February 21, 2006
By Richard Saunders
Here are the new faces of racism in America: Republican
New York Gov. George Pataki, Republican Maryland Gov.
Robert Ehrlich, Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham of South
Carolina, Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey,
Democratic Senator of New York Hillary Clinton. There
are others, but these are the most prominent.
UPDATE:
February 25, 2006 - Governor Ehrlich Sees
Reason! Days after
Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. said he was exploring
options to block the sale of port of Baltimore
operations to a United Arab Emirates company,
members of his administration said the governor
has no position on whether the deal should go
through.
According to Will Lester of the Associated Press, “New
York Gov. George Pataki and Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich
on Monday voiced doubts about the acquisition of a
British company that has been running six U.S. ports by
Dubai Ports World, a state-owned business in the United
Arab Emirates, and have threatened legal action to block
this sale. Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey
said Monday that he and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.,
will introduce legislation prohibiting the sale of port
operations to foreign governments.”
Even Democratic Baltimore Mayor Martin O’Malley asked
why the home of the “Star Spangled Banner” was being
sold to foreign ownership. "We are not going to turn
over the port of Baltimore to a foreign government. It's
not going to happen", stated O’Malley.
Let us look to understand the ignorance of both
Democrats and Republicans on this issue. First, we need
to start with some questions:
1. Does Mayor O’Malley realize that currently a British
company is responsible for port operations in the Port
of Baltimore? Does he also further understand that
during the penning of the poem “The Star Spangled
Banner” by Francis Scott Key the Port was being
bombarded by our then enemy, the British, during the War
of 1812?
2. Do any of the Democrat or Republicans speaking out
against this issue realize that port operations in any
of the ports in question realize that the companies
providing port operations have been under foreign
ownership for some time? If so, why haven’t they been
complaining until now?
3. Are these Democrats and Republicans more comfortable
with the fact that ["to my UK readers, I am being
severely facetious here"] a nice white country like the United
Kingdom, our past enemy in two wars and who sided with
the enemy of the United States during the U.S. Civil War
runs the ports? As opposed to those horrid “brown”
people of the UAE who’s government has sided with the
United States in the war against terrorism.
Some of these racist Democrats and Republicans say that
a UAE owned company should not be allowed to run the
ports as their country produces two of the nineteen 911
hijackers. These political racists also need to be
reminded that the “shoe bomber” was British-born Richard
Reid. We should also recall that the terrorist that
brought down the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma was
a U.S. citizen. These lawmakers also need to be reminded
that crane operators, packers, lift drivers and all
other port workers are most likely American citizens and
have been through background checks imposed by the
Department of Homeland security.
Let us also be clear about the difference between port
security and port operations. Port security and legal
jurisdiction falls under the Federal Government of the
United States with lead security and law enforcement
duties resting with my beloved United States Coast Guard
which I served with for 13 years before becoming a
military intelligence officer with the Army. It has been
this way since the Coast Guard was founded in 1790 by
Alexander Hamilton as the Revenue Cutter Marine.
If security related to port ownership was an issue, then
why haven’t these folks spoke up until now? Racism
perhaps, but some responsible journalists only need to
look at political campaign donation records to see if
any port operations firms who lost the bid for these
ports are making noise. This argument is not over
security – it is over business. To deny legal ownership
in a global economy by virtue of race is not good
business.
As a Republican, I am appalled at the behavior of the
leaders in my own party, though I am also very surprised
that Senator Clinton would go down this same path.
Political opportunism at the expense of principles is a
trait found in those who understand neither leadership
nor principles.
I say to the Republicans – “follow your leader.”
President Bush has approved this decision based on
economic and security principles without looking at
race. This president, who was the first to appoint not
one, but two African Americans to head the State
Department, and has filled his cabinet and other
high-level positions with a mix of race and cultures,
not for that reason, but solely based on their skills
and talent, should be commended for principled
leadership, and not political opportunism.
The largest concentration camp outside of Germany during
World War II was run by the Americans and authorized by
the Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt. Americans
of a particular race were imprisoned without trial
because they had slightly slanted eyes. No equivalent
opportunity was offered to Americans of German decent,
but was afforded only to Americans of Japanese decent.
To the racist Democrats and Republicans opposed to the
emerging port ownership issue – learn your American
history and come to grips with how unfounded bigoted
decisions have stained the reputation of the United
States as a tolerant and democratic Republic for which
it was founded.
