When I first read the news that UAE was taking over security of the ports, I didn't pay much attention. After all, why should I? It was Chucky Schumer and who trusts anything that Chucky Schumer says, especially when it comes to the national defense? In fact, Chucky Schumer is so untrustworthy, in order to give himself any credibility on the issue, he had to stand next to "a lifelong Republican" Peter Gadiel.

Anytime I see a person say "I am a lifelong Republican" while standing alongside and with a Democrat, I get suspicious. Something is not right with the picture and not that a Republican supports a Democrat idea, but how far up the Democratic ranks he flew as a "lifelong Republican". It's a bandwagon trick, much like how both parties love polls when they agree with them, but dismiss their value when they don't.

So is Peter Gadiel really a Republican? Well in 1998 and 2000 he gave the RNC $200, but according to Open Secrets has not given since. He also heads up "9-11 Families for a Secure America", which many of you will remember those upset wives of 9-11 that endorsed Kerry? Yeah, Peter Gadiel heads that same group.

But what's this whole deal really about? UAE got a deal for control over our port security? Are we really turning control over to the United Arab Emirates? Is Bush outsourcing jobs? Is the UAE just another Taliban or Hamas? Where was Peter Gadiel when the British had it prior to the UAE? Would Chucky Schumer be opposed to the Venezuela having the same control?

Fact of the matter is, this isn't about ports, it's about terminals. A London-based company Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation, also known as P&O, was recently bought out by Dubai Ports World. P&O had a lease to handle cargo operations at 6 US seaports. They also have two ports in Britain, one in Australia and many others in Southeast Asia. What changed is that Dubai Ports took over the exact same thing that P&O had. Nothing's changed only the ownership.

What does the lease entail? Dubai Ports rents terminals in 6 ports in the United States. They have a garuntee to access terminals so that they can ship their products here. It's much like when Continental Airlines, Southwest Airlines, or American Airlines leases terminals from Airports. Are they in control of security?

This knee-jerk reaction by the American public, led by Chucky, and aided by the press has nothing to do with security. The UAE, as part of their lease agreement, pays for security at those terminals. The security is still controlled within the United States, and ships are still unloaded by IL&W union. Unless you feel that the Union is suddenly a threat now that the UAE has the lease, there is absolutely no reason to oppose this. As for the Newsmax story about Nuclear reactors and the UAE, Dubai Ports has absolutely no authority to access the terminals where nuclear reactors are transported from.

To deny Dubai Ports this because of their Arabic heritage is unfounded racism. The UAE is not a threat nor hostile enemy of the United States. In fact, during the hurricane Katrina aftermath, the UAE gave four times as much as any other country. Are you paying attention Governor Blanco and Senator Landrieu? They were there for us when we needed them. This is a country that gives our military access to their ports. Are they supposed to continue to give us lease agreements to their ports when we would deny them access to ours? We put our military there, yet they can't do business here?

And if this is about foriegn countries, then are we to deny all foriegn based countries lease agreements? Economically it would hinder our country. World wide, we'd appear to be isolationist. As for security, won't countries in turn deny us the same and no longer allow us to lease ports for military purposes?

For those of you who are going off the wall about this whole port security deal, I suggest you do more than research why 'Bush is wrong' and do your research into why Bush is right about this deal. More over, where is your head? Use common sense. Do you really believe, whether or not you like the President, that President Bush would risk the security of the United States? My concern isn't that he's too laxed, but rather if he would go overboard.