File this in the "What Goes Around Comes Around" category.

Many people (myself included) are sickened by the Supreme Court's decision in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" eminent domain case. The attached link is a story about one man's answer to this travesty. Supreme Court justice David Souter currently lives in Weare, New Hampshire. Logan Darrow Clements has sent a letter to the code enforcement officer of Weare proposing to build a hotel on Souter's property. The hotel would be called the Lost Liberty Hotel! He also wants to put a Museum on site, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Finally, he also wants to open a restaurant called the "Just Desserts Café". There are five people on the town's board of Selectmen. Clements will need three votes to have his idea approved. His arguement is that the hotel would certainly garner more tax revenue than Souter's use of the property as a home...the same arguement used in the Kelo case. To me, it is fitting that New Hampshire's state motto is "Live Free Or Die". http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html

An Update On "A Discourse With Senator Lautenberg On CAFTA

Here is an update from my discourse with Senator Lautenberg from June 16th. The "caring" Senator has gotten back to me about my reply to his letter. Look familiar? It should, the jackass sent me the same exact form letter he sent me the first time. I doubt he, or anyone on his staff even read my letter! They likely put it in a scanner and scanned for key words to see what I was griping about and then sent me the appropriate form letter. To me, it is obvious that the Senator cares very little about what his constituents have to say about important issues. Since this is the case, vote against him next election time. I know I will. See the return letter below, and our prior discourse under the June 16th heading.


Responding to your message

June 23, 2005

Dear Wayne:

Thank you for your correspondence expressing your views about theU.S.-Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). I appreciate yourinput on this important issue.

Please be assured that I share your concerns about CAFTA. I, too,worry that CAFTA might exacerbate the pervasive social and economicinequality already present in many of the Central American countries. Iworry about whether CAFTA will perpetuate or perhaps worsen the currentpoverty plaguing many citizens of Central America. I also worry thatCentral American products could put U.S. producers, including those inNew Jersey, out of business, because Central American firms havecheaper labor costs. U.S. firms competing with Central American imports haveclearly registered this concern. As the negotiations progress thisyear, I will continue to monitor the labor standard provisions of theproposed agreement, as well the environmental standards and exportsubstitution rates.

Despite these reservations, CAFTA could generate economic benefitsfor the region. Economists indicate that though the effects of thetrade agreement might be small on a macroeconomic level, they will increasethe profits to the local firms affected by the regional trade. ForU.S. producers, access to new markets for goods such as agriculturalproducts could become advantageous. In general, U.S. companies couldbenefit from the opportunity to increase their foreign investment in thisregion. Finally, CAFTA may reinforce political stability in these fiveCentral American countries by providing institutional structures thatwill reinforce recent progress made in efforts to strengthen the rule oflaw and to fight terrorism, organized crime, and drug trafficking.

Thanks again for contacting me. I will carefully monitor theprogress of the CAFTA negotiations to ensure that any new trade agreementmeets the highest standards for labor, environmental, and social protection.

Below are two emails that I sent to Senator Lautenberg in New Jersey, and an email in between that he has sent back to me in reply to the first. His reply to my second email I have left for a post of its own.

A Discourse With Senator Lautenberg About CAFTA

Name withheld

June 15, 2005

Senator Frank LautenbergU.S. Senate

Dear Frank,

I strongly oppose the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) for the following reasons:

1. NAFTA, has not been good for America. I believe jobs have been lost because of it. If Congress really wants to do something useful, then pass legislation to better guard our border with Mexico.

2. International tribunals set up under NAFTA have been ruling on U.S. cases, claiming the authority to supersede U.S. court decisions. As a United States citizen, I find this distasteful. My advice to you is to read the constitution, and then vote for bills that adhere to the Constitution and vote against those that don't. This country was born a republic. It has now dropped into a socialist democracy. If you read the Federalist Papers, you will see a strong argument by Thomas Jefferson against democracies. Read the Constitution and the Federalist Papers then look at your voting record and see how it stacks up. Can you look me in the eye and tell me you are proud of it? Can you?

3. The argument that the CAFTA countries can provide valuable markets for American goods is phony. The CAFTA countries are among the world's poorest and their economies among the world's smallest. The only things we will be exporting to these countries are U.S. jobs, industry, and capital. Even some of the U.S. firms that moved to Mexico would likely move further south to cheaper labor markets.

