What God fearing nation in the Bible ever outsourced management of their gates to another nation? And since this post is viewing things from a purely Biblical view, when would they ever outsource management of any of their gates to a nation that followed a different theology than their own?

HELLO!

Not saying the USA is a Christian theocracy, but just figured I’d offer something to think about .

And if you read my prior posts, the “different theology” view is not even why I’m against the ports deal. I’m sure someone will call me names for even mentioning this perspective of things. But when you send your complaints, I know you’re reading .

Related post: Why No Foreign Government Should Manage US Sea Ports

Rasmussen is reporting that the port deal is hurting Bush in more ways than one. It’s starting to tarnish America’s view of his party when it comes to national security.

Bush needs to start asking himself if this is the hill he wants to become a lame duck President on. And at this rate it is sure to impact the elections in November.

As I mentioned previously, the United Arab Emirates does not work with the USA out of any loyalty to our nation. They only work with us because they see America as being more powerful than al Qaeda and they know al Qaeda wants to overtake them. Prior to 9/11 they had plenty of dealings with al Qaeda and bin Laden directly. After 9/11 they had to pick a side and teamed up with the nation with the best military force (the USA). Their decision to team with the USA was done because “you are either with us or against us” as our President said himself. Just because nations that were not totally “with us” in the past are more “with us” now, we should not delude ourselves into thinking they are honestly loyal to us. Theirs is an alliance of convenience and can change with time. One day they could very well be deemed our enemy by a future Administration and if they are managing any US ports, that will make for a nasty situation.

Given the sea ports deal there has been talk of the UAE possibly being infiltrated by al Qaeda. That may have already happened.

Of course it is to be expected that al Qaeda infiltrated the UAE, given past work done with rulers in that nation. Basically the same people working with bin Laden before are still working with him now. Just with more cover than in the past. People working with bin Laden prior to 9/11 knew he was a terrorist then. They knew about the USS Cole and embassy bombings then. And they still dealt with him. So 9/11 changed nothing for them. The heads of the UAE are playing nice with the USA now, given the fact non-cooperation would have put them in immediate danger with the USA. But they had people in their leadership working with al Qaeda and still do.

So today lets say Dubai Ports World has zero terrorist infiltration. The day Dubai Ports World has control of several commercial and military sea ports in the USA we know al Qaeda will want to exploit that. And their allies in the UAE will be able to help them. Because the government of the UAE owns the company. So what may not exist in Dubai Ports World today can be changed tomorrow. And we know from the history of attacks that al Qaeda can wait years for the changes to take affect.

Dubai Ports World can look clean today and al Qaeda would want it that way. They are waiting for the deal to clear and maybe 5 years from now they’ll have their contacts in the UAE invoke some minor changes in the company. Maybe put someone in a position to learn the security protocols. Maybe have someone in a position to alter a manifest, so the container that says “clothing” actually has non-nuclear bomb making material. That can slip by detection devices, but still be used to take down a building. Sure to blow a nuke in the USA is a goal of theirs, but don’t assume they won’t take a slightly lesser option if it provides them high impact. Even this UAE new source is reporting how al Qaeda might be so desperate for money, that they could be responsible for a recent bank heist in Pakistan. So I’m sure al Qaeda would carry out a smaller attack (like blowing up an important building) if a larger attack (like taking out a whole city) is not workable.

Jihad Watch is reporting that the UAE port deal involves a total of 22 US ports. For al Qaeda, this deal has opportunity written all over it.

Regarding management of America’s ports, we need to consider companies controlled by a foreign government differently from a private company. A government controlled company works at the pleasure of the foreign government. Not at the pleasure of shareholders who want to make money, like with a private company. (While the UAE company might become part of an Arab stock exchange, it is still under the control of the UAE and not a true private business.) With the sale of Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation (better known as P&O) to Dubai Ports World, a privately held company is being transferred to a company controlled by a foreign government. Regardless of the country, it is bad for management of any American port to be under the control of a foreign government. Plenty of people are saying “lots of US port operations are managed by companies outside of the USA already”. But they are not saying “lots of US port operations are managed by foreign governments”. There is a major difference. In some cases there are US ports run by companies that are controlled by a foreign government. That number should not increase, it should decrease. Not to mention none of those other nations had so many dies to terrorism.

