Careful What You Ask For, Soviet America May Be Closer Than You Think

“Those who would give up freedom for security deserve neither” - Benjamin Franklin
Are we closer to becoming a Soviet Union than we thought? If Congress has its way, it is only a matter of weeks before the Sovietization of America begins to become evident.
It started about two months ago, when P&O announced that it was selling its holdings to DPW. I have already written extensively on the details of this deal, and what it means to the U.S., so I won’t go into it here. After the Committee for Foreign Investments in the United States (CIFIUS) investigated and approved the deal, finding no security threat in the deal, NY Democratic Senator Charles Schumer decided to politicize it. He lied to the American Public, saying that a foreign government, namely the UAE, was about to “take over” six American ports. Of course the President didn’t know about it; there was no such deal.
Of course politicians from both sides of the Congressional aisle jumped on the bandwagon, and there are now several proposed bills making it illegal for foreign companies to own port operations in the United States. Note that there were no American companies putting in a bid on P&O operations. That would mean that the taxpayers would have to subsidize American companies so they could buy these operations from the foreign companies. What it basically amounts to is that the US would seize and nationalize foreign assets in the United States. That is the Soviet Way, no matter how you look at it.
It is what Russia did in 1917. It is what Chile did in 1980. It is what Castro did in 1960.
Think what it would do to foreign trade. In the world of international trade, the breaking of agreements is not taken lightly. American goods will be priced out of foreign markets. Jobs will be lost, prices will rise and the quality of life will decline. Defeating tyranny through capitalism will become more difficult; if we treat our allies this way, why would anyone else want a trade agreement with the US?
All of this just so politicians can take a stand in upcoming elections.
And it doesn’t stop at port terminal operations. Those who missed being among the first to jump on Schumer’s bandwagon have now turned their sights on the multinational operations of US companies. Dell, IBM, Ford, GM, and Daimler-Chrysler, among many others, have manufacturing and service operations outside of the United States. There will soon be legislative proposals banning the procurement and use of foreign manufactured products of these corporations by the government. The politicians claim to fear that these items may be rigged for sabotage, and that such legislation would eliminate off-shore outsourcing of jobs. If passed, it would also severely limit profits which are so important to our economy.
A Soviet America would have the same problems as the Eurasian Soviet Union had: widespread poverty, food shortages, and government corruption, to name a few. Putting such restrictions on American Capitalism, as these proposals do, is a giant step towards a Soviet America.
The destruction of the American economy and of global capitalism has been a long-time goal of Al Qaeda and other terrorist and subversive organizations. Our legislators are unwittingly helping our enemies achieve these goals.
Of course, no Congressperson will admit to wanting to help the terrorists. They are merely reacting to poll results, which is what politicians do. They hope they can weaken the Executive Branch, and grab more power for Congress. I trust the Commander-in-Chief and his staff to continue to do a good job executing the war on Terror. It is the job of the President and the Executive branch to make the command decisions, and for Congress to try to take over the job, or to try to second guess the CIC, is an act of usurpery.
Once this so-called “anti-terror” legislation passes--in reality it is anti-capitalism--there will be no stopping it. It will end only when the politburo says it will end.

I Know What I Am, So What Are You?

I have finally come to the understanding that I am “stupid.” On Hannity and Colmes, guest Norman Mailer, the All-American purveyor of pointlessness, stated that President Bush was re-elected because, as he put it, “52% of America is stupid.”
Okay, I’m probably too stupid to realize that the best way to avoid having to state your case is to call those who disagree with you “stupid.” So, I’ll just accept the fact that I am stupid and plod on.
I’m stupid because I believe that our rights under the constitution are better protected by exercising personal responsibility, and by showing respect for other people and their property. I’m too stupid to realize that the best way to protect our rights is to enact laws that take natural rights from some to give special rights to others.
I’m stupid enough to think that the First Amendment means that Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Taoists, Wiccans, and Native American Spiritualists have as much right to practice their religion as do Atheists.
I’m so stupid that I thought that a tour of duty in Vietnam was one year, not two months, as John Kerry showed us.
It’s pretty dumb to think that private sector and community charities can better care for the disadvantaged and needy than taxpayers’ money and bureaucracy.
My stupidity has led me to believe that the free flow of capital is the best way to create more jobs and to better the quality of life.
I am not smart enough to understand that it’s okay for a tyrant to commit genocide, and to use money which was meant to feed his people for new palaces and bunkers. I always thought that such criminal behavior should be punished. How was I to know that the smart people would just sit back and watch, or at best, ignore such atrocities, while denying that it was even happening?
And how dumb was I to think that it was better to take the war to the enemy, rather than wait for the enemy to bring the war back to our shores?
I’m too stupid to use hate speech as an argument against those with whom I disagree, and I even let those who oppose my views speak their thoughts without interrupting or shouting them down.
Okay, now that I’ve admitted all of that, I think I’ll show what Mr. Mailer might consider a flash of brilliance: Norman, I know what I am, so what are you?

Rock Star Simmons Pulls "Fast One"

“You might want a nice hair-cut French Poodle, but when you’re in a tough neighborhood, you better have a Rottweiller.” - Kiss front man Gene Simmons on why he supports President Bush.
I was in the midst of writing an article on why I strongly support George W. Bush, while listening to Your World, With Neil Cavuto, on Fox News Channel. Simmons was a guest on the business news and information program to promote his venture into the Indy Racing League.
Cavuto often tests his guests on current events issues and opinions, because he is of the philosophy that if one doesn’t have faith in America, one wouldn’t have much faith in the market. Thus, he qualifies his guests on the accuracy of their market and investment suggestions.
“Bush isn’t a politician who does whatever the polls say he should do,” Simmons explained, “he does what he believes is the right thing to do. Whether you love him or hate him, he stands by what he believes in.”
That is very, very close to what I had been writing. So there it is--some of us stand by President Bush because he isn’t a politician, he is a man of principle. I don’t have to finish writing the article I was writing, because what I wanted to say has been said by one of much more celebrity than I, and probably much more succinctly.
Incidentally, Gene Simmons was the guitar player with the wild black on white makeup and the tongue extension who was married to Cher for four months.

I should get to work on my next rant before someone steals my thunder on “Not Conservative, Not Liberal, and Not Moderate.” What, Drew Carey has already explained that on The O'Reilly Factor? Rats!

Is Anybody Paying Attention? Dubai Ports Deal, Take 2

Some people just don’t listen. I still hear and read about “port takeover” when it has been made clear that Dubai Ports World (DPW) is in the process of acquiring management of six port terminals in the United States. The company which currently owns that position is Peninsular and Oriental Steam Ports (P&O, or Penor), is a British owned company. DPW has no plans to replace personnel who now hold positions in the US operations. In other words, the same people who work for Penor will be working for DPW. All of this has been clearly spelled out in the past week. How does that constitute a “port takeover” if nothing changes except for the name of the company?
Senators and congresspersons are still demanding US Customs inspections at the point of embarkation, but last week, President Bush informed us that UAE was the first foreign entity to allow Customs inspectors to check 100% of high risk containers at the point of embarkation. Legistlators have been suggesting that that UAE may actually be a hostile nation , even after President Bush assured us that UAE is the strongest ally we have Middle East. General Tommy Franks even informed us that we have a US Air Base in the UAE, and that the US Navy docks more ships in the Port of Dubai than in any other port in the world outside of the United States. But that is all moot. Security and port ownership at the US ports remain and will remain in US hands. Even today, these congresspersons are noting the concerns the Coast Guard had about gaps in intelligence on DPW, concerns which were withdrawn after they were briefed by the CIA. Are our representatives ignorant? Are they behind the rest of us in receiving news?
I don’t think so. I believe these representatives consider we, the people, ignorant. After all, many of us do fall for the myth that the Democrats are for the poor and the Republicans are for the rich, so why shouldn’t we swallow more of the crap they feed us? As I have said before, it is merely politics, another chance to take a position in the upcoming elections, and to have a platform on which to stand while advocating the creation of the Soviet Socialist Union of The United States.
DPW has requested that another 45 day review of the business transaction be conducted. This, hopefully will clear all of the questions and doubts about the deal. But leave it up to Congress, more ways will be found to use the deal to criticize the current Administration.

Condi for President? Book Clearly Shows How And Why

Dick Morris is a salesman, basically. During his tenure of nearly twenty years as Bill Clinton’s political consultant, his job mostly consisted of damage control, but, whether you like it or not, sell him he did, and he did a darn good job of it. No friend of the political Left, he molded Clinton, a liberal, into a successful politician of the “moderate” persuasion. Since the end of his relationship with “Bubillary”, as an author and a Fox News contributor, he has shown himself to be a well-educated critic of both the administration he helped beget, and the left wing of the Demopublican Party, and has become a strong supporter of the Bush Administration.
In Condi Vs, Hillary, The Next Great Presidential Race, (Regan Books, 2005) Morris unveils his latest sales pitch for Condoleezza Rice. Co-written with political analyst Eileen McGann, the book begins with this:
“If the thought of another Clinton presidency excites you, then the future indeed looks bright. Because, as of this moment, there is no doubt that Hillary Clinton is on a virtually uncontested trajectory to win the Democratic nomination and, very likely, the 2008 presidential election...
“But if the very thought of four--or perhaps even eight--more years of the Clintons and their predictable liberal policies alarms you; if you see through the new Hillary brand--that easygoing, smiling moderate; if you remember what a partisan, ethically challenged, left-wing ideologue she has always been, is now, and will always be, then you can see what the future holds...
“But her victory is not inevitable. There is one, and only one, figure in America who can stop Hillary Clinton: Secretary of State Condoleezza “Condi” Rice. Among all of the possible Republican candidates for president, Condi alone could win the nomination, defeat Hillary, and derail a third Clinton administration...
“This is a race Condi can win.”
This is a highly readable book, contrasting the public Hillary to the “real” Hillary, whom Morris refers to as “Dr. Jeckyll and Mrs. Hyde,” and contrasting Hillary to Condi. He makes no unwarranted statements, carefully footnoting his resources, and even citing from Hillary’s own book, Living History. He sketches Condi’s life and accomplishments, great accomplishments, indeed. Summing up the comparison, Morris states, “Hillary campaigns, Condi auditions.”
Acknowledging the fact that Condoleezza Rice has stated that she has no plans to run for president, Morris assures us that Condi would run if drafted. Using the grass roots Internet movement-- which influenced the 2004 presidential election so heavily--as a model, he details exactly how Condi could be drafted as the Republican presidential nominee. Condi’s day job is highly demanding, he cautions us, so we have to do all the organizing and fund raising ourselves, as the Secretary of State has little time for campaigning.
This book is a must read for those who are interested in seeing Condoleezza Rice as the next President of the United States, but it is also an important primer on how politics work. Morris and McGann are highly knowledgeable on the inner workings of politics, and this is why Condi Vs. Hillary will be relevant beyond 2008. The authors explain how the media, the Internet, public relations, polls, influence peddling, and fundraising all fit in to the big picture of big party politics. They explain so clearly that any reader who is confused by politics will genuinely feel the light bulb of understanding brighten overhead.
My own thoughts are echoed in the final chapter of the book: “The election of 2008 will be the next great presidential race. With the possibility of two popular women as candidates, the voters will make history.
“We can only hope it’s the right kind of history.”

Did The Insurgents Succeed or Fail?