Please let me know that you will vote against the CAFTA agreement if and when it is signed and presented to Congress. The same goes for the misnamed Free Trade Area of the Americas. The FTAA would remove authority over many matters, in addition to trade, that properly belong to Congress. My final thought for you is this. If from here on out you begin voting in ways that uphold the Constitution, then I will vote for you when the time comes. If you do not, then know that my vote will go against you.

Sincerely,

Wayne

Senator Lautenberg replies:

June 16, 2005

Dear Wayne:

Thank you for your correspondence expressing your views about the U.S.-Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). I appreciate your input on this important issue.

Please be assured that I share your concerns about CAFTA. I, too, worry that CAFTA might exacerbate the pervasive social and economic inequality already present in many of the Central American countries. I worry about whether CAFTA will perpetuate or perhaps worsen the current poverty plaguing many citizens of Central America. I also worry that Central American products could put U.S. producers, including those in New Jersey, out of business, because Central American firms have cheaper labor costs. U.S. firms competing with Central American imports have clearly registered this concern. As the negotiations progress this year, I will continue to monitor the labor standard provisions of the proposed agreement, as well the environmental standards and export substitution rates.

Despite these reservations, CAFTA could generate economic benefits for the region. Economists indicate that though the effects of the trade agreement might be small on a macroeconomic level, they will increase the profits to the local firms affected by the regional trade. For U.S. producers, access to new markets for goods such as agricultural products could become advantageous. In general, U.S. companies could benefit from the opportunity to increase their foreign investment in this region. Finally, CAFTA may reinforce political stability in these five Central American countries by providing institutional structures that will reinforce recent progress made in efforts to strengthen the rule of law and to fight terrorism, organized crime, and drug trafficking.

Thanks again for contacting me. I will carefully monitor the progress of the CAFTA negotiations to ensure that any new trade agreement meets the highest standards for labor, environmental, and social protection.

My reply to Senator Lautenberg:

June 16, 2005

Dear Frank,

Thank you for your reply. However, I think you missed the point of my letter. It is evident in the third sentence of your reply. You state: " I, too, worry that CAFTA might exacerbate the pervasive social and economic inequality already present in many of the Central American countries. I worry about whether CAFTA will perpetuate or perhaps worsen the current poverty plaguing many citizens of Central America." Personally, I don't give a rat's ass about the citizens of Central America. I care about the citizens of the United States. As a senator, you should put the well-being of United States citizens first over those of the citizens of Central America.

In the seventh sentence of your reply you wrote: " CAFTA could generate economic benefits for the region." my reply to you is yes, and I could win the Lotto. The fact remains that the CAFTA countries are among the world's poorest and their economies among the world's smallest. The only things we will be exporting to these countries are U.S. jobs, industry, and capital. I am all for charity. I give to a number of charities that I believe in. I hope you do too. However, I expect that when you give charity, it is with your own money and not with the tax payer's money. By voting for CAFTA, I believe you are giving charity to people outside of the United States at the U.S. citizen's expense.

In sentence ten of your reply you state: "In general, U.S. companies could benefit from the opportunity to increase their foreign investment in this region." I would remind you that U.S. companies are not citizens of the United States. Any investment that companies make outside of the U.S. necessarily limits the funds available for those companies to invest within the United States. As I have stated in the past, your responsibilities are to the U.S. citizens. Not corporations, or the citizens of Central America. I expect you to do your duty as a senator from New Jersey and vote in accordance with what is right for your citizens...not what is right for corporations looking to expand overseas.

Finally, I would like to point out that your letter did not answer the one question that I sent to you. I asked you to "Please let me know that you will vote against the CAFTA agreement if and when it is signed and presented to Congress. The same goes for the misnamed Free Trade Area of the Americas." While you did state that you would "carefully monitor the progress of the CAFTA negotiations to ensure that any new trade agreement meets the highest standards for labor, environmental, and social protection.", you did not state that you would vote in accordance with the Constitution and that you will put the needs of the United States citizens above those of Central America. When you go to vote on CAFTA, please keep the U.S. citizen in mind. The voters in New Jersey elected you. We can easily vote for someone else next time if we don't believe you are voting on important legislation with our (not the large multi-national corporations) best interests in mind.

Thank you for your time,

Wayne

Note to readers: The United States is our country. It is up to each of us to stand up and be heard about the issues that we care about. If you believe, as I do, that CAFTA is bad for the United States, and is a baby step towards giving international tribunals the right to supercede U.S. court decisions, then write your congressmen and senators and let them know how you feel.I sent my letters by email. You can too.