TCS Daily

Any Port in This Storm

By Lee Harris - February 22, 2006 12:00 AM

It is not easy to flabbergast me. But over the course of the last week, I have been utterly stupefied by revelations of what the popular radio talk show host Michael Savage has called "Portgate."

I first heard about "Portgate" from a friend who had been listening on his car radio to Michael Savage last Thursday. Savage, true to form, had been ranting and raving about something -- something about how the Bush administration had made a deal with a company owned by the United Arab Emirates to provide security for six of our nation's vulnerable ports. It was all a bit confusing, and my first response was, "What nonsense. How could anyone believe such tripe? Such a story could not possibly be true. That's what you get for listening to Michael Savage." And so forth.

In my defense, let me explain that I had sound and cogent reasons for my savage response to Mr. Savage's story.

Reason Number One: it was impossible for me to believe that the Bush administration could be so blind as to entrust vital American security to the United Arab Emirates. Surely there had to be someone in the Bush administration who was familiar with the old adage about not putting the fox in charge of the hen house. Why not just go ahead and make Bin Laden our national security advisor? Furthermore, just imagine the consequence if an American port, guarded by the United Arab Emirates, became the victim of a terror attack, and the Bush administration had to explain to the American people, "Oh, we put the Arabs in charge."

Reason Number Two: Despite the fact that Michael Savage had claimed that "Portgate" was a story that most Americans would not hear about, I realized that this claim was absurd. Of course Americans were bound to hear about such a scandalous deal, if the Bush administration had in fact made one. Thus, again resorting to logic and reason, I argued that, because such a deal would be sure to have catastrophic political fallout among Americans from one end of the political spectrum to the other, no sane administration could possibly have cut such a deal. Who could fail to see that putting a U.A.E.-owned company in charge of our ports would cause a massive loss of trust in the Bush administration's good judgment? It would be an act of political folly almost without parallel.

After having presented these sound and valid arguments, you can imagine my surprise to discover that Michael Savage was right, and that I was wrong. What I had soberly judged to be impossible turned out to be absolutely true.

However, I don't give up easily, and I immediately adapted a fallback position. Whoever had made the deal dubbed "Portgate" could not have been high up in the Bush administration. It must have been the work of some low-level incompetent. Therefore, again continuing to rely on logic and reason, I argued that as soon as the political fallout from "Portgate" began to descend on the White House, they would quickly announce that they knew nothing about the deal, and would immediately repudiate it. It would be sheer insanity to do otherwise.

Wrong again! (Michael Savage 3, Lee Harris 0)

Instead of repudiating the deal, the Bush administration on Sunday decided to let Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff appear on a variety of TV shows defending the deal with the United Arab Emirates, thus securely fastening this noisome political albatross around the neck of the Bush administration.

Well, at least I can console myself by pointing out that Michael Savage was wrong to think the American people would not learn about "Portgate." They are learning about it, and they don't like it at all. Furthermore, "Portgate" is one of those rare issues that sweeps away all partisan and ideological differences among the American people. It is an outrage that unites conservative Republicans, like Lindsay Graham, with ultra-liberal Democrats, like Barbara Boxer -- and, well, Michael Savage and me.

There are many people who don't like Michael Savage's raucous ranting and raving -- people like me who prefer logic and reason; but, unfortunately, there are times when the only rational thing to do is to rave and rant. This is one of them. If the Bush administration is so far out of touch with reality as to defend the "Portgate" deal to an incredulous and dumbfounded American public, then maybe it is time when all of us need to take a lesson from Michael Savage, and learn to rant and rave ourselves. When dealing with the deaf, it is sometimes necessary to scream.

Lee Harris is author of Civilization and Its Enemies.



Difference between Security and Commerical activities?
First off, I certainly don't know much about the true workings of a port and the real division of labor on security matters.

Also, my first reaction to this issue was "What the hell are they doing?"

However, an editorial on (url below) framed the issue another way that got me thinking past my initial gut reaction of this being a stupid decision.

