot at by the "security" crowd. Nothing in the world is more important than the protection of the American people from another terrorist attack. Dubya has accomplished that in spades. Dubya is also very correct in his doctrine that free people are too busy making money and feeling good to spend time sending their children to malls with bombs in their coats.

The utter supitidy that I have witnessed on Free Republic on this issue has changed me a great deal. I am now realizing that we have an issue in this country. We even have an issue with consevatives who are incredibly devoid of any common sense.

Yes, I agree: shoot me and I'll shoot you fifty times. But the world stage is nothing more than a poker game. And to play poker you have to believe that your opponent is honest. Sure, you bluff and upstage but you always have a sense that what you are dealing with isn't cheating.

Trust buy verify. Wasn't that the Reagan doctrine? Well, IMHO, we have a bunch of Freepers who don't want to do that. They will destroy the Bush doctrine and they will destroy our children if another attack is made.

I, for one, do not want to be a part of this ridiculous paranoid parading. I am sickened by it. The stupidity is overwhelming.

It's not a yes/no answer. But if you must have a yes/no answer then I say yes those ships should be stopped and inspected more so that other ships entering the country. Or do you think old haired grandmothers should be stripped search in an airport while the 21 year old Middle easterner with a backpack behind her should be allowed thru with no inspection because he is wearing an I love NY t-shirt?

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.