Clinton Criticizing Closure of Indiana Factory That Clinton Helped Close (Repost)

Here is a great catch over Hillary's new tactic in Indiana--blaming Bush for the economic destruction caused by her and her husband in the 90s. This doesn't bode well for Hillary, given that it means she either has no idea what she is talking about (incompetent), or she is lying again, and playing voters for fools. Luckily for her, the media will never pick up on this, as usual. But I will, for what it is worth:

Clinton Criticizing Closure of Indiana Factory That Clinton Helped Close
by David Sirota

Corporate/Clinton Democrats Trading In Blood Money (Repost)

Colombia Trade Agreement As A Precedent - The Ludlow massacre
by David Sirota

Ninety-four years ago on April 20, America made international news when a government-sanctioned paramilitary unit murdered Colorado union organizers at a Rockefeller-owned coal mine. The Ludlow Massacre was "a story of horror unparalleled in the history of industrial warfare," wrote the New York Times in 1914 - and the abomination was not just the violence, but the way political and corporate leaders colluded on their homicidal plans to protect profits.

Sanitized history teaches that our government has since changed. Quite the contrary, as the Bush administration attempted this week to legitimize the methods of Ludlow through its Colombia Free Trade Agreement. That attempt failed when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led the House to a vote that indefinitely postpones consideration of the pact.

Colombia resembles Colorado in the early 20th century, only with more frequent slaughters. In the last two decades, more than 2,500 Colombian labor organizers have been assassinated, making Colombia the world's most dangerous place for unionists.

This violence is underwritten by companies like Chiquita, which has financed Colombian death squads that "destroyed unions, terrorized workers and killed thousands of civilians," according to Portfolio magazine. The brutality deliberately depresses labor costs in a country where business analysts cite exploitative conditions as reason to invest.

This situation, like Ludlow, developed not in spite of the governing elite, but thanks to it. As the Washington Post reports, Colombia's "most influential political, military and business figures helped build" the killing machine. Recently, prosecutors connected these paramilitaries to Colombian President Alvaro Uribe's allies.

Colombian labor leaders have begged the White House to drop the deal, saying it will undermine their struggle for human rights by validating Uribe's thug-ocracy. Nonetheless, President Bush bolstered Uribe with a pact giving corporations incentives to leave America for the corpse-strewn pastures of Colombia - a union hater's paradise.

Bush justifies the deal as "urgent for our national security." The rationale asks us to believe that in backing tyrannical regimes, we will quell anti-Americanism among the oppressed, rather than sow it.

Congressional Democrats voted down the agreement 224-195, overcoming the pernicious forces in their midst. Specifically, the Colombian government and corporate groups have hired former Clinton administration officials to champion the deal, paid off former President Bill Clinton with an $800,000 speaking contract, and employed Mark Penn - Hillary Rodham Clinton's chief presidential strategist - to push the pact.

Oh, how we've regressed from Ludlow, when mere Rockefellers owned everything. Today, Dubai princes purchase our stock exchanges, Chinese communists buy our banks, and now Colombian goons bid on our politicians - and the results are trickling in.

When Bush dropped the deal on Congress, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi complained only that his tactics are "jeopardizing prospects" for the pact's passage. Instead of blocking the accord, she postponed it - a maneuver that could ensure its approval. National Journal reports that Democrats are considering "delaying a vote until after the November elections." The scheme would let Democratic candidates campaign as aw-shucks populists promisin' to fight for the little fella, and then head to D.C. to do the bidding of lobbyists and ratify the deal in a lame-duck session.

Between equivocating press releases, Pelosi said she worries that if voted on now, the pact "would lose, and what message would that send?" For starters, it would say the Democratic Party joins most Americans in opposing job-killing trade policies. It would also declare the party against rewarding murderous regimes on behalf of Clintonites now living large off of Colombian blood money.

But, then, such principled stands are considered uncouth in this, the Ludlow renaissance.