The key point being that SECURITY of our ports would still be the responsibility of the Coast Guard and Customs. That the proposed deal is about running the COMMERICIAL activities of the ports.

Possibly someone else who is knowledgable about how truly interwoven the running of the Commerical activities with Security in our ports can comment on whether the this difference means something or not?

It isn't port security
The contract that the UAR company will inherit doesn't involve security. They will be loading and onloading cargo for about a third of each ports shipments. The Coastguard and the Customs department will still be handling ALL of the security.

Corporate Deal
Dubai Ports is buying P&O, a British Company, which is currently operating those six US Ports. Dubai out bid a Singaporean based company. Singapore and Dubai ports are in a comettion of sorts to be the largest container port in the world. So many US imports are handled by Dubai Ports now.
In my experience with Arab companies, most of the mangement is not Arab. They like to hire westerners to actually do the work beacuse they can be trusted.
I believe Savage is right about the US border situation, but he is ranting about the port situation. Stick to your guns Lee.

Port Operation -- Not Security
Marjon is correct -- Dubai Ports purchased P&O in a multi-billion dollar deal. Part of that deal includes the lease contract to operate loading and unloading activities at several U.S. ports on the east coast. The company has nothing to do with security at any U.S. port. Additionally, the majority of Dubai Ports' management team are from the USA because we work longer hours and are more productive than Europeans.

If you want to get upset over port management I suggest you investigate the company running ports on the west coast of the USA. The operating company is owned and operated by mainland China. The deal was approved during the Clinton administration as part of the technology transfer program set up by the US Dept of Commerce.

This "Portgate" is much ado about nothing.

Four things:
1. The Emir of Dubai is on our side in the "War on Terror". He is an ally.
2. The Emir of Dubai runs an economy that is approaching our economy in the Freedom Index and has passed it in respect for Private Property Rights.
3. The Emir will secure these ports in a manner far better than the current operators because his butt is on the line. He will have his interest at stake because if something happens at one of his ports the US will blame him.
4. The US up until recently has been a trading nation. It respects foreigners (especially allies) who invest here for better returns than what they can get elsewhere. For this the citizens get TRILLIONS in economic gain and millions of jobs that would otherwise outsource. So it is a positive good that the Emir of Dubai wants to do business at our ports and we should stay out of his way and let him.

No Subject
Mr. Harris admits he first assumed the fiasco could be laid at the feet of some low level incompetent in the Bush White House. Rather, lay it at the feet of a high level incompetent. Fortunatley, there seem to be an abundance of that type in our current executive so the blame can be spread widely.

Harris is at it again
Mr. Harris is at it again. Mr. Savage is wrong if he thinks the arabs will be in charge of security. Unless I misunderstand Mr. Harris' article, this is what he is saying as well. Of course I have read a number of Mr. Harris' articles that are no better than Mr. Savage's ranting and raving. We need some new writers on this blog. It is becoming too clannish and in this case irresponsible.

Port Security
Again security is not in the arabs hands. The Wall Street Journal published the morning the following: "Besides, the notion that the Bush Administration is farming out port "security" to hostile Arab nations is alarmist nonsense. Dubai Ports World would be managing the commercial activities of these U.S. ports, not securing them. There's a difference. Port security falls to Coast Guard and U.S. Customs officials. "Nothing changes with respect to security under the contract," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said yesterday. "The Coast Guard is in charge of security, not the corporation."

I am wondering what the problem is.

It makes sense ...
We entrusted security at the Boston Airport to an Israeli owned company called ICTS ( through wholly owned subsidiaries like Huntleigh USA Corporation. The result was massive bungling and the 9/11 disaster. If we allow foreign firms to control U.S. security then shouldn't we outsource our military, too?

Sons of Neville Chamberlain!
To those naive fools who think "Agreements" and "Procedures" are the equivalent of "FACT" and "REALITY", consider this:

"Agreements" and "Procedures" are fantasies. They do not exist in flesh and blood, or bricks and mortar. They are nothing more than paper! "We have 'peace in our time'!" said Neville Chamberlain in the most famous case of confusing fantasy with reality.

