Nonsense. Bush has another agenda entirely.
Posted on 03/13/2006 10:30:20 PM PST by Cedar
The Ports and the President
by William J. Murray
The transfer of the operation of six American ports to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) became a major controversy, with virtually the entire Congress on one side and the President on the other. Both Republican House Speaker Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Frist have started the process of passing laws to ban the transfer, while the President stands by the decision of the Treasury. Democrat Senators Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer of New York also wanted the deal blocked and have accused the President of continually allowing the sale of American assets to questionable Middle Eastern interests.
What really happened? First Dick Cheney is winning the power struggle at the White House between Dick Cheney’s economic conservatives and the George Bush social conservatives. Dick Cheney is a Richard Nixon Republican who honestly believes tax reduction and business growth are far more important than any other issues. His influence continues to grow in this regard in the second term of the Administration, but has always been present. Just a few days before 9-11 the White House blocked the passage of a bill that would have economically punished companies that do business with the Sudan because Cheney had convinced the President that no social issue should come before the free market place -- despite the fact that hundreds of thousands of Christians had been murdered by the Sudanese government. On the day of the Jihad attack against us, I was headed to the Hill for a news conference with Senator Sam Brownback and others to go on the offensive against the White House and to get the Sudan bill passed. The press conference was canceled when four of our aircraft were hijacked and three flown into buildings by Islamists. Cheney wants business as usual with the Islamic world despite the fact that our dollars are financing the Islamist war against us.
Secondly, the Administration is desperately seeking ways to get money back into the United States that is bleeding out in a one-way direction. We give the Islamic states hundreds of billions of dollars for oil, but we have nothing to sell them to get the money back except equity in our businesses. We have sold them everything from convenience stores to luxury hotel chains. Islamic interests financed by petrol-dollars purchase huge chunks of commercial real estate each year. Even the parent company of FOX News is slowly but surely being swallowed up by Saudi interests. The ports deal is a way to get back a few of the bucks we have given the UAE in petrol-dollars. There is one underlying issue no one seems to look at; When we sell them equity in corporations and business property we get some cash back right away, but the profits from those deals then flow back to the Islamic states which in the long run makes the deficit flow from the USA even greater.
The Treasury Department continues to stand by its approval of the sale of a company to Islamist interests that would have operated six American ports for other reasons. At the Treasury Department, as with the Federal Reserve Bank, inflation is the number one enemy, not terrorism. To keep inflation down in a nation with an economic growth rate as large as that of the USA requires actions that are viewed by most as repugnant. This includes the outsourcing of jobs to India and other nations, which keeps down the costs of labor in the United States, as does the importation of illegal aliens from Mexico. Big businesses such as Microsoft or General Electric may not hire illegals, but the mere presence of illegals holds down the entire wage scale of all Americans and it is for that reason big business backs the presence of illegals in the United States.
It is estimated that the combination of illegals and outsourcing brings down the average wage of American workers by more than 10% and virtually stops wage growth. This is good for business and keeps inflation down - for now! The fact that the middle class is being destroyed and the social fabric of the nation is being strained is not important to the Treasury or the FED. As I heard one Treasury employee say, "If you’re having trouble buying a taco in Chicago maybe you should learn to speak Spanish." To economic conservatives, dollar strength and the defeat of inflation trumps all other issues, even which language your children will speak at their jobs in the future, if they have jobs. An editorial in the Washington Times opposes the port deal; however, the voice of economic conservatives, The Wall Street Journal supports it 100% and hopes for more deals like it.
The United Arab Emirates itself is made up of several small Islamic kingdoms each with an unelected emirate or king who inherits a throne. In turn, the most powerful of these is chosen as the unelected leader of the entire UAE. There is no religious freedom and little if any freedom of speech or press. It is this unelected, undemocratic monarchy that owns the company that will control operations at our ports. Apparently brave men died in our Revolutionary War to give us the opportunity to do business with dictatorial, undemocratic monarchs. It now seems that some one on K Street has choked on the wad of cash they made convincing the White House to support this deal.
William J. Murray is the chairman of the Washington, DC based Religious Freedom Coalition.
True, so I guess we both agree with the author's statements.
Yes, which is exactly the case of no true freedom of religion.
This stood out also:
"Big businesses such as Microsoft or General Electric may not hire illegals, but the mere presence of illegals holds down the entire wage scale of all Americans and it is for that reason big business backs the presence of illegals in the United States."
