Replies

I'm at a loss as to why those would be bad things.

So it isn't bad that these trade agreements are unconstitutional because they are negotiated by a trade minister and not Congress? It isn't a bad thing that the American taxpayer doesn't know his money is being sent as foreign aid through these trade agreements when only Congress by law has the authority to give foreign aid? It isn't a bad thing that the so-called "trade" agreement covers a lot more than trade, and will open the border to illegal immigration from all of central America, just like NAFTA opened the border for illegal immigration from Mexico? It isn't a bad thing a stated purpose of these agreements, to bolster the economies of foreign nations, is accomplished by socialist wealth redistribution policies?

The bad thing is that the American people are being betrayed by their government-- which has given their authority over to unelected ministers, councils and representatives of foreign governments who will erase our borders and integrate our nation with communist, socialist and totalitarian nations.

It isn't a bad thing that the American taxpayer doesn't know his money is being sent as foreign aid through these trade agreements when only Congress by law has the authority to give foreign aid?

See, trade is the same as foreign aid!!

It isn't a bad thing that the so-called "trade" agreement covers a lot more than trade, and will open the border to illegal immigration from all of central America, just like NAFTA opened the border for illegal immigration from Mexico?

Specifically, where did NAFTA open the border for illegal immigration? Did we have no illegals before NAFTA?

Where does the new agreement open us up to illegal immigration from central America? Is it before or after the section that gives the OAS ultimate power over the hemisphere?

Well, let's just look at your objections individually.

So it isn't bad that these trade agreements are unconstitutional because they are negotiated by a trade minister and not Congress?

I'm not aware of a constitutional requirement that Congress negotiate anything except among themselves. I do know that Congress explicitly agreed to the current arrangement and that no successful challenge to its constitutionality has been made. So your premise is simply wrong.

It isn't a bad thing that the American taxpayer doesn't know his money is being sent as foreign aid through these trade agreements when only Congress by law has the authority to give foreign aid?

Not a single provision in CAFTA provides for anything of the sort. You've made this allegation before and it wasn't any more true then.

Yes, they also cover such things as patent protection for US products. They specifically state that they do not change any immigration laws of any country, so at this point it looks like you're just making stuff up.

It isn't a bad thing a stated purpose of these agreements, to bolster the economies of foreign nations, is accomplished by socialist wealth redistribution policies?

That's essentially a restatement of your earlier false assertion about this being a redistribution of wealth from America to these countries. Just stop the nonsense. It's false. Point me to the provision within CAFTA that does this. You can't, because it's not there.

What CAFTA will do is help GROW the economies of those countries, and if you understood economics you would know that economic growth in one country does not have to come at the expense of another country. We can all get richer together.