Have you ever worked for a corporation? Do you have any idea how many "Agreements" and "Procedures" exist? Do you have any idea how many "Agreements" and "Procedures" are simply ignored by the workforce -- or the executives????? (Can you say "Ken Lay"?)

FACT: I didn't know foreigners owned port rights before today. I don't like it even with the English, my kindred cousins.

FACT: The UAE are ARAB. They believe in blood-ties, Tribes! before even money.

FACT: UAE will access to THE OPERATIONAL DATA of the enture port. Who the hell cares about some longshoreman when the computer records are in the hands of a terrorist half-a-world away???

FACT: Many Americans have succombed to the bone-headed idea that money is more important than bloodlines. Bull****. Arabs are not my people and I am not theirs. Not even the Almighty American Buck changes that fact. My concern is my people. I DON'T GIVE A RAT'S ASS ABOUT BUSH'S CRONIES MAKING THEIR BILLIONS. I CARE EVEN LESS ABOUT ARABS MAKING BILLIONS.


No Subject
What planet do you children inhabit? Do you actually believe the tripe emmanating from your keyboards?

Have any of you ever held an actual corporate job? Do you have any concept of FRAUD? OF LIES? OF CRIMINALITY? OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST? OF SPAN OF CONTROL? OF INDUSTRIAL SABOTAGE?

You people have the most naive, pathetic, and perfect vision of how things work! I should be selling you water rights in Arizona for your uncritical, childish belief in the Tooth Fairie.

If I told you the moon was made of green cheese, would you believe that, too?????

Answer me this: how many containers does it take to transport one nuclear bomb?

How many computer operators must be bribed to alter one computer record in a foreign land?

How many managers must be coopted to reveal a weakness in a security plan?

How many undercover operatives does it take to do something very nasty to a single container, infiltrated without benefit of USCG inspection (like 95% of all container traffic) to do spectacular damage to the ENTIRE FREAKING EAST COAST?

Why are YOU willing to take that chance? How much money are you making from this deal?

Or are you just a useful idiot, a tool of Limbaugh and the White House with it's affable dunce bassman, "Dubya"?????????

You people make me sick.

No Subject
Indeed Mr. Palmer. They used to call then "mercenaries". Like the Hessian mercenaries of Paoli Massacre fame.

Today, we call them "partners in the Global War on Terror".

Fools, all of them, to be so blind to the reality of the matter!

Your paranoic ranting will convince no one of anything. If you want people to support the UAE's takeover, keep talking.

I certainly see no evidence of your knowing anything about the corporate world, either. Just a lot of neo-Marxist, paranoid ranting as far as I can tell. Which will never convince anyone other than fellow nutcases of anything. Even if you are right.

SO what you're saying is...
That the security at BIA was BECAUSE it was run by an Israeli-owned company. AMericans would and could of course NEVER be incompetent. That is why mail always gets everywhere it is meant to go, and always on time. Our border with Mexico is completely secured. Our military never makes any mistakes. Wow! What a wonderful utopia we live in -- or would, if it weren't for those damn Jews! The conspiracy people are right, I see -- it WAS a Jewish Plot!!! Isreal was behind the security, it failed, so therefore, Israel caused 9-11. I see. YOU have made things perfectly clear -- about you.

No Subject
Keep saying that to yourself and maybe you'll believe it one day.

Marx saw the world in terms of money alone. Congratulations! You've seen his dream come true and now we can all rest easy, knowing that the love of money is the root of all goodness.

Neo-marxist my a$$! How about, paleo-American, WASP included? You neo-con Vulcans can go mess up someone else's land now -- you've done a fine job of it here already.

No Subject
Oh I see now.

What I will never understand is why Jews, especially those from Eastern Europe, would go to all the trouble to migrate here -- unwelcome in the first place -- and then do nothing but kvetch, ***** and moan about the antisemitism that the claim lurks behind every door, under every rock, beneath every word.

Most of us Americans are insanely delighted to live in America! Yet you loath everything about us, except of course, its many opportunities for profit... say for example, the selling port operational rights for $7,000,000,000 and change.

