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.
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.
The Christian Right is getting it !!! The money quote.
That picture just killed my buzz.
Yes, but when you disengage with another country then you have no leverage over that country. My point is that it's a more complex situation than the writer thinks.
Christianity isn't banned in the UAE.
HERE is what the Port Deal was about you silly people.
Was it not just the sweetest little Influence for Hire scam.
Eller & Co , run by fat cat Democrat Donors, got beat out for the P&O deal by Dubai Port World. They hired a big shot lawyer and filed a lawsuit. They knew the Lawsuit was crap so they scurried up to Capitol Hill to cry for help. The Unions also hated the deal cause they knew in new Union Negotiations with the new company they were going to get seriously squeezed by demands of labor saving technological improvements. Chucky Schumer, head of the Democrat Senate Election Committee, took the lobbying info and ran with it. It allowed him to do a number of things. It allows Democrats to nuke their "weak on National Security" PR vulnerability. It gets him a big wet sloppy kiss from the unions in terms of money and foot solider for the Senate campaigns. It gets him big dollars from the Port Terminal companies, it drives a wedge into the Republican base, and best of all he got Know Nothing Talking Heads like Sean Hannity, Mike Savage and Laura Ingraham etc. to do the PR dirty work for him.
The best thing is he can walk away a big winner now, OR he can go to stage two and lobby that the ports be "nationalized" like they did with the Airline Screeners. The Congresscowards, their usual gutless selves, simply looked at the polls and panicked. NEVER even thought that they should stand by the President and fight for the truth. They simply panicked and rolled over for the Dem's AGAIN.
No national security implications, no nonsense about "turning our ports over to Arabs" simply a business deal where the losers went to Congress to buy the influence to reverse the deal. The same Americans running the port terminals now would of been running them after the deal for Dubai Port World. The name on the outside of the terminal and the name on the paycheck given to the American terminal workers would have change and that is about it.
Simply amazing that the same people who whine endlessly about "Bush big spending" and "Big Govt Republicans" now have seen to it that there will be an expansion in the cost, scope and reach of the Federal Govt over the Private Sector. That's the REALITY which the Whine All The Time Choir just screamed down rather then admit the knee jerk nature of their "I'm mad at Bush" hissy fit about the Terminal Deal.
But that right. Don't try to actually learn the facts. Just scream "Koolaid drinker" or "Bush bot" and cling your rabid ignorance.
Great post. Thanks for the ping.
Yeah, he's controlling GWB with his joystick again. Probably from that same undisclosed location he takes the liberals he invites bird hunting.
Unlikely, since the muslims are killing Christians around the world in record numbers.
Ops4 God Bless America!
Unlikely, since the muslims are killing Christians around the world in record numbers.
Ops4 God Bless America!
It's like that in most of the ME, USE is no different. They are more free than other countries though.
DPW doesn't own the port terminal leases. They brought P&Q and P&Q owns the leases. When Congress raised its fit DPW just made P&Q a subsidiary of DPW instead of changing the name P&Q to DPW. That way no port terminal leases have changed hands. DPW owns P&Q and has no plans to sell P&Q. P&Q owns the port terminal leases and has no plan to sell the leases. P&Q does not require a security check, they have been doing business in American pots since the 1600's.
The US has a 700 million dollar trade surplus with UAE, not a deficient.
The Democrat plan did not work to steal the operation of port terminal leases. DPW simple made P&Q a subsituary of DPW and no leases exchanged hands. P&Q still owns the leases. A security check is not required. DP has no plans to sell P&Q. Congress took a big one.
Bitter, party of one, your table is ready. You lost. Again.
You are correct. UAE is NOT giving up, or selling our portion of this company.
It's all a lie, from what I've heard. This is not over...
Really. We've all been had. Just because DPW SAID they would divest, we believed it? *smacking my forehead*
"""From the European point of view the high US-defict is indeed a problem""
You realize dont you that the USA would not have such a large trade deficit if 10% of Europe wasnt chronically unemployed and EuRo zone GDP growth wasnt perenially stuck at 1%
Frankly if the US consumer didnt spend so much money, the global economy would fall into a deep recession.
You are correct I made a mistake.
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.