Thread: Very good point from a friend!

Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States

Gerald R. Ford Executive Order 11858--Foreign investment in the United States

################################################## #################
This was emailed to me from a friend that has been around and actively involved for a long time!

It makes perfect sense!

.....you may and may not want to put this email out but I intend to put it everywhere and strongly encourage people to copy it into emails to their congress people to clearly state this demand. I hope that enough emails and faxes might make many of the GOP break from Bush over the Dubai port idiocy and then on other issues.

I also believe that this was carefully planned. Think about it. He starts this Dubai stuff at the same time the senate will consider and change the HR4437 for border security. Maybe that VETO threat was to setup a "you give me Guest worker provision or I let the Dubai port thing go through." Maybe he is preparing a trade off.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


It is time to start a strong national movement to immediately IMPEACH President Bush for his acts of:
forswearing the presidential oath of office to which he swore on the Bible;
intentionally encouraging millions of illegal foreigners (including terrorists) to enter the US without hindrance;
actively funding, with $400 million of US taxpayer money, and working with a Mexican president to enable and speed the invasion/destruction of America;
intentionally failing to enforce US law which he swore his oath of office to do;
failing to be a "good and faithful" servant to US citizens;
intentionally ignoring or working against many provisions of the US constitution;
actively working to overthrow the 22nd amendment that limits presidential terms which is a safeguard against ;
avoiding Congressional oversight by 'secretly' working to enable a Muslim Dubai group (from UAE who supplied terrorists on 9/11 and currently fund anti-US training groups within the US and worldwide and intend to destroy Israel and the US) to control over 20 US ports;
intentionally acting against US homeland security and the safety of our country and US citizens to be "secure within our borders";
signing treaties that work directly against the welfare of US citizens,
giving away taxpayer created US wealth to illegals aliens,
and for his intentional utter failure to " protect and defend America against foreign invasion".
We believe that Bush has become a dangerous enemy of all legal American citizens and must be removed from office to prevent additional destructive acts against US citizens and our nation.

The above declaration has nothing to do with political party affiliation nor whether we are for or against the Iraq war and is based solely on his destructive anti-American activities.

################################################## #######################

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll ... /602220416

Frist at odds with Bush over ports deal
President insists Arab company be allowed to run 6 U.S. seaports

Tennessean News Services

Published: Wednesday, 02/22/06

WASHINGTON * President Bush, trying to put down a rapidly escalating rebellion among leaders of his own party, yesterday said that he would veto any legislation blocking a deal for a state-owned company in Dubai to take over the management of port terminals in New York, Miami, Baltimore and other major U.S. cities.

Bush issued the threat after Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and House Speaker Dennis Hastert publicly criticized the deal and said a thorough review was necessary to ensure that terrorists could not exploit the arrangement to slip weapons into American ports.

Frist gave the White House only an hour's notice before he broke partisan ranks earlier yesterday, declaring that "the decision to finalize this deal should be put on hold."

The Tennessee senator said that if he was not heeded, "I plan on introducing legislation to ensure that the deal is placed on hold until this decision gets a more thorough review."

Bush suggested that the objections to the deal might be based on bias against a buyer from the Middle East, one he said was an ally in fighting terrorism.

"After careful review by our government, I believe the transaction ought to go forward," Bush said, referring to a study that began in October and ended, quietly and without objections from inside his administration, on Jan. 16. "I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company. I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, 'We'll treat you fairly.' "

To ease concerns, the administration disclosed some assurances it had negotiated with the company in question, Dubai Ports World, which is owned by the United Arab Emirates. It required mandatory participation in U.S. security programs to stop smuggling and detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials; roughly 33 other port companies participate in these voluntarily. The Coast Guard also said yesterday it was nearly finished inspecting Dubai Ports' facilities in the United States.

Frist said yesterday, before Bush's comments, that the deal raised "serious questions regarding the safety and security of our homeland."

Frist, who spoke to reporters in Long Beach, Calif., where he was on a fact-finding tour on port security and immigration issues, said he doesn't oppose foreign ownership, "but my main concern is national security."