Can anyone say with any level of certainty that the USA will not ever need to attack the United Arab Emirates in the next 25 years? I don’t think that statement can be said regarding most nations in the world. Because alliances change with time and an ally of today could very well be tomorrow’s enemy. To have a foreign government involved in US port management compromises America’s ability to freely defend against threats in any part of the world.

Let’s say 15 years from now, America has a need to actually attack the UAE or a nation that UAE feels is a strong ally of theirs. With the UAE running some American ports, they could disrupt our port operations in retaliation. Even denying pay to dock workers would have a major impact.

And as we learn more about the sale of P&O, few are mentioning that the UAE would be managing some ports where US military materials are moved. While everyone is talking about the 6 commercial ports in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. There are very few people saying a word about the ports in Beaumont and Corpus Christi, Texas!

And it should also be noted that they would learn more of our port security procedures. No foreign government should be running an entity that is handling that type of information.

Many are surprised by the US reaction, given this deal will give the UAE management of ports 19 countries, including Britain, Belgium, France, India, China, Vancouver and Buenos Aires. So since the stock holders of P&O are OK with the deal and the rest of the world is not protesting, Americans are expected to follow suit. Sorry to the backers of this deal, but nations are sovereign for a reason. Because each nation must act in it’s own best interests and just because 18 countries OK the deal does not mean the USA should.

And now we learn that Homeland Security had issues with this deal.

Well President Bush told us that Dubai Ports World should not be treated any differently than London based privately held P&O. But obviously Homeland Security did not treat them the same! Homeland Security demanded additional security restrictions. So let’s cut all the “treat them the same” crap! They are not being treated the same, because everybody knows they are not the same. Dubai Ports World is a under the control of the UAE, is not a truly “private” company like P&O and the UAE has a long history of connections with known terrorists. Any foreign government managing US ports is bad, but one with a known history of ties to terrorism is worse! They cooperate now, but their history of cooperation is very short and recent. Maybe the words “you’re either with us or against us” had something to do with their change of heart. Not to mention, UAE rulers know al Qaeda will eventually try and dethrone them as al Qaeda is trying to do now with the House of Saud. They know al Qaeda will eventually attack them more and so the current UAE alliance with America is self serving in nature for them. After 9/11 they felt the USA would be able to win a battle with al Qaeda and sided with us, but their alliance is not based on true loyalty to this nation.

This is why I say Liberal Democrats were right when they first considered banning all foreign governments from ever running a port in the USA.

Plenty of people claim “oh the Coast Guard will be doing security”. Oh really? Well here’s how security at the ports really works.

This is not the kind of thing that the USA should be trusting to any foreign government.

This deal should be DENIED. There is talk about more review and such, but to delay and then approve this deal leaves America in the same weakened position regarding our ports.

Now despite my opposition and that of others being based on sound principle and facts, some wish to call us “racists”, “bigots” and “xenophobes”. But when you consider that the UAE still does not recognize Israel, but did recognize the Taliban. One has to wonder, who is the real racist, bigot, xenophobe here? Because it certainly is not those of us opposed to this port deal. The real racist, bigot, xenophobe is the UAE its self! Supporters of this port deal know they can’t say that. But it’s the truth.

Booker Rising has the report. You can also read an MSM report here.

Given his performance on 9/11/2001, while Alan Greenspan was outside of the US. I felt he was best suited to fill the role of Chairman after Mr. Greenspan. And I agree with Shay, he probably is leaving because he did not get the spot. I really don’t care that he’s a Democrat. I care that he knew how to keep financial markets as calm as possible following a major attack on the country. And given his time under Greenspan I think he would have made for a good Chairman.

Ben Bernanke is going to take the helm as Chairman soon. I think he will do a fine job as Chairman himself. (And we should all pray that he does.) Although he was not my first pick.