Roberts donated time to 'gay rights' activists

I see. So you're a Johnny-One-Note, eh?

 

Don't kid yourself, Ken, the CIA and a whole bunch of those types is in Colombia. They had 11 police I think it was blown up in a roadside explosion this week outside of their capital Bogota. Here again, the CP is against our involvement--from their platform: "The Constitution Party has consistently opposed American involvement in conflicts in the Middle East, Africa, Asia, Europe, and Central and South America."

 

Colombia should take care of itself, cmg. It is not for us to send troops to every country in the world. Like I wrote, military aid, advise, training I think is okay if there is a military threat to the U.S. that needs to be addressed.

 

Bush is weak politically. The Democrats attack his every breath. Roberts is the best that he can do. CAFTA was to save Central America from the growing threat from Castro and Chávez now working together, and Chávez expressed his displeasure. Colombia has a bloody war on its hands and because of the shared border with Venezuela is in peril from Chávez. I don't care if Bush has covert operatives in there but I see that the CP has consistently opposed American involvement in Central and South America.

 

I would certainly hope so as that is the best policy for these United States.

 

Bush is not going to sit around the ranch like Bill Clinton sat around and allow Latin America to fall under the thumbs of Castro and Chávez. This is a total war on all fronts.

 

What would be the result of Chavez having more influence, cmg?

 

Here is what my congressman, Mike Ross, who had the good sense to vote against CAFTA emailed me today:

Thank you for contacting me in reference to HR 3045, the Dominican Republic, Central America - United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (DR-CAFTA). I appreciate hearing your views on this important issue.

This trade agreement involves six countries within Central America: Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic. It is the first Free Trade Agreement (FTA) negotiated by the U.S. with developing countries that have a combined gross domestic product (GDP) of $85 billion. This is equivalent to the economies of mid-size U.S. cities like New Haven, Conn. that has a GDP of $80 billion or Tampa-St. Petersburg, Florida which has an $87 billion GDP. Therefore, there will be limited economic benefit from this trade agreement.

I recognize that we live in a global economy and that the United States is not isolated from the rest of the world. I am not opposed to fair trade and have been supportive of agreements I believe will benefit American products and services abroad and does not adversely impact American workers. However, I am opposed to agreements that the U.S. continues to enter into that have far-reaching negative effects on our economy and adversely impacts American workers and displaces American jobs.

The U.S. trade deficit has increased from $96 billion when the World Trade Organization (WTO) was first established in 1995 to a record-breaking $617 billion today. We now have a $162 billion trade deficit with China and a $45 billion deficit with Mexico, leading to a loss of 1.5 million jobs to China and over 800,000 jobs to Mexico. Since 2000, the U.S. has lost nearly three million manufacturing jobs and one million high-technology jobs. As a result, international trade has made American jobs our number one export.

This legislation narrowly passed the U.S. House of Representatives 217-215 and was opposed by both Republicans and Democrats. I voted against this agreement and believe that we must re-write trade rules to benefit American workers and raise the living standards of people, not just to satisfy limited interests.

Again, I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this issue. Please contact me in the future if I can be of assistance to you in either the Washington office or the district office nearest you.

 

Let's get back on topic here folks. This thread is not about CAFTA.