What change in Colombia could possibly have led a Democratic president to implement a trade agreement over the objections of Democrats in Congress with the country infamous around the world for its violence against unionists?
Voting for the Colombia Free Trade Agreement is a vote for violent union-busting, for driving people from their land, and setting the American working man and woman up to compete on an uneven playing field that will cost jobs and livelihoods.
This week, we'll see Congress vote on three so-called "trade agreements." Did you ever wonder why they call them "trade agreements"? So that they don't have to call them what they actually are -- treaties.
In Washington, Congress is nearing a vote on the U.S.-Colombia free trade agreement. Human rights, labor, environmental and faith-based groups agree: this agreement is a bad deal for human rights in Colombia.
Unfortunately, the proposed free trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama do nothing to address the significant flaws in the free trade model that prioritize the rights of multinational companies over the rights of workers and the American economy.
If Tea Partiers want to get back to the original intent of the Constitution, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution says plain as day that Congress has the power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations."
Despite the fact that every major American trade agreement since NAFTA has worsened America's trade balance, Obama actually seems to think he can improve America's export performance by going for more.
The United States filed a complaint against Guatemala for failure to enforce labor agreements outlined in a free trade deal with Central American countries, making it the first time the U.S. has brought a case against a trade partner.