Don't you get it? You are supposed to conform to us. WE are not supposed to confirm to you. "Good house guest" and "when in Rome" and all that.

MAYBE YOU WOULDN'T BE SO PARANOID if you stopped irritating your hosts to the point of aggression. Imagine that?! Oy vey!

Savage is a good radio host. I think he sometimes drinks too much coffee. I was alarmed about this until I heard the facts also. We will provide security for the ports and all of the other points mentioned before eased my worries. Terrorists that attacked us came from many nations and we have not stopped trading with all of them. Germany recently let a terrorist murderer go free that killed one of our servicemen in cold blood.
We have to be rational here and find allies and trading partners where we can in this world economy. Union dock workers will have to work these ports and these guys will rat them out if they see anything su****ious.

Trade and Commerce=peaceful coexistence
The simple reality is that when trade, commerce and voluntary contractual activity is carried on among the people of different countries, peaceful, mutually advantageous relationships predominate.
Savage, profession to the contrary not withstanding, is economically illiterate and falls into the category known as merchantilist. He joins O'Reilly there, who also wears the hat marked "economic dunce".

Yet another victim of the hype tsunami
Try educating yourself, on both US port security and on the UAE. First, the security won't change, only the possibility that the AFL-CIO might be kicked out, hence the caterwauling from the left. Second, just because the UAE has "Arab" in the name, doesn't make them terrorists. Racism doesn't become this fine website. I could get into it in more detail, but I am quite confident that the truth behind this deal will come out.

Rep. Myrick's letter
The conservative blog "Red State" ( has a PDF of Rep. Myrick's (R-NC) blunt letter to the President.

February 22, 2006

Dear Mr. President:

In regards to selling American ports to the United Arab Emirates, not just NO -- but HELL NO!

Sue Myrick
Member of Congress

Security vs. administration
All writers are correct who observe that the parent company will not be charged with the security function per se. That's not the problem.

In fact the UAE is a staunch ally of the US-- meaning thaat a nondemocratic, authoritarian government rules absolutely over a public that is in some significant part made up of dangerously radical Salafists. The sociology of the place compares to Saudi Arabia. And to run the nuts and bolts they will staff the operation with many UAE nationals.

Some of which can be expected to be AQ sympathizers. Thus all operational details of how the ports function and what goes on there will be reported in close detail to AQ. Thus any holes in our defenses will become known.

Good point
You sound like you're arguing from an informational vantage point on this one-- as is Marquis3. I like your take on the situation better than mine, above ("Security vs. administration").

I guess I'll have to shelve that vignette where swarthy ninjas hop down from the containers by night and escape into Brooklyn.

This only shows another person who should not be elected to public office. RSW1944 says it well. She should be compared to Bill O'Reilly, an economic dunce.

Port Operations and Security
I gotta side with spirtof76 on this one (though less stridently).

The fact that Dubai Ports World is purchasing the right to operate six US ports, not provide port security, is a red herring. The fact that the Coast Guard, etc. will continue to provide the security and the fact that most of the work will still be performed by Americans is irrelavent.

Being in control of operations means having access to facility blueprints, port procedures, etc. Granting this kind of access to foreign firms was questionable but not unreasonable, pre-911.

But now, it doesn't make sense. Making our ports more secure was one of the things identified by the 911 commission as something we needed to do to prevent another 911. Blocking the deal may not prevent a determined enemy from smuggling something into the US or attacking a port directly -- but why make it easy?

The UAE government may be friendly and cooperative but it only takes one individual at DPW to share sensitive information with our enimies. I think our enemies are more likely to find sympathetic individuals in the UAE.

It is our right to block this deal. It's part of the arrangement when such deals are made in the first place.

read my comment on

One of the interesting things about Dubai is this:

Dubai is one of the few Arab countries without any perticular oil reserves. Dubai, unlike the Saudis, has had to make a genuine effort to 'get along' with the West, because its economy is based solely upon trade and tourism.

