THE PORT DEAL: The Larger Problem

THE PORT DEAL" FULL REPORT AT:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_3462.shtml

[SNIP]
The Larger Problem

Whatever happens with the ports deal, Americans need to know this latest scheme to undermine American national security and sovereignty is of a piece with nearly everything else this administration has done or failed to do. Bush not only refuses to stop illegal immigration from Mexico, but also suggests a “guest-worker” entitlement that would permit the alien horde to establish a permanent presence on American soil. He also supports handing Social Security benefits to these criminal aliens. The tsunami of illegal immigrants across the southern border poses a domestic security threat not just because so many are drug dealers, rapists, and murderers, but because Islamic terrorists can sneak across the open border unnoticed amid the tide.

Aside from that, the Bush administration hasn’t stopped the unimpeded flow of government-authorized immigrants and visitors from Islamic countries. Frighteningly, columnist Joe Farah recently reported, Bush has sealed a deal with Saudi King Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz to bring 10,000 Saudi “students” into the United States. It will also permit 25,000 such scholars to enter the United States legally, at the Saudi government’s expense, over the next five years.

Apparently it hasn’t occurred to the president or his spear carriers that these are exactly the kind of visas that some of the 9/11 hijackers possessed when they commandeered two jets and knocked down the World Trade Center, nearly razed the Pentagon with another, and crashed a fourth into the Pennsylvania countryside, having failed to direct their piloted projectile toward 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Then again, in the wake of the Patriot Act, the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, and the massive consolidation of police power in the hands of the Executive Branch, maybe it has occurred to them.

Thus does the government spend less time performing constitutional and legitimate duties, such as controlling immigration and providing for national security, and more time supporting a massive, intrusive, and unconstitutional “homeland security” agency with the authority to trace the activities of everyone in the country. Granted, the government isn’t likely listening to phone calls from your grandmother, but it has arrogated unconstitutional, illegitimate powers to do just about anything in the name of a constitutional, legitimate function: national security.

In a sense, the furor over spying and wire-tapping Americans is the gun-control issue writ large: because the authorities will not, and in some cases cannot, control criminals, they impose gun-control laws on the law-abiding. In the same way, perhaps if the Bush administration were not waging an unconstitutional war in Iraq, it could spend more time and money controlling immigration here, which would obviate the unconstitutional, garrison-state security measures that harass law-abiding citizens.

The government now wants to scrutinize the private lives of all Americans: their financial transactions, their e-mail, their phone calls, and their political activities. Someday, the government may force real Americans to carry identification cards. Already, uniformed federal police search old ladies at airports and harass men who have received the nation’s highest decoration for bravery — gumshoes confiscated a Medal of Honor from the late General Joe Foss, the former governor of South Dakota, who received his decoration from Franklin Roosevelt for his heroics as a fighter pilot in the skies over Guadalcanal.

Thus has Bush promised to veto a bill that would provide some measure of national security, and a cadre of internationalists and global elites who care nothing for American sovereignty support him. For instance, blithely dismissing the obvious national security dangers in the DPW sale, the neo-conservative globalists at the Wall Street Journal pray he keeps this promise.

The Journal penned a sardonic, imperious, and disingenuous editorial that lampooned the justifiable reaction to the sale, implying that racial profiling and “politics” are behind it. A British company was running the ports until now, they reminded readers, and British citizens were responsible for the bombings in London last July. On the other hand, they said, having arrested a terrorist or two, the UAE is an ally in the war against terror. DPW will control only commercial operations, they averred, not security operations. A company in Florida that lost the bid to buy the British company filed suit to stop the sale to DPW. No wonder Miami’s mayor, they concluded, objects to the sale, disguising his obvious political and commercial motives with faux distress over national security.

The Elites and Their Plan

All of which means nothing. The glib rejoinder that a “British” company ran the ports and “British citizens” bombed the London Underground is a bird that won’t fly. Just as the owners of DPW are not British, the bombers were not British in any meaningful way. They were Arab Muslims whose only claim to “citizenship” was a piece of paper. Culturally, religiously, and ideologically they were fiercely devout Muslims, and they acquired the opportunity to carry out their despicable and deadly deeds partly from the specious dogma, held by capitalist liberals at the Journal and multicultural leftists alike, that human beings are interchangeable cogs in the global gears and that anyone can be a “citizen” of any country.

However treasured an ally in the war on terror the UAE is, the Journal cannot speak for its citizens who are Muslim. Nor can it speak for DPW employees, Muslim or no. For the purpose of running our ports, unlike a British company, a company owned by an Islamic regime, particularly one with the UAE’s record, cannot be trusted. Call that profiling or anything else, but the payroll of employees running these ports won’t comprise British gardeners, Scottish pipers, and Irish poets.

Average Americans might wonder why any foreign company, state-controlled or not, is running an American port, the way companies from Singapore, Japan, and Denmark run them now. To the enlightened philosophes at the Journal, foreign control of U.S. assets is only natural; national sovereignty is obsolete. In the “global marketplace,” goods and services and land and factories are sold like Corn Flakes to the highest bidder, creed and country of origin regardless. Americans are rightly dispossessed of their patrimony of wealth and culture, of their harbors and homes, of their very birthright of citizenship, by Mexican migrants and Meccan merchants whose only experience with America is Eminem and M&Ms.

Thus, this sale. It is another piece of the plan, which includes subverting national sovereignty via immigration and billion-dollar global transactions, to cede control of American business, government, and institutions to the corporate, political, and cultural elites who contrived and command the plan, and will augment their considerable powers at the expense of the consumers and taxpayers who unwittingly support the nefarious enterprise.

It mightn’t matter to Bush and Wall Street’s elite who runs America’s harbors, industry, and commerce. But it might just matter to the average Joe, who wants physical security for his family, a job that pays a living wage, and an economy that flourishes — not wilts. Americans must ask themselves: “Would anyone approve this mad idea for the ports but a man who has gone mad, or a man who isn’t mad at all but perfectly sane, whose loyalties lie not with his people and his country, but with a grandiose liberal abstraction that travels hidden under such disingenuous names as equality, democracy, rights, and freedom?”

Further, Americans must ask themselves: “Despite blustery claims from defenders of the Bush administration that Bush is doing what’s right, is the administration loyal to U.S. citizens and doing what’s right for them, or only to itself and to the rootless elites who empower it and thereby profit from the concentration of political and financial power among the few at the expense of the many?”

An empowering of the elites in our society would explain the threat to veto. Until the average American understands this truth and does something about it, he will toil in futility for Bush, Cheney, and the elites who are plotting America’s demise.

R. Cort Kirkwood has been writing about American politics and culture for more than 20 years.
[SNIP]

THE PORT DEAL" FULL REPORT AT:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_3462.shtml

-------------------------------

Strikes Against UAE Port Deal Begin Adding Up

... If the ports deal collapses, Hashimy said the United States and UAE will remain friends. The country still serves as a primary port facility for the US Navy ...
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=&q=UAE+PORT+DEAL&btnG=Search+News">
CLICK: GOOGLE NEWS: UAE "PORT DEAL"