I've had this domain for a while now and have been toying with the idea of setting up a political blog. I have several business blogs, unfortunately I can't vent my political feelings on those blogs (bad for business since roughly half the country is going to disagree with just about anything I say!). But I keep up on current events quite a bit (okay, I admit I'm a Fox News junkie), and I have a lot of opinions that my family is probably sick of hearing. So finally today, thanks to George Bush's stupid idea to trust the UAE with some of our port security, I started www.BlogForFreedom.com to let the world know exactly what I think (although the world really doesn't care - I'm aware!).
As a disabled veteran, a Republican and a President Bush supporter, I cannot believe that ANY of our nation's port security would be left to the UAE. I realize there is a great deal more to this issue than meets the eye - information that citizens such as myself do not have. However, if there is even a .01% chance that this could jeopardize national security (and there is at least a .01% chance), why would we take such an unnecessary risk?
As a child, I lived in Saudi Arabia and I have many Arab friends. As a result, I understand their culture and I do not trust the UAE. I know that extremist Arabs who hate America are an accepted part of most Arab cultures. They are not seen as criminals, in fact, many see them as heroes and their ties to the "government elites" are usually strong. While many Arab governments are "officially" allies of the US and the war on terror, their people truly do not like America or our way of life. For this reason, it would be way too easy for an extremist group to find an "in" to this UAE company. What if our UAE 'friends' just happen to turn a blind eye to a shipment of weapons, nuclear, chemical or other hazardous items that could be used to launch an attack on our homeland? Currently, the majority of containers that come through our ports go unchecked and we need to tighten port security. Instead, we seem to be putting the fox in charge of the hen house. Has our government become completely blind to the obvious?
President Bush and the Republican Party claim that securing our nation is a top priority after 9/11. Iraq is part of this plan and I support the war in Iraq. However, what good does it do to spend billions of dollars fighting terrorism in Iraq when our borders are completely unprotected? If Mexican immigrants can illegally enter our country any time they like, what's stopping Al Quaeda? Nothing. And now we're going to leave our ports in the hands of a country that was home to two of the 9/11 hijackers? If we continue with such an ignorant, liberal attitude towards national security, President Bush is right about one thing...it's just a matter of time before we get hit again.
I have lost a great deal of respect for President Bush due to his failure to secure the Mexican border. I live in Arizona and I believed border security would finally be taken seriously after 9/11. But it was all political BS. And now with this port security issue, I don't know what he's thinking anymore. For the first time in my life, I actually agree with the Democratic leadership. If the Republicans want to continue being seen as the party that will protect America, they need to get back to basics and realize that putting a country that doesn't like us in charge of our port security is the wrong thing to do. It's like the UN putting Libya on the committee that oversees human rights. It makes ZERO sense. If Republicans cannot use their majority in Washington to stop this UAE deal, then perhaps they don't deserve to be in control anymore. I think this could be one of THE ISSUES that alot of people who are on the fence will remember. They could very well use their vote in future elections to punish candidates that support this UAE company.
I don't know about you, but I remember just a few short years ago that President Bush "...looked into Vladimir Putin's eyes..." and saw a soul he could trust. Wrong George. Old habits die hard and much like the UAE, Putin is only our friend to our face. Behind our back, however, he has gone out of his way to be un-helpful to the U.S.... joining France's efforts against us before the Iraq war, even going as far as to befriend Hammas and help Iran get nukes. Even a so-called Western ally like France actually hates America. Saudi Arabia is our supposed ally too, yet they are the world's largest exporter of terror. They teach radical islam in their schools and some members of their royal family were found to have financial links to terror. But they're "officially" our friends ... right. Hey, why don't we put the Saudis in charge of our airport security? Can you say 9/11? Is President Bush truly so naive as to think that the UAE can be trusted to protect our national security interests?
Bush said that we have to be right 100% of the time and the terrorists only have to get lucky once. He was absolutely correct. This could be that "once". Just like he was wrong to trust Putin, Bush is wrong again regarding the UAE. And this time, I honestly fear I will live to see the day that our country realizes what a huge mistake we made by allowing our port security to be handled by a foreign country that doesn't like us.
Why doesn't Bush get it? Even Hillary Clinton and most Democrats get that this is a dumb idea. Of course, Jimmy Carter agrees with Bush and thinks this deal will be okay ... that should be a MAJOR clue that we need to stop the deal immediately!
Who'd a thought it would be a stupid Republican that pissed me off bad enough to finally start this blog! Thank you President Bush for motivating me...I'm proud to finally have my blog up. Unfortunately, I've never been so ashamed to be a Bush supporter as I am today.
Boycotts Will Not Stop AZ Enforcing Its Illegal-Immigration Law
Pres. Obama and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder for several days made derogatory statements against Arizona’s passed illegal Immigration bill. Amazingly Obama at the same time he was criticizing the AZ bill he was also stating he hadn't read it. When Eric Holder was questioned about his statements against the AZ bill, Holder also stated he never read it, that his statements were based on what he read in newspapers. No doubt millions Americans who heard Holder say this on the news must believe Holder is an idiot. It is apparent neither Obama nor Holder cares what the Arizona bill says; their intention was to disseminate false information to incite the public, perhaps to open the door for socialist/communist agitators to move in on Arizona's illegal immigration issue; first by further inciting the public, then misleading Americans to support leftists that want amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants, whose votes Democrats need in subsequent elections. The AZ bill is short, perhaps a 10 minute read, so it must be strongly considered Obama and Holder both alleged law scholars, did read this bill before they knowingly spread false information about the AZ bill's contents, a tactic used by communists to mislead the public. Americans should be wide awake; it is obvious that Americans are now exponentially losing control of their U.S. Government to real hardcore Communists and socialists, and it is only a matter of time before Obama’s socialist/communist supporters will aggressively push for stripping taxpaying Americans of their assets. There is nothing complicated about this, leftists along with millions of illegal immigrants see your stuff, they want it, and many may believe their only chance to get it, is through some form of revolution. Is Obama helping incite such leftist aspirations? If yes, Why? And if yes, is that Treason if communists are an integral part?
After Eric Holder last week attacked the passed AZ illegal Immigration bill, then said he never read the bill, I did a little research on Holder. I found Holder has before made similar lame statements and excuses to explain his nonfeasance when holding a position in government. In the final days of the Clinton administration, Eric Holder was working for the U.S. Government and was involved in the last minute pardon of fugitive financier Marc Rich who had been indicted in the U.S. on federal charges of alleged tax evasion and making illegal oil deals with Iran during the late 1970’s and early 1980’s and Iran hostage crisis. Despite those charges, Eric Holder gave Clinton a “neutral, leaning towards favorable” Opinion of the pardon, for Marc Rich. After Marc Rich received January 20, 2001 the pardon from Pres. Clinton, Eric Holder was questioned by a House Government Reform Committee and Senate Judiciary Committee about his role in the Marc Rich pardon: Eric Holder’s replied…during the run up to the Marc Rich pardon, he did not have the ability to look at all the materials that had been vetted through the way we normally vet materials.
Apparently Eric Holder is a past master at weaseling out of direct questioning when cornered, so far...
Posted by: Rwolf | May 16, 2010 at 12:33 PM