And it seems to be wokring. It's a wild n wolly time in Dubai, where there is an attitude of 'anything goes', both financially as well as, interestingly, architecturally. That is where the bucks are being spent (and made). Heck, you can even buy your own island there, in an archipelago made out to look like cut-outs of each geographical part of the continents of the whole planet. About 3 million buys you, say, your own Isle of Britain, etc.

Now, all that said, while all of this may *intellectually* be much ado about nothing, and this sale may have been properly vetted along every correct channel, it still is simply something that the average American is not going to feel comfortable with.

In another decade, maybe a decade from now, it might not even garner a yawn.

But now, this is a no-go. The arab community as a whole has no one to blame for this but themselves. Because of the prevalence of scum outfits like CAIR, there has been almost ZERO verbiage from any arab entity to reach avrage American ears to the effect of 'Hey, we are on your side in this war. Radical Islamic terrorists are as much our enemy as yours. We are your friends.' The unconscious perception then is that, since they have little to say on the subject, that they must therefore at least tacitly approve ove the terrorists/aims/goals/methods.

And with such a people, even if it is the farthest thing from reality, in this case the perception is what is important.

No sale.

Logic & Reason????
James Glassman,

You say you rely on logic and reason.

Whereas, Michael Savage does not????

Michael Savage speaks for my (our)logic and reason. His words agree with my logic and reason, and for millions of other Real Americans.

Some of us are not part of the Herd mentality, or the Group Think Cult. Some of us know what's happening to our nation, and it is synthesized by a man like Mr. Savage.

Captain America


Morons AWAKE!
STUPID FOOLS!!..........

Globalization = Anti-Nationalism

Globalization = Anti-Middle Class

Globalization = Anti-Taxpayer

Globalization = A borderless world

Globalization = Empowerment of Global Government

Globalization = Empowerment of UN-elected officials

Globalization = Empowerment of Global Corporations


SAVAGE Is NOT A Group Think Cultist
Don't be foolish, like the rest of the anesthetized:

Globalization = Anti-Nationalism

Globalization = Anti-Middle Class

Globalization = Anti-Taxpayer

Globalization = A borderless world

Globalization = Empowerment of Global Government

Globalization = Empowerment of UN-elected officials

Globalization = Empowerment of Global Corporations


OH!.....and Bush is NO Conservative.

Thank you,

Captain America


A glimmer of sanity
The opinion expressed in most of the responses to Mr. Harris's story have restored some of my faith in American reasonableness, sense of fair play, and courage.

As I listened to this silly story unfold, I shook my head and thought, "Poor America, our greatest days certainly are behind us. Now we're squealing about a UAE-based marine terminal-operating company (one that relies on local management in its facilities throughout the world) overseeing the basic industrial activity of U.S. longshoremen loading and unloading containers in six U.S. ports. We certainly have lost any sense of spirit and fair play--and now we're afraid of just about everything."

The good sense displayed in many of these TCS responses leads me to hope that our government will yet strap on its manhood and approve this deal. But then again, TCS and Capitol Hill are light years apart...

Who actually owns the US ports in question?

Why have OWNERS outsourced the operation to a British Company in the first place?

Why can't the contract the owners of the port have with P&O be renegotiated since P&O ownership is changing?

The ultimate responsibility for port security lies with the port owner, who ever that is.

Here are some facts
The fact is that DP World has a COO (retiring) who's a US Navy veteran. They have a management team from all over the world and they're successfully operating ports all over. If they really are a threat, they're a threat all over Europe, Asia, and the ME.

What's the threat? Is it that the port facility will slip in fake paperwork for a container containing a nuke? They can do that *ON THE OTHER END* just as easily. Since they're already in control of plenty of ports on "the other end", they either should be trusted to run things on this end or they should be extracted from all those other ports as well.

But the hysterical complaints don't address this reality. Too bad.

Understand UAE demography
There are probably more christians and hindus in the UAE than muslims. 4/5ths of the place is made up of expats from various places. Take a look at DP World's website and you'll see that their management team hardly has an arab in any position other than the CEO.