Calendars may say it is 2008, but the Establishment mentality is 1914. On the anniversary of the butchery in Colorado, we see the hideous power of corruption in all its pathological glory. Our government is showing that it views the Ludlow Massacre not as an embarrassment, but as an ideal to be embraced and exported.

David Sirota is a bestselling author whose newest book, "The Uprising," will be released in June. He is a fellow at the Campaign for America's Future and a board member of the Progressive States Network - both nonpartisan organizations.

Colombia Free Trade Agreement: A Bad Deal for Everyone Involved (Repost)

[Here is a look at the Colombia free trade deal that Bill (and Mark Penn) has been pimping himself out for, which Obama opposes, and which Hillary says she opposes, but she is also surrounded by people who are paid to support it, and she has shown she is okay with that, and she supported NAFTA in the past, and then lied about it repeatedly, so it is hard to say. Please also note that when the Colombian military breeched Ecuador's territorial sovereignty by crossing its border, Hillary responded in typical, hawkish, pro-Colombia/anti-Chavez, free market fundamentalist, just like Bush fashion:

Hugo Chavez's order yesterday to send ten battalions to the Colombian border is unwarranted and dangerous. The Colombian state has every right to defend itself against drug trafficking terrorist organizations that have kidnapped innocent civilians, including American citizens. By praising and supporting the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, Chavez is openly siding with terrorists that threaten Colombian democracy and the peace and security of the region. Rather than criticizing Colombia's actions in combating terrorist groups in the border regions, Venezuela and Ecuador should work with their neighbor to ensure that their territories no longer serve as safe havens for terrorist groups. After reviewing this situation, I am hopeful that the government of Ecuador will determine that its interests lie in closer cooperation with Colombia on this issue. Hugo Chavez must call a halt to this provocative action. As president, I will work with our partners in the region and the OAS to support democracy, promote an end to conflict, and to press Chavez to change course.

And all this because Venezuelan President Chavez bolstered border security on his side of the border. This completely one-sided, Manichean vision of the world is exactly what has cost us so dearly in foreign relations since Bush took office, and her response putting the blame solely on Chavez, accusing him of being in bed with terrorists, while painting Colombia as a model ally in the war on terror is a perfect example of Bush-style politics, as is her insistence on calling Chavez a dictator. That brand of rhetoric is unbelievably counter productive in foreign affairs, not to mention reckless and irresponsible. And now let's take a look at who these Colombian heroes of democracy are:]

Colombia Free Trade Agreement: A Bad Deal for Everyone Involved
by Rep. Phil Hare and Rep. Michael H. Michaud

If we had been born in Colombia, we would probably be dead.

That's right. As members of our respective labor unions, the fight for higher wages, better working conditions, and a secure pension could have cost us our lives.

Thirty nine trade unionists were murdered in Colombia in 2007, and they are being killed at a rate of over one per week this year.

Of the more than 2,500 murders in that nation since 1986, only 68 cases -- around 3 percent -- have resulted in convictions. However, many of these criminals were convicted in absentia -- meaning they may still be at large and continuing to terrorize workers.

Yet inexplicably, President Bush and some Members of Congress want to reward Colombia with a free trade agreement.

Not on our watch. The right to organize and bargain collectively is essential to human freedom. We believe passage of the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement (FTA) would greatly diminish our nation's reputation as a leader in the fight to end human rights abuses worldwide.

Despite President Alvaro Uribe's claim that the Colombian government has cleaned up its act, signs of trouble continue to persist.

Colombia's chief federal prosecutor's office has a backlog of over 1,300 cases of murders, threats, and intimidation involving trade unionists.

Last month, the Colombian government removed a highly respected member of a three-judge panel tasked with reducing this backlog.

And Colombian intelligence officials have been linked to the paramilitaries known for carrying out these assassinations.

Are these the actions of a 'courageous ally in South America' or of a government that has something to hide?

Historic violence against trade unionists is just one of many problems with the Colombia FTA. Like the Peru FTA, an agreement we strongly opposed, the Colombia proposal is based on the flawed NAFTA-CAFTA model which led to the outsourcing of millions of high-paying American jobs and virtually eliminated the U.S. