My take on the ports management contract issue is simple. We are looking at it in ENTIRELY the wrong way.
Disregarding the political stupidity of defending the contract, and threatening to veto any legislation designed to block it (which is constitutionally correct by the way), and the fact that if he had denounced the deal the left would have screamed "RACIST RACIST RACIST RACIST" at the tops of their lungs for the next week; I don't see any specific reason, or any legitimate legal justification under the current regulatory regime, why any single company should be excluded from the management of our ports without a direct proven terrorist connection.
If we allow a British company to manage our ports, there is no reason not to let a company from the UAE do so, so long as the UAE is not on the hostile foreign powers list (and they are not).
However, this assumes that we should allow the management of our ports to be offshored at all.
I believe that any major shipping port should be classified as a protected and/or critical infrastructure asset (and some already are), and their management should be limited to American interests.
In fact, though the cost would be high, I would support requiring all employees of a port; who are in a position to approve or influence the transshipment of cargo; and those who directly secure and transport that cargo, to obtain a security clearance.
