Sunday, November 19, 2006

The enemy of my enemy...

Entry for February 27, 2006


In a rare show of bi-partisanship, Congress has united in their opposition to an Arab country running and operating several major US ports. In case no one has noticed, the democrats and liberals (who have been foremost in preventing our security forces from actually focusing their investigations on the only ethnic group actually likely to perform terrorists acts in our country) are the ones howling most loudly about this deal brokered by the Bush administration.

Now, class, for the record, it should be obvious to you that I am not in favor of any foreign nation having ownership or operations of any vital infrastructure whatsoever: including water, electricity, gas, oil, phone service, internet, and major transportation hubs such as seaports and airports and any other points of entry into America.

I have no problem whatsoever with Arab nationals and immigrants engaging in free enterprise in this country. They are free to own corporations and stocks in corporations, partnerships and sole proprietorships, right down to mom-and-pop shops of every kind. This is the American way, and equal protection under the law applies. As long as they obey every law that every other American company is required to obey, they have every right to make a living.

But vital infrastructure are natural monopolies, and there are too few seaports available in this country for people to choose not to utilize those run by the Arabs. The existing traffic jam of cargo container shipments from all over the world is bad enough as it is, and there is really no viable way to build more seaports, environmental regulations and not-in-my-backyarders as they are. Attempting to boycott non-American run seaports is not really a viable option. So as a natural monopoly and national security interest, no foreign country whatsoever should be in charge of them, period.

This is not any different from the local water company issue which I have written about quite a bit before. The same arguments apply, and if you didn't see that before then I am not likely to convince you now. But the issues remain the same, and the outcome will be the same - billions of dollars of profit sucked out of our economy and sent abroad, unaccountable greedy bloodsucking corporate officers putting profit ahead of service and safety, and so on.

But no one suspects that a palace coup will change the government of Germany into a democracy hating fundamentalist religious regime, and suddenly make an annoying corporate nuisance into a dangerous national security nuisance, and this is not only possible but likely in every Arab country. Until militant Islam is openly shunned and the Bill of Rights as we know it is passed in every Arab country, and until so-called moderate Islamic governments start spending money on their people's needs instead of stashing it away in Swiss bank accounts, thereby showing that moderate Islam can and will take care of their needs, then every Islamic country is an enemy waiting to happen, regardless of how "cooperative" they are now.

And liberals and Democrats apparently know this in real life, which is supposedly why they are all bent out of shape now about this port deal. Which begs the question, whose cookie jar have they had their hands in that they weren't willing to state the obvious before now? What gain have they been getting from opposing and preventing focusing our national security efforts on people who are actually a threat to national security, instead of nuns, grandmas, Buddhists and mid-westerners whose families have been here for 200 years and have never themselves set foot outside of this country? If Arab nationals are a real threat, real enough to be afraid of them smuggling in terrorists and weapons right under our noses if they operated major ports, then why have the democrats spent all this time pretending they aren't? My suggestion: follow the money, class. The trail goes somewhere, and most likely it's somewhere the democrats don't want you to see. Integrity is something politicians lack (though they might mean well when they started - but that was a long time ago).

And ask another question while you're at it, class. If it is so dangerous for our seaports to be unaccountable and wide open for terrorism, then why is it ok for our land borders to be unaccountable and wide open for terrorism? Why are the Democrats and liberals against any measure that would stop our Mexican and Canadian borders from leaking like a sieve? You should question why there is this inequality of treatment of obviously equal threats.

Relocating the entire population of South America to the US will not solve their problems or ours. It will simply move them. If the liberals and democrats really want to help these people, they have to do it in their homelands. And if liberals and democrats really care about US security, they'd be 100% behind the INS and insist that every illegal alien be deported immediately upon detection - not just the obviously Arab ones.

The fact that they don't do these thing is de facto evidence that some motive other than actual security is their motive for opposing the port deal. Not that I plan to support it - the enemy of my enemy is my friend, for the time being - but you should not suffer from any delusion about the motives of the democrats and liberals opposing this deal. They are doing it strictly to feed off of the public's common sense - not because they share it. They want to use this as a platform for their up-and-coming presidential candidate, and nothing more. And that's all it is, class - a platform. It's not something they really believe, it's just something they will use and then discard as soon as they get what they want - increased political power.

Make no mistake here. Everything that they say about this issue will sound good, but as far as their beliefs and intended policies are concerned, it is all a lie. It's a lie with just enough truth mixed in to make it sound believable. So don't fall for it.

No comments: