Who Cares about Ports?

When one discusses the concept of libertarianism with others, it is always important to remember what our priorities are as citizens of the United States of America. All elected officials and military personnel take an oath upon entering service to the citizens of our states and nation. As we likewise intend on serving our countrymen, one must not lose sight of what our obligations are, and would be, if and when we are chosen to serve in such a capacity. Our first priority is to protect and defend the constitution of the United States of America, and the individual states if applicable. Keeping that in mind, some seem to find libertarianism unpalatable. I understand, at least in this context, how and why people misconstrue the intent of libertarians and specifically members of the Libertarian Party. Indeed, the National LP platform can seem quite hostile to the concepts of sovereignty and self-preservation as a nation.

On this occasion, let us take but one item from our platform and discuss how this has been used against the movement, and our candidates, when we are trying to broaden our membership and support. I know that some will try and claim that "people don’t read the platform." Well, I can testify that the notion of our platform not being read is a pure fiction. Our political adversaries often read the platform, and they continually utilize the platform to discredit our candidates. Therefore, I will attempt, at least on this issue, to correct some misconceptions concerning libertarians in general.

The current LP platform on Trade Barriers states:

The Issue: Tariffs and quotas serve only to give special treatment to favored special interests and to diminish the welfare of consumers and other individuals, as do point-of-origin or content regulation. These measures also reduce the scope of contracts and understanding among different peoples.

Well, there is a problem with this statement. Although philosophically this may be correct, in practice it will keep the 16th amendment in place. Without a viable alternative to the income tax, which most consider more heinous than a tariff, we only strengthen our opposition’s claims that we have no "plan" to fund the government. Additionally, having a government funded through "donations" is not a legitimate option. This position only makes the LP appear to be a fringe element of society. A tariff is a legitimate and constitutionally viable form of taxation along with excise taxes.

The Principle: Individuals trading with individuals in other nations, voluntarily, should be the sole source of regulation of international free markets. All trade barriers are unnecessary and burdensome constraints.

I am sorry, but after years of interventionist foreign policy, there are too many adversaries that would love to destroy us. Even if we stopped interfering with other nations TODAY, it would take generations for the animosity, that we have fostered, to subside to a level that our nation would not require a high level of security on imports. Furthermore, our government, on behalf of the people has a legitimate duty to insure that certain technologies do not fall into the hands of our enemies. The notion that all trade barriers are unnecessary is very naïve. Again, this type of position simply provides ammunition for our political opponents to lob in our direction. One good thing about our platform is that we at least promote the withdrawal from GATT, NAFTA and other forms of government promoted monopolies. We should utilize this difference to promote our strength in the free market.

I frequently listen to the radio when I am driving to work. Lately, I have been amused by, or what can only appear as, the political self-destruction of the current administration by it's promotion of turning over terminal operations to Dubai Ports World. Let us be clear. One can not equate a state-owned business to private enterprise. When corporations and government are combined, the result is fascism. Why then do we see, not only the administration, but also its supporters, promoting a fascist entity? I fail to see either the logic or the patriotism of these individuals. Furthermore, we should examine their arguments to see just how hollow they truly ring.

One such argument was presented in an interview conducted by Steve Inskeep of NPR on February 28, 2006 ⁽¹⁾. His guest was Monty Graham, a senior fellow at the Institute for International Economics. Here are some exerts from that interview.

Graham: The process, uh, used to review foreign investment for security considerations is a marvelous technical apparatus. It’s, uh, technical competence in the government at its highest. But it seems unable to recognize where a potential political issue (garbled - 32)

Inskeep: A public relations problem.

Graham: It’s a public relations problem.

Now, I don’t know about you, but equating CIFIUS to "a marvelous technical apparatus" is disingenuous at best. It is clear that as chairman of the CFIUS, the Secretary of Treasury has a conflict of interest ⁽²⁾. It is claimed on the Internet, that CFIUS has only intervened "less than five times" in it’s history. In fact, I can not find one example where this body has prevented the sale of U.S. assets to a foreign corporation or power. On the contrary, it appears that this body promotes any deal it can make. If Mr. Graham thinks that this debacle is a public relations problem, we should seriously question Mr. Graham’s beliefs in free market economics.

Inskeep: Can you think of any other case where the United States has gotten into this question of foreign ownership and security concerns and they’ve simply blown the political side of it?

Graham: Yeah, the potential CNOOC acquisition of Unocal last summer.

Inskeep: The oil deal involving a Chinese firm and an American firm.

Graham: The oil deal.

Graham: Yeah, exactly! Again, there was really very little of what you would call a real national security – uh – interest at stake. Unocal, for instanced, did not hold any deep sea –uh– drilling technologies that the Chinese military would find interesting. Objections were so strong that the Chinese investor withdrew, leaving the American bidder, which happened to be Chevron, to be the only bidder and the –uh- shareholders of Unocal never were even allowed to make the choice between two alternative bidders.

Well, golly gee. I wonder if Mr. Graham ever heard of the Chinese Defense Minister, Chi Haotian, stating that war with the United States was inevitable. This statement was made in Hong Kong ⁽³⁾ and reiterated at a conference in Cuba ⁽⁴⁾. I suppose that if that conflict erupted, and the production of Unocal was diverted and withheld from the U.S., Mr. Graham would not worry a bit as commerce would be maintained by another buyer, namely China. This statement is a perfect example of someone placing commerce over security. I find it troubling that people are willing to trade with entities who promote our destruction and enslavement. Long gone are the days when principal would drive our economic and foreign policy.

Inskeep: Now a lot of members of Congress are looking into the question of whether this ports deal threatens the security of the United States. They’ll be investigating that. If somebody came to you and just asked you to name which kinds of foreign investment in the United States could be dangerous or give foreigners power over the United States, what kinds of investments would you point out?

Graham: Well, it’s actually kind of hard to answer that question, because the power –uh- that is invested via foreign investment is reciprocal. Foreigners –uh- hold large assets in the United States. They don’t want to lose those. In fact they want to earn positive returns on those. Dubai Ports World is here to make money. And there’s nothing that ruins your day more then having the port shut down because –uh- some incident occurs that –uh- forces the closure because of a security risk.

Mr. Graham again makes assumptions that have no basis in reality. Prior to WWII, the US traded quite heavily with both the Japanese and the Germans. That fact did not prevent the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor nor our entry into the war in Europe. A nation will not hesitate to utilize its ability to hinder the flow of goods and services into another nation to promote it’s own agenda. To think otherwise is extremely naïve. We (the U.S.) utilized our markets and the debt we held as a tool to manipulate the behavior of other nations all throughout the latter part of the 20th century. Why would Mr. Graham think that China, or the UAE for that matter, would not utilize this strategy?

Inskeep: Let me ask you about one other specific kind of foreign investment that people worry about. People focus on China as a potential enemy of the United States, and observe that China has bought billions and billions of dollars in US government bonds, floating the US government as it runs it’s own budget deficits. Could the Chinese say, "look we're going to stop buying so many bonds unless you, the United States, change your behavior"?

Graham: Uh- that is a definite possibility, and I would say the behavior that they would want to change is the propensity of the United States to – uh – continually be in deficit with respect to the rest of the world. The Chinese might at some point say that –uh- unless there are corrective measures to reduce the US trade imbalance we will be –uh – somewhat more reluctant to buy US assets than we have been in the past.

Ah-hah! Mr. Graham admits that China may very well in the future utilize its hold on our treasury notes to manipulate our behavior. Of course Mr. Graham puts this in a good light. China will force us to balance our trade? Please do not patronize us, Mr. Graham. Truth told, China could simply dump our Treasury Notes and cause a run on the dollar. If this were to happen, we as a nation would be financially destroyed. China could then cut trade off at our own ports (they own the ships and run the terminals), thus preventing everything, from food to fuel, from reaching it’s destination. What do you think our society would be like after a few months of this type of punitive action? Remember, the lender is the master, the borrower the slave.

Inskeep: When you think about the controversy over the ports case, or the controversy over the Chinese effort to buy an American oil company last year, is there any possibility that this might have a chilling effect, that foreign investors will be discouraged to come here at all?

Graham: There is if the Congress now were to pass legislation that I would call silly. Silly legislation would include a bill to block this acquisition in spite of a presidential OK of it. Legislation whereby a Congress would be given the right to have overview over future such transactions. That sort of legislation could very well have a chilling effect.

Now this is the most asinine statement I have heard, even from a globalist. First of all, Mr. Graham, Congress has every authority to regulate international commerce.⁽⁵⁾ To be precise:

POWERS GRANTED TO CONGRESS
Section 8. [3] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

It is the Executive branch that lacks the authority, or the good judgement in this case, to regulate commerce. It is Congress’ explicit DUTY to perform oversight on such actions. Either Mr. Graham has never read the Constitution, his memory has failed him, or he simply thinks that our Constitution is "silly." I don’t know about you, but this statement offends me to no end. Mr. Graham thinks that OUR Constitution is SILLY? I find the pompous arrogance from this man repugnant.

Of course, there could be another option. Perhaps Mr. Graham’s loyalty does not reside with this nation or it’s people? Let’s see, shall we? Mr. Graham is a senior fellow with the Institute for International Economics. Exactly who is the Institute for International Economics? Well, according to their website, they are a private, nonprofit, nonpartisan research institution devoted to the study of international economic policy.⁽⁶⁾ Additionally, they state that:

The Institute has made important contributions to key trade policy decisions, including fast-track legislation and related Trade Adjustment Assistance reforms, the Doha and Uruguay Rounds and the development of the WTO, NAFTA and other US free trade agreements, APEC and East Asian regionalism, a series of United States–Japan negotiations, reform of sanctions policy, liberalization of US export controls and export credits, and specific measures such as PNTR for China in 2000 and the abolition of special protection for steel in 2004.

Well, that means that their group is actively engaged in the wholesale sellout of our people and our nation. They have absolutely no loyalty to either the U.S. nor it’s people and despise its sovereignty.

Now we must ask, who funds these usurpers of our sovereignty and self-sufficiency? Well, let's look at their website again. They claim:

Support is provided by a wide range of charitable foundations, private corporations, and individuals and from earnings on the Institute’s publications and capital fund.

One must ask who these charitable foundations are? It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that corporate donations would be involved. After all, a nation can not compete against slave labor, unless it becomes a slave master. In any event, I dug around and I was "shocked, shocked I tell you," to find out that they received grants from such patriotic sources such as The Smith Richardson Foundation, The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, John M. Olin Foundation, Inc. ⁽⁷⁾

All of these foundations claim to be "right wing" and one is even a manufacturer of "chemical and munitions." Either way, they can not be considered loyal to anyone other than themselves. They profit off of the pain and misery of war.

The "institute" is praised by a former Treasury Secretary; a Federal Reserve Chairman and others linked to government. There is no surprise in this tidbit either. Since when did the Fed give a damn about the people? The Fed has manipulated the monetary fund and interest rates for decades. The Fed has purposely instigated fraud upon the citizenry in the form of hidden inflation. The Fed is solely responsible for the depression. In short, who cares what these people say? They should be seen as our enemies, not our friends. They certainly have no loyalty to the constitution as they violate it every day.

Lastly, let us look at who sits on the board of directors for this "institute." Wow, no surprise here either. It is a virtual cornucopia of Corporate Officers, International Bankers, former U.S. Officials and former Foreign Heads of State. Hey, there’s even the The Lord Browne of Madingley thrown in for good measure.⁽⁸⁾ These people have no loyalty to the U.S. Their opinion should not even be considered when discussing OUR security and OUR laws.

What must we do to protect OUR interests and OUR Constitution? In 1776, that answer was clear. I pray that these foreign interests do not trigger a similar response. However, let it be known that the American People, My Countrymen, will not bow down to a king. We will not be enslaved. Unfortunately, it would appear that our government is actively trying to sell us out to the highest bidder.

It is difficult at times not to simply start spitting and spewing hostile remarks towards those who would destroy our nation. I must, at times, step back and take a breath to compose myself. In the end, I realize that now is the time for us all to take hard stock of our lives and our liberties. Now is the time to approach your countrymen and invite them to join our efforts. Turn away from those who would immorally plunder of our nation with their desire to enslave our children. Cast off the chattel chains that bind and walk in the light of liberty. For only in liberty, the perfect law, can one find salvation. That salvation comes one vote, and one heart at a time. Have a heart, and vote.

Sources

1. Source 1
2. Source 2
3. Source 3
4. Source 4
5. Article I, Section 8 [3] United States Constitution.
6. Source 6
7. Source 7
8. Source 8