A salafist could apply for a job at DP World to spy out port security weaknesses. This is true. But they could apply to any other company just as easily. If there is no increased security risk over other companies, there is no reason not to allow the purchase of P&O to go through including our 6 ports.

You are incredibly naive
If DP World is a threat to US security if they operate these US ports, they're a threat to US security right now whether they get permission to buy P&O or not. DP World operates huge facilities in Asia, in Europe, and all over the ME. This means that today, if they were a threat, they could be altering those records right now. Getting the US ports doesn't change the threat level.

Either we trust them or they need to be extracted out of operating world ports. Pick.

Security isn't the issue here
If P&O is letting Customs/Coast Guard handle security today and DP World will do the same, where, exactly does outsourcing have anything to do with this?

Other than who gets the profit check, what makes this an arab company?
Apple bought NexT Computers a few years back. After that, the usual parade of executives left. Unusually, all the departures were Apple executives and today, Apple essentially is making Apple branded NexT computers. DP World bought out the US CSX ports operations. If you look at the management team there's an awful lot of CSX people there.

If the UAE invested the money without changing the nameplate, would this discussion even be happening?

So which foreigners should be running our ports?
In the real world, we had the choice of
1. Singapore
2. UAE
to run our ports. P&O wanted to be bought so our first choice of UK foreigners was out.

But then again, what makes you think that P&O was less likely to hire a UK national pakistani ethnic salafist willing to compromise security than the UAE is to hire an arab salafist willing to compromise security?

The problem is "strategic acquisitions"
CSX could have done the port operations but CSX sold off their port operations to DP World for more money than it was worth just like we sold off Rockefeller Center to the Japanese for more money than what it was worth.

Chuck Schumer is opposed
I heard him on "The Savage Nation" show coming home from work on Friday night. It was, of course, the first time that Sav. had anything nice to say about Schumer.
This is su****ious, says I. Why would the liberal Schumer be opposed to the Arabs managing a US port? Isn't Islam a religion of peace? Aren't all cultures essentially the same? Shouldn't we all tolerate the pluralism of the community of nations? Shouldn't we all just learn to get along? Isn't globalism and a UN government the only way to a happy and progressive future?
The Left's opportunism in this affair is mainly to try to embarrass Bush and position themselves as protectors of America.
Nevertheless, the Right makes some good points in opposition, and my own verdict is still out . . . .

The Port of Baltimore
The Port of Baltimore is owned by Maryland.

Where is the outrage that Maryland outsources services to foreigners?

Rush to Judgment
I believe the vaunted Lee Harris has stepped on his...shoe this case. I usually respect much of what he says. I was appalled at first, too, but the I more I learned about "Portgate", the less concerned I became. The administration will probably call for more vetting (to placate the screamers) and when that is completed, I predict we will accept the UAE as business partners.

Portgate BS
It seems to me that some people need to check their facts before writing a story. First of all UEA will not be guarding our ports if this deal goes through US Customs will! All that the UEA company will be doing is running the business of loading and unloading the ships and all of their employees of whom will be americans will be background checked by customs same as if an american company ran the port. Now don't get me wrong I think that this is a dumb idea also, but our government made the rules on bidding out these contracts and not just this administration but the previous one also and both congresses. Lets fix that problem and not blame just this administration by kneejerk reaction. I'm sure if Haliburton would have got the contract the same people would be *****ing about that besause of a connection to the VP. How many companies are capable and wanted this contract and what was their bid?

They're just going to unload crates...
Hey come on. They are just unloading stuff. The security end is still in our hands. After all, most of those crates coming in through the hands of the new company are going to be completely innocuous anyway, right? We have nothing to worry about. Everything was fine when we showed those nice Arab boys how to fly our planes, right? After all, they were training to be PILOTS and not involved with security.

By the way, to my friends who think Portgate is a non-issue: I have some spectacular oceanfront property in Des Moines that I'd like to sell. Any takers?

This nonsense has been going on since at least the mid 80's
Sometime, decades ago, Congress moved the review authority for defense and defense industries contracts from the Department of Defense to the Commerce and Treasury Departments. This was because the Department of Defense thought security was more important than companies making money.

