Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2006 Archive' started by LadyEagle, Feb 26, 2006.
Read the rest of the article to see who else donated:
Are you saying that President Bush influenced P&O to sell its operations to DP World instead of to another port operations company?
The Port Sell-Out and the Dismantling of America
Globalists swallowing US sovereignty through front countries like UAE but China threat ignored
It is a stated goal of the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission and the CFR to promote what they call 'interdependence' and to lobby governments to sell off key infrastructure such as roads, lakes, ports, and highways to international corporations so that corporations can grow to be bigger in size than government.
44 of the world's 100 biggest economies are not countries, they are corporations. There is no vote, there is no access to shareholder or CEO records. These corporations take over governmental functions by paying off politicians to hand over assets and then declare there to be no means of oversight of their activities.
In 1997 the Communist Chinese government took over the Long Beach Naval Weapons Ship Yard , the only major deep water port that can take large ships on the west coast. In 2000, the Communist Chinese, Hutchinson Whampoa which is run by the PLA, took over the Panama Canal and has stationed between 15,000 and 30,000 troops at the facility.
May we remind our readers that top Chinese generals continue to threaten nuclear attacks on America. There is absolutely no mention of the Chinese takeover of these facilities amidst the media merry-go-round of the UAE ports debate and the same people that now criticize the UAE deal, like Chuckie Schumer, supported the ports sell-out to the Communist Chinese under Bill Clinton.
Alex Jones' first documentary film America Destroyed By Design made in 1997, warned Americans that the sell-out to the Chinese was the first step on the road to the sacking of the American economy and pulling the plug on key US infrastructure.
Why are people so concerned about the United Arab Emirates when the fastest growing military on the planet and a superpower that continually threatens to annihilate the US has been metaphorically handed the keys to the kingdom and is encircling the country?
During the Chinese sell-out it was Republican politicians that would bash Bill Clinton for making the deal yet it was yesterday's Republicans and today's Neo-Cons who were affiliated with the companies making millions from the transfer. This is why we are less than confident that Democrats have any real agenda to stop the UAE deal.
Just as now claims of 'Islamophobia' are raised to attack critics of the UAE deal, in 1997 and 2000 it was 'Asianphobia'. This has nothing to do with race, it is a matter of national sovereignty. If American corporations tried to buy up key Chinese infrastructure they would be firmly rebuffed.
As a country we are not just being robbed of our ability to create wealth, we are being robbed of our infrastructure, our land and our capacity to work the land. Your currency, your future and your sovereignty is systematically being dismantled, looted and sold to the highest bidder. The taxpayer pays for and builds the infrastructure only for foreign lobbyists to pay off corrupt politicians who 'lease' the infrastructure or outright sell it to the foreign lobbyists for 50, 60, 70 years.
The continued weakness of the dollar allows foreign entities to step in and buy more and more infrastructure while American families work three or four jobs just to get by.
The United Arab Emirates is a British holding and the British empire is simply re-shuffling some of its marbles. Claims that the UAE has links to terrorism are a distraction. The fact is that the UAE is in the pocket of the Globalists and is simply a front for the Internationalists to swallow up more of American sovereignty.
What we have is an 'oligopoly'. What is an oligopoly? It is where, similar to the Italian mafia, cartels and different corporate owners meet to affect the same thing as a monopoly. They decide which countries will control which interests and that is how the New World Order works.
That is clearly the implication. Let's look at another.
On the Waterfront
New York Sun Editorial
February 22, 2006
Somehow, it doesn't add up. Senators Menendez, Clinton, Lautenberg, Schumer, Dodd, and Boxer are up in arms over the Bush administration's decision to allow Dubai Ports World, a company owned by the United Arab Emirates, to take over operations at ports in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami, and Philadelphia. So are Reps. Vito Fossella and Peter King. One has to wonder, what makes this group, not particularly known for its hawkishness - in some cases known for abject dovishness - suddenly more hawkish than President Bush? It turns out their objections look to be less and less about American national security and more about plain old politics and political money and a labor union notorious for its ties to organized crime on the waterfront.
So what, one wonders, accounts for the sudden turnabout and interest of all these politicians in the UAE as a potential terrorist threat? The answer got a lot clearer yesterday afternoon when the International Longshoremen's Association, the AFL-CIO-affiliated union that represents workers at the six ports that would be affected by the Dubai deal, issued a statement praising the politicians complaining about the deal. The union's statement expressed "great concern" about the transaction. From there, it's easy to just follow the money - documented by The New York Sun's examination of Federal Election Commission records - from the political action committee of the International Longshoremen's Association into the pockets of the protesting politicians.