No wonder the borders are still wide open.
This statement is NOT true. NO religious freedom would be the Taliban. They have Churches and Christians in the UAE don't they?
"We give the Islamic states hundreds of billions of dollars for oil, but we have nothing to sell them to get the money back except equity in our businesses."
This is line is the worst I've read in a long time. We get hundred of million if billions back in aircraft sales from Boeing, and military equipment sold.
The one thing that I notice from the article is the tone of the religious when this is an economic deal. If we stop trading with those who might hold religious views that differ from our own, then we might as well pack it up and stop doing business with the world.
Not true. We sell them all kinds of stuff, but not enough to bring back all the dollars that go over there now with $60 oil. But we do sell many billions of dollars of American products to Islamic countries: Boeing airplanes, SUVs, luxury cars, construction equipment, tons of oilwell equipment and services, chemical plant equipment, movie DVDs, music CDs, etc. It's just not enough to recyle all the petro-dollars back to America, so the remaining dollars return here through purchases of corporate stock and real estate.
It sounds like the writer is oversimplifying Cheney's positions on "social issues." For example, it might actually reduce our influence on the Sudan if we stop trading with them.
Apparently the author feels that getting sent to prison for speaking the name of Jesus Christ to a Muslim means there is no freedom of religion. You have a different view.
Maybe we've covered this particular aspect of the article enough now, hopefully.
We're on the same train of thought. I started writing my post before you posted yours, and I agree completely. We sell a whole lot of stuff to Islamic nations, including a lot of military equipment.
Yep, and if it's ok for us to sell military equipment to them, knowing that their citizens, or some of them, hate us, then I see no big deal here.
"We sell them all kinds of stuff, but not enough to bring back all the dollars that go over there now with $60 oil."
Maybe that was basically the point of his comment---"nothing to sell them to get the money back."
Most likely he's aware of the sell of items from the US to Islamic states.
It has been known for months that Iran is switching its oil market to be purchased with euros, not dollars.
The timing of it happens to be in just a couple of weeks.
How convenient that these Muslims are now switching their dollars to euros just in time to begin using them for the oil market (and blaming Americans for wanting to protect their national security for it).
Do a google search on Iran oil bourse. It's very interesting reading.
"This statement is NOT true. NO religious freedom would be the Taliban. They have Churches and Christians in the UAE don't they?"
Not quite true, ET.
An essential tenet of the Christian faith is evangelism (the spreading of the word of Christ). While Christians are not actively persecuted simply for holding to their beliefs, they would be subject to criminal prosecution for fully practicing their religion in the UAE. In short; they're not free to practice their religion in public.
"For example, it might actually reduce our influence on the Sudan if we stop trading with them."
Not true at all, from a psychological or economic perspective. Trade is a reward that sets up a positive-reinforcement cycle of encouraging negative behaviors. Their government has more money, and can acquire more efficient means of persecution.
From the European point of view the high US-defict is indeed a problem in this world, since the US currency has become dependant from the goodwill in China and the Middle East. You guys simply spent much too much money. Nobody should forget that debts have to be paid sooner or later.
If the reliability of America suffers because of a hype against foreign investments there will be damage for all of us in the western hemisphere. Since your coast guard and your customs are those being responsible for the security in American ports this alarmism is difficult to understand from the outside.
We Europeans made good experiences with investors from the middle East. As normal businessmen they do not want to loose their money with crazy terrorism but want to earn more in stable conditions. The biggest shareholders of the (German-US) Daimler-Benz AG are i.e. Kuweit and Dubai International Capital.
In the short run this development is not bad for us Europeans since our firms are going to skim the money from Dubai and others in the near future. Thinking in bigger dimensions we have reason to be afraid of a change in the leading currencies. If the value of the dollar is dominated by political considerations big holders of the greenback like China and the whole Middle East will try to do their business in euros then. This could lead to fundamental problems in the US economy that has a great benefit from the dollar as the leading currency on this planet.
This might be true, but it is still not enough. America is spending much more money in consumption than it earns with its exports.
Why don't you google for an answer to your question?
My curiosity just did: http://www.biblesociety.org/latestnews/latest263.html
Nonsense. Bush has another agenda entirely.
As many as in the PRC, maybe?
That quote about the parent co. of Fox news being swallowed up by Saudi interests....Fox has just hired another Liberal, Marvin Kalb.
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.