The whole system is broke and it is not President Bush's fault.

I don't get northerguy
I don't get what everybody is so excited about.

If there was ever a country that was composed of ethnic Arabs and yet merited access to the American economy it is the United Arab Emirates. If there was ever an Arab owned company that was run mostly by westerners with vast experience, connections in the industry and a proven historical track record at protecting its assets it is the merged company of P and O (British) and Dpworld (U.A.E.).

People who object to the newly merged company carrying on selecting the subcontractor to operate the port gift shops etc., the make of fork lifts used and the company that services them evidently don't believe that _any_ Arab owned company should be allowed to come in contact with _any_ sensitive operation. Naturally this would include the companies that build the ports and airports as well as just owning the blueprints because they are the operator. Of course it would also include the companies that service the ports and airports such as coffee wagons, garbage pickup, building and equipment maintenance and so on. Not to mention all the other industries and services which are just as sensitive but not such high profile threat vectors such as telecommunications, finance, pipelines and refineries...wait a minute what about's owned by the Venezulean national oil company. It supplies most of the gasoline used in the U.S. southeast. Chavez has publicly stated that he is an enemy of the U.S. He is actively working against American national interests in Latin America and around the world. He is allying himself with America's enemies and encouraging/pressuring nuetrals to do likewise.

No one would deny that Chavez is an overt threat to the U.S. He may be a fool but he is a fool with a two million strong army if you count the reserves which he is expanding to even greater numbers. He owns the source of a substantial part of America's energy supplies, he owns the ships that transport it to the U.S. He owns the refineries that they dock at. His company hires the staff that work at the refineries, the pipelines and trucks that deliver the product, the network of service stations that do retail and the staff that work there.

Really, there is no end of candidate countries and ethnic or national groups that warrant su****ion and could be blocked from accessing the American economy becuase in an open economy _everything_ is sensitive.

The question is should the U.S. block all Arabs from owning any potentially sensitive assets in America? Should the U.S. ban just Arabs or Muslims in general? Should the U.S. ban all foreign owned companies from having access to any important part of America? Are there some parts of America that aren't important? Is it o.k. if Arabs, Muslims, foreigners or whatever respond accordingly and block American access to their economies? Does it make sense to make a big deal about just this company from just this country operating just these particular ports but not any other potential threats of a similar or even more serious nature?

Until someone can answer these last few questions I just don't get it!!

Tried to be nice...
So you're a white supremacist? A nationalist? That clarifies things, even if a fascist is but the flip side of the socialist coin that includes Marx on the other.

On the Anti-Semite
The anti-Semite sees Jews everywhere he looks. He even assumes and suspects people to be Jews who call him out on his anti-semitism, even if he has no evidence one way or the other that the person is a Jew.

I am very glad to have exposed you for what you are, though, for now the rest of us can rationally ignore your rantings.

You still don't know whether or not I am a Jew, and I'm not going to tell you. It doesn't matter. It only matters to ***** and other white supremicists.

An objection to TCS
Why have you censored the word Nazi? Or perhaps I should say N A Z I so that it will get through? Really? This level of political correctness on TCS? I'm very disappointed.

Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi

But Michael Savage Was Wrong
Lee, Relax everything is alright. Michael Savage was wrong. The deal does not involve security. It is about the management of the loading and unloading of cargo ships.

Don't act Surprised about Savage
Dr. Michael Savage is known to me as the almighty one and the great prophet. He is an unconventional thinker who thinks beyond the box on just about any subject. As a intense and feisty radio talk show host, he challenges everyone, regardless of color, race or creed, to think for themselves. He engages his radio audience and they listen carefully as his popularity continues to soar.

Regarding Portgate, he proved beyond any doubt that he is not a Bush-bot, not a rubber stamp for the Republican Party, and certainly not one to be shut down. If we need a liberal to provide leadership like Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), I challenge Lee Harris and her 'comfort-zone' media hounds to shift the emphasis in writing from 'arrogant surprise' to at least 'minimum respect' for his incredible brain-power.

TCS Daily Archives