Mr. Schumer, the first to raise the alarm about the deal? He's collected $4,500 in campaign contributions from the trough of the Longshoremen. Rep. Peter King, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, who was one of the first big-name Republicans to break ranks with the administration over the deal? The Longshoremen's political committee donated $5,500 to the King campaign. It turns out that nearly every politician who has been at the forefront of the opposition to the Dubai deal is on the receiving end of some Longshoreman largesse.
Senator Clinton's campaign took $4,500. Senator Dodd, $2,500. Congressman Fossella, $9,500. Senator Boxer, $6,000. Senator Lautenberg, $9,000. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a Democrat from New York who is another outspoken critic of the Dubai deal, has accepted $22,500 from the Longshoremen since March of 2000. Senator Menendez, a leader of the opposition to the Dubai deal, has taken in fully $39,500 in campaign contributions from the Longshoremen's political action committee. It puts a different spin on the statement yesterday from the president of the International Longshoremen's Association, John Bowers, who said, "We echo United States Senator Robert Menendez who correctly notes that our ports are the front lines of the war on terrorism." It raises the question, for example, of whether the Longshoremen are echoing Mr. Menendez, or whether Mr. Menendez is echoing Mr. Bowers, who has been so generous to his campaign.
Mr. Bowers has been president of the ILA since 1987, having previously served for 24 years as executive vice president of the union, its second highest position. He was charged with racketeering and named as an associate of the Gambino organized crime family in a July 2005 civil complaint filed by federal prosecutors in Brooklyn. Whatever objections the politicians have to the UAE and its leadership - and we are not, by any stretch, fans of the emirates - they're no more serious than the charges in the racketeering suit brought against the ILA and Mr. Bowers by the United States attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Roslynn Mauskopf.
This doesn't even compare to the scandels in money raising for the Clinton mobile home/library. The money acquisitions for his campaigns was an amazing collection of receipts from the who's who of the Communist propaganda machine.
The issue is not Clinton or any other of our corrupt presidents. They are history. This is a current issue.
Nor can we use the "everyone does it" excuse.
That being said, I do not think a million dollar donation would lead to giving the UAE a conract worth many billions.
However, I am disturbed by the lack of investigation of the relationship between the Bush family (dad & sons) fortunes (which far exceed Clinton's) and the monarchies of the Middle East, UAE and Saudi Arabia.
Few of our presidents, if any, have been as wealthy as the Bush family and none, as far as I know, have been so "in bed" with Middle East rulers & companies.
When Bush spoke of becoming less dependent on oil, I really had to chuckle.
I know what you mean.
I was equally disturbed that Clinton's sell out to the Chinese wasn't investigated.
This deal is anti-Israel as is our government's support for a state of Palestine within Israel's lands, as defined by the boundaries given by God. Will the deal go through? Yes I think it will because the Republican Party holds the power in all branches of government. It is amazing how quickly the total collapse of this great nation is taking place. Judgment from God? YES? And the hammer God is using is named ------------- fill in the blank.
I'm wondering how many ties the Carlyle Group has to the UAE. Have you found anything on this LadyEagle?
Lou Dobbs seems to have found ties between the Carlyle Group and the UAE. Click Here For Lou Dobbs Video.
Why am I not surprised? Good detective work, poncho. The deeper we dig, we find the corruption knows no bounds.
Eisenhower's Farewell Address to the Nation
January 17, 1961
Is it ok for the ports to refuse freight that includes Israel made products or components, or for those ports to participate in a boycott against the nation of Israel because its parent company in the UAE has that as their policy?
Another senator has complained the UAE has allowed proliferation of arms, 66 triggers that can be used for nuclear devices, through their ports. Wonder where those went?
From Wall Street Journal via M. Malkin's web site:
From their own P&O web site, I counted 21 ports that will go with this deal, not 6 as has been reported:
The customers at Beaumont & Corpus Christi, Texas ports include the US Military:
Corpus Christi - P&O Ports Texas customers include the U.S. Army.
Beaumont port - P&O Ports Texas customers include the U.S. Army, Gulf Africa Line, Trans Atlantic and Osprey Lines.
We have a host of friends.
Dubai and Iran are in talks to strengthen ties now.