Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2006 Archive' started by LadyEagle, Feb 12, 2006.
[ February 12, 2006, 11:54 AM: Message edited by: LadyEagle ]
The fox is in charge of the henhouse.
The UAE is a strong ally, but something as critical as port security should be in the hands of domestic corporations only.
As you are so fond of saying, LadyEagle, this is much ado about
Seriously, isn't security handled by the federal government, thus the title of this thread is misleading?
Are you aware, Ken, that the federal government outsources? Did you not read the thread?
I agree with Senator Schumer on this one:
"America's busiest ports are vital to our economy and to the international economy, and that is why they remain top terrorist targets," Schumer said. "Just as we would not outsource military operations or law enforcement duties, we should be very careful before we outsource such sensitive homeland security duties."
Yes, I read the article. I saw nothing there that concerned me. But since you are so virulently anti-Muslim I am not surprised that you have a problem with it.
If that is meant as a slam, then fine go ahead and slam me. I am anti-Muslim being in charge of our port security. I am also anti-Chinese being in charge of it. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me one day if some large Wal-Mart shipping containers are already strategically placed all over America in warehouses, waiting for the cell phone activations. That you would not find it alarming to have non-Americans in charge of port security is not surprising to me. I guess you and Bush are on the same side on this one.
Will you please pass that information along to the Bush supporters who regularly slam me.
If this goes thru I will agree with the title of the thread!
The hearings on this have been done in secret. Something as vital as security of our ports should not be done in secret and should not be outsourced to a foreign power. This reminds me of the trojan horse. One can only wonder if some of our policy makers own stock in this UAE company which could be the reason it is being swished through with nary an objective. It is beyond insanity and absurdity. Who is going to screen the people working for this company. I am not forgetting that the bin Laden family originated from the UAE. I am not forgetting that a lot of al Qaeda money was laundered through the UAE, either. That information is certainly public and available on the Internet. It's time for our politicians to start being accountable to the American people and have some transparancy and public disclosures on these decisions. And the buck stops at the top - if the President is really fighting a war on terror as he claims, he would certainly not permit outsourcing to a foreign power on our port security.
I'm confused. Where does the article say — aside from Schumer's comments, which are not borne out anywhere else — that the company will be taking over port security?
I agree. This is injudicious, considering the facts. Schumer has some excellent points.
Ken the fact that this does not concern you is odd… take the time to watch the interview with Schumer as well as read the article.
"American Lawmakers are Certifiably Insane"
So what else is new?
I'm sorry, that was just too easy.
Port of Terror
Lawmakers Urge Greater Review of UAE Firm's Deal to Run Six U.S. Ports
Is this another public private partnership project, turning over the ownership and control of our infrastructure to private interests? Let's see the King of Spain is building roads with faulty concrete in the Texas toll road projects for which you will be charged to build and drive on. The mileage meters are already being built into your automobiles and they are putting RFID chips in the inspection stickers (illegaly, the bill was voted down but they're doing it anyways) Clinton let the Red Chinese military have control of a major west coast port. Google Clinton COSCO.
Does the United Nations have complete control of our National Parks already? World Hertiage sites. Who's going around getting control of all the water rights? The Nature Conservancy. Who are they? United Nations. Is the good folks from WEFORUM and Prince Charles trying to buy up land in NOLA. Yepperdoodle. Will it be Kelo'd? Most likely if they don't get their way.
What does all this have to with anything? Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development. What is that? The United Nations. Does the United Nations and WEFORUM have a global tax? Airline tickets.
Are we paying for our own demise? You betcha!!!
Well, some people are speaking out, finally. As one person said who lost loved ones in the WTC, when the President is willing to outsource his own Secret Service protection to foreign governments, then we might feel differently.
Senator Schumer and Lindsay Graham and a couple of other Republicans seem to be stepping up to the plate. I hope it isn't empty rhetoric and that something can be done. For the President to approve turning over our port security to a foreign country, especially one who has had long deep ties with terrorism, is an impeachable offense, in my book, and clearly goes against his oath of office, IMO.
Including the company based in London, LE?
Yes, our homeland security should be done by the homeland. Not only that, we have private contractors who are former military and are protecting people all over the globe. Bush is always droning on and on about how he wants to help small business. Well, let the port security be handled by American small business and not some international corporation. The whole thing reeks. How about letting some Chinese company or al Qaeda provide Secret Service protection for the President. Or better yet, how about some nice North Korean company.
Please PM me--your inbox is full!!!
Brit Hume: Bush Will Reverse Ports Decision
With Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff
For the story behind the story...
Sunday, Feb. 19, 2006 11:39 a.m. EST
'The Bush administration will reverse its decision to allow a Dubai company based in the United Arab Emirates to gain control over several key U.S. ports, the Fox News Channel's Brit Hume predicted on Sunday.'
There's too much opposition to this deal, and I think Brit is right.