No More Fake News Archives

NoMoreFakeNews Home Page

View Archive Article

Back to List

Title  BEHIND THE SURRENDER OF US SEAPORTS TO THE UAE 
Release Date  2006-02-22 
Time  08:42:00 
Comment   

Article Text 
FEBRUARY 22, 2006. There are a number of reasons the White House is pushing this through. The corporation that would take control of several huge US seaports is, as everybody now knows, based in the United Arab Emirates, and is owned by that government.

According to official scenarios, several 9/11 hijackers were from that nation---so there is an uproar now about security and fear of new terrorism on US soil coming through those seaports.

But behind all this, there are the fingerprints revealing what, to the White House, is a much more important issue: globalism. "Free trade."

For example, here is what Michael Chertoff, head of US Homeland Security, had to say the other day about this new seaport deal:

"...this [the deal] is part of the balancing of national security, which is our paramount concern, with the need to still maintain a real robust global trading environment."

That last phrase---think about it. What is the chief of Homeland Security doing talking about free trade? That's what "a real robust global trading environment" is all about. Free trade isn't Chertoff's job. He has nothing to do with it. Yet, he feels the need to emphasize it.

And then, guess who else jumped on the same bandwagon, out of nowhere? Jimmy Carter. What the hell is he suddenly doing in the mix? He builds houses. He goes around monitoring elections. He speaks out on human rights issues. All of a sudden he's lending his weight to a corporate deal?

Well, Carter was dragged up from obscurity as a peanut farmer in Georgia, and as governor of that state---dragged up by David Rockefeller in 1976---to run for president of the US. A less likely winner in the prez sweepstakes could hardly have been found. But Carter won. He won on behalf of Rockefeller and that very free trade agenda that was at the top of Rockefeller's chart of priorities. President Carter's appointees, many of them, were bigshots in the Trilateralist camp, which is to say the free trade camp.

Now Bush, waking up from a nap, says he knew nothing about the seaport deal until it was done, but in the same breath assures one and all that he will veto any attempt by Congress to cancel it. Not "I'm opposed to a Congressional nixing of the deal," but "I'll veto any such bill." Boom.

Free trade is an agenda the honchos will do ANYTHING to preserve. In this case, it's being interpreted to mean: any mega corporation anywhere can invest in and own any part of the infrastructure of a foreign nation.

The spearhead of globalism/free trade IS mega corporations. They gobble up the planet, and engage in a de facto erasure of all national borders and sovereignty.

Those of us who understand something about what really happened on 9/11 realize, of course, that terrorism, internationally and "spontaneously arising" through the United Arab Emirates, is a fiction. But for the White House to take all the hits it is presently taking by defending the handover of US ports to the UAE---this tells you there is a much more important priority. Free trade. The first and foremost item every new president of the US must sign on to---otherwise he will never be elected in the first place.

Free trade is a major, major component of planet shaping.

And by the way, so is top-down sponsored terrorism.

Both ops work toward the same goal: rule over the many by the few.

In the first instance, the rationalization, for Americans, is: "guarantee of a robust economy within the US."

In the second instance, the rationalization is: "we need tighter international control over the people of all nations to prevent terrorist attacks."

The squeeze play, along two fronts.

If, by some outside chance, this seaport deal is nixed, there is a possibility that the UAE, a member of the World Trade Organization, will file a formal protest against the US with the WTO. Then a WTO panel could levy billions of dollars of sanctions against the US government---on the basis that the US is restraining free trade.

In addition, billions of dollars which have already been invested in US government securities, by the UAE and other Arab nations, could be pulled out. Boom.

These two threats are all part of the global village these days, and form a barrier against any so-called sovereign nation trying to mess with FREE TRADE.

JON RAPPOPORT www.nomorefakenews.com