Frist said Congress should have veto authority over such foreign sales, which are reviewed by a secretive U.S. panel that considers security risks of foreign companies buying or investing in American industry. The panel includes representatives from the departments of Treasury, Defense, Justice, Commerce, State and Homeland Security.

The White House was clearly taken by surprise when Frist and Hastert joined Democratic leaders in Congress and other prominent Republicans, including Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Gov. George Pataki of New York, in calling for the government to stop the deal from closing, as scheduled, next week.

"We have not received the necessary assurances regarding security concerns," Bloomberg wrote in a letter to the president last night, saying that he was joining the New York's two Democratic senators, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Charles Schumer, in calling for a full, 45-day investigation of the deal under a law governing the review of foreign investments.

The response from the White House was swift and notable for its intensity, and amounted to a head-on confrontation between Bush, who has defined his presidency as being about protecting the American people, and the leadership of his party in Congress, which faces political headwinds as it approaches the midterm elections in November.

Bush only rarely makes veto threats, and he has not vetoed a single bill in his more than five years in office.

The White House appeared to have considered the transaction routine, especially because so many foreign firms * from Singapore, Taiwan and Japan * run major port terminals in the United States, and have for years. But Schumer said: "I don't think China or Britain or many of the others have the nexus with terrorism that Dubai has. What kind of controls do they have to prevent infiltration?"

Dubai Ports World would oversee shipping arrivals, departures and unloading at the docks, but the federal government would continue to handle port security at the six terminals in New York, Newark, N.J., Baltimore, Miami, Philadelphia and New Orleans.

They noted that a similar deal involving the foreign container-handling division of CSX Corp., which was bought by Dubai Ports in December 2004, went through with no objections. In that case, none of the terminals Dubai Ports assumed control of were in the United States.

But the central argument of the deal's proponents is that the UAE has aided the United States in pursuing terror groups.

"We have naval visits there and landing rights," said Sen. John Warner, R-Va. "We have to move carefully in considering the implications of what we do."

But Dubai's record is hardly unblemished. Two of the 9/11 hijackers came from UAE, and laundered some of their cash through the country's banking system. It was also the main transhipment point for Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Pakistani nuclear engineer, who ran the world's largest nuclear proliferation ring from warehouses near the port, met Iranian officials there, and shipped centrifuge equipment, which can be used to enrich uranium, to Libya from there.

George Dalton, general counsel for Dubai Ports World, said that the company is committed to maintain or improve security operations at each of the terminals it will assume control of. The uproar over the deal, he said, is entirely political.

"I think it borders on the absurd. They are sending exactly the wrong message to the Arab world."
################################################## ###########################

http://www.voiceofalabama.com/
BUSH SHRUGS OFF OBJECTIONS TO PORT DEAL







President Bush to American people and Congress: "Screw you! I don't
care what you think! ( more)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060222/ap_ ... s_security
Bush Unaware of Ports Deal Before Approval


By TED BRIDIS, Associated Press Writer 13 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - President Bush was unaware of the pending sale of shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports to a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates until the deal already had been approved by his administration, the White House said Wednesday.

Defending the deal anew, the administration also said that it should have briefed Congress sooner about the transaction, which has triggered a major political backlash among both Republicans and Democrats.

Bush on Tuesday brushed aside objections by leaders in the Senate and House that the $6.8 billion sale could raise risks of terrorism at American ports. In a forceful defense of his administration's earlier approval of the deal, he pledged to veto any bill Congress might approve to block the agreement involving the sale of a British company to the Arab firm.

Bush faces a rebellion from leaders of his own party, as well as from Democrats, about the deal that would put Dubai Ports in charge of major shipping operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

While Bush has adamantly defended the deal, the White House acknowledged that he did not know about it until recently.

"He became aware of it over the last several days," McClellan said. Asked if Bush did not know about it until it was a done deal, McClellan said, "That's correct." He said the matter did not rise to the presidential level, but went through a congressionally-mandated review process and was determined not to pose a national security threat.