It most likely wasn’t Iraqi Sunnis who blew up the “Golden Dome” mosque in Samara, Iraq, yesterday. And if it were Moslems, they weren’t very religious. My guess is that the perpetrators of the crime were either Al Qeada, or agents from Iran or Syria, or Baathist/Saddamist insurgents. But fanatics or not, they were not very religious. The timing was right for their purposes; just as the newly elected government was forming coalitions and alliances between Shiite and Sunni, the act of terrorism served to foment civil war between those two volatile sects. Immediately after the demolition of the mosque, an important Holy Shrine to the Shiites, backlash riots and murders were carried out against the Iraqi Sunni population, these also most likely provoked by insurgents. It seems that a terrorist mission has succeeded in its purpose.
Or has it? Along with the sectarian acts of violence are even larger demonstrations of unity between the Shiite and Sunni factions. As the initial reaction cools, Iraqis are beginning to realize that the act of terrorism was meant to ignite violence among themselves. I feel that eventually, the act will result in backlash against the militants. Incidences of civilians turning insurgents in to the authorities, and of civilians physically fighting against the foreign insurgents will increase. It will ultimately unite Sunni and Shiite in opposition to those who would commit blasphemy for the sake of taking away what they have come to treasure: Freedom.

Much Ado

So the British company Peninsular and Oriental Steam Ports has sold its port management holdings to Dubai Ports World, a nationalized company of the United Arab Emirates. This has been approved by the Bush administration, with his top cabinet members, Homeland Security, and the Pentagon giving it the okay. The UAE company will have the duties of dispatcher in six major American ports, but loading and unloading the ships will still be handled by Americans, as will be port security. Both factions of Congress immediately protested the sale, for very good reason; the UAE may still have some connection to terrorists.
President Bush has said that Dubai represents no threat to the United States, and that the UAE is a strong ally in the war on terror. But, is he forgetting that the UEA was the last country to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan? That they once donated an airplane to an Al Qaeda training camp?
But maybe it is Congress and the public, through the media, that is once again getting the wrong message. As White House spokesman Scott McClellan, and the President pointed out, the Port management company does not control the port, nor does it control security. The British company has had management of the port terminals for several years, and the white House has asked “why should a Middle Eastern company be treated differently from a British company, especially if they have followed all the rules.”
After all, the White House assures us, Dubai has passed the scrutiny of the Committee for Investigation of Foreign Investment, which includes Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. In fact, the deal includes the agreement that 100% of high risk containers will be inspected by US Customs before they leave the point of origin. Security wouldn’t be different, says the White House, if Dubai was there or not. In fact, under Dubai, the same people who are managing the ports now, would still be in the same position. It is important to note that the port management company does not control the ports, that is done by the domestic port authorities. Security duties would still be performed by US Customs and the US Coast Guard. All Dubai does is the same thing that POSP does currently; maintain and procure equipment and sign the paychecks. They don’t even have a say in who loads and unloads cargo; that is up to the Teamster’s Union. Consider also that the Port of Long Beach is operated by a company from Communist China, and that several other US ports are managed by companies from Great Britain, Singapore and Taiwan.
And, consider that, for years, Dubai Ports World has operated port terminals in Japan, South Korea, and Australia, and there have been no reports of terrorism from those active allies of the US that could be traced back to port management. Dubai is a $300 billion a year business, would they jeopardize their standing as a business by allowing or facilitating an act of international terror?
So why are members of both factions of Congress in an uproar over this? First of all, there are those who are against anything the Bush Administration does. They are still seeking truth in Michael Moore’s assertion, in his self-described “mockumentary” Fahrenheit 9/11, that President Bush is somehow in bed with countries that support terrorism for money and oil. There are those who are running for election or reelection to Congress this year, and want to position themselves on any issue that will catch the attention of their electorate.
The President himself makes a good point--this is not a political issue, it is a practical issue. After all the progress the US has made in securing allies among the Arab and Islamic world, including UAE, Qatar, Kuwat, Jordan, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkestan, Indonesia, and Malaysia, it would be a great risk to not allow the sale of the management company to Dubai.
So, if the issue is domestic security, shouldn’t we worry more about the fact that only 6% of all the shipping containers coming into the United States are inspected by Customs? Isn’t it more of a concern, especially with Bolivia announcing that it is an ally with Al Qaeda, that our southern border be better protected?
I feel that, as the Dubai deal is further examined, which it should be, the facts about what was considered, why and how the deal was approved will show that the management of the port terminals is not a concern. The fervor will dwindle considerably, and we will get back to the real issue of securing our borders.