"The president made sure to check with all the Cabinet secretaries that are part of this process, or whose agencies or departments are part of this process," the spokesman said. "He made sure to check with them * even after this got more attention in the press, to make sure that they were comfortable with the decision that was made."

"And every one of the Cabinet secretaries expressed that they were comfortable with this transaction being approved," he said.

Commerce Secretary Carlos Guiterrez, told The Associated Press in an interview: "They are not in charge of security. We are not turning over the security of our ports. When people make statements like that you get an instant emotional reaction."

The sale's harshest critics were not appeased.

"I will fight harder than ever for this legislation, and if it is vetoed I will fight as hard as I can to override it," said Rep. Pete King, R-N.Y., chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. King and Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer ( news, bio, voting record) of New York said they will introduce emergency legislation to suspend the ports deal.

Another Democrat, Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, urged his colleagues to force Bush to wield his veto, which Bush * in his sixth year in office * has never done. "We should really test the resolve of the president on this one because what we're really doing is securing the safety of our people."

McClellan dismissed any connection between the deal and David Sanborn of Virginia, a former senior DP World executive whom the White House appointed last month to be the new administrator of the Maritime Administration of the Transportation Department. Sanborn worked as DP World's director of operations for Europe and Latin America.

"My understanding is that he has assured us that he was not involved in the negotiations to purchase this British company," McClellan added.

"In terms of David Sanborn, he was nominated to run the Maritime Administration because of his experience and expertise," the spokesman said. Sanborn is a graduate of the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy. He is an operations professional.

Earlier, several lawmakers determined to capsize the pending sale said they would not be deterred by Bush's veto threat.

Sen. Joseph Biden ( news, bio, voting record), D-Del., said the bipartisan opposition to the deal indicated "a lack of confidence in the administration" on both sides. "Sure, we have to link up with our Arab friends but ... we want to see and those in Congress want to know what ... safeguards are built in," Biden said on ABC's "Good Morning America."

Bush's veto threat sought to quiet a political storm that has united Republican governors and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee with liberal Democrats, including New York Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Schumer.

To assuage concerns, the administration disclosed some assurances it negotiated with Dubai Ports. It required mandatory participation in U.S. security programs to stop smuggling and detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials; roughly 33 other port companies participate in these voluntarily. The Coast Guard also said it was nearly finished inspecting Dubai Ports' facilities in the United States.

Frist said Tuesday, before Bush's comments, that he would introduce legislation to put the sale on hold if the White House did not delay the takeover. He said the deal raised "serious questions regarding the safety and security of our homeland.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., asked the president for a moratorium on the sale until it could be studied further. "We must not allow the possibility of compromising our national security due to lack of review or oversight by the federal government," Hastert said.

Bush took the rare step of calling reporters to his conference room on Air Force One after returning from a speech in Colorado. He also stopped to talk before television cameras after he returned to the White House.

He said that members of Congress "need to know that our government has looked at this issue and looked at it carefully."

A senior executive from Dubai Ports World pledged the company would agree to whatever security precautions the U.S. government demanded to salvage the deal. Chief operating officer Edward "Ted" H. Bilkey promised Dubai Ports "will fully cooperate in putting into place whatever is necessary to protect the terminals."

Lawmakers from both parties have noted that some of the Sept. 11 hijackers used the United Arab Emirates as an operational and financial base. In addition, critics contend the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist.

___

Associated Press writers Ben Feller, Will Lester, Terence Hunt, and Devlin Barrett in Washington, Matthew Verrinder in Newark, N.J., and Tom Stuckey in Annapolis, Md., contributed to this report.

The following is from : www.USABorderAlert.com

HI EVERYONE,

THIS IS FROM SNOPES.COM LONG TRUSTED FOR THEIR FERRETING OUT INTERNET SCAMS,RUBAN LEGENDS, HARD FACTS, ETC.

CONISDERING THAT BUSH WANTS TO VETO THE STOP OF THE SELLING OF SEVERAL OF OUR PORTS TO ARABIAN/TERRORIST COUNTRIES, AND OUR POLITICIANS ARE GOING TO ALLOW MEXICAN OFFICIALS TELL US WHAT WE SHOULD DO WITH OUR BORDERS..

HOW MANY COUNTRIES HAVE PAID ATTENTION TO WHAT WE WANT??


Arab/Islamic states consistently vote against the U.S. in the United Nations

How they vote at the U.N.!

Below are the actual voting records of various Arabic/Islamic States which are recorded in both the US State Department and United Nations records:

Kuwait votes against the United States 67% of the time.

Qatar votes against the United States 67% of the time
.
Morocco votes against the United States 70% of the time.

United Arab Emirates votes against the U. S. 70% of the time.

Jordan votes against the United States 71% of the time.

Tunisia votes against the United States 71% of the time.

Saudi Arabia votes against the United States 73% of the time.

Yemen votes against the United States 74% of the time.

Algeria votes against the United States 74% of the time.

Oman votes against the United States 74% of the time.

Sudan votes against the United States 75% of the time.

Pakistan votes against the United States 75% of the time.

Libya votes against the United States 76% of the time.

Egypt votes against the United States 79% of the time.

Lebanon votes against the United States 80% of the time.

India votes against the United States 81% of the time.

Syria votes against the United States 84% of the time.

Mauritania votes against the United States 87% of the time.

US Foreign Aid to those that hate us:

Egypt, for example, after voting 79% of the time against the United States, still receives $2 billion annually in US Foreign Aid.

Jordan votes 71% against the United States and receives $192,814,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.

Pakistan votes 75% against the United States receives $6,721,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.

India votes 81% against the United States receives $143,699,000 annually

Perhaps it is time to get out of the UN and give the tax savings back to the American workers who are having to skimp and sacrifice to pay the taxes.

Pass it along. Everyone needs to know this. Might even mention it to your congressman, who knows this anyway... what a disgrace... no wonder the world has no respect for us.

The results of this tally were even worse (from a U.S. perspective) than the message quoted above indicates, with the countries named voting contrary to the U.S. position on U.N. resolutions an aggregate 88% of the time. (Even though India is neither Arab nor particularly Islamic, we included it in our chart because the widely-circulated e-mailed list did.)

Country Times Voted With U.S. Times Voted Against U.S. % of Votes Against U.S.
Kuwait 10 61 86%
Qatar 9 64 88%
Morocco 8 62 89%
United Arab Emirates 8 61 88%
Jordan 9 64 88%
Tunisia 8 63 89%
Saudi Arabia 7 62 90%
Yemen 9 64 88%
Algeria 9 63 88%
Oman 9 63 88%
Sudan 10 60 86%
Pakistan 9 59 87%
Libya 8 63 89%
Egypt 10 63 86%
Lebanon 7 62 90%
India 14 52 79%
Syria 7 59 89%
Mauritania 7 63 90%


However, we also surveyed the U.N. voting records of several countries generally considered to be close allies of the U.S., and those results were none too impressive either. Only Israel consistently voted with the U.S.:

**BUSH AS SERIOUSLY ALIENATED US FROM MOST OF OUR ALLIES AND THE FALLOUT IS DEVASTATING**

Country Times Voted With U.S. Times Voted Against U.S. % of Votes Against U.S.
Australia 33 26 44%
Canada 31 32 51%
Israel 56 7 11%
Japan 26 36 58%
United Kingdom 40 27 40%
France 36 31 46%

So it isn't just the Arab/Islamic states who consistently vote against the U.S. in the United Nations * pretty much thhe rest of the world does, too.

Last updated: 6 May 2004

**NO DOUBT THOSE VOTING AGAINST US CURRENTLY(2006) IS MUCH HIGHER**


more on snopes methodology, etc. here

Only Israel consistently voted with the U.S.:

And there-in lies much of the problem, historically their foreign presence and "special interests" in our country is probably the most harmful relationship the US could have.

Our national infrastructure should be America First without any outside interference and foreign intrigues, be it economics, security, etc., without exception. Otherwise we have little to no self-determination or sovereignty as a peoples.

Are we giving more funding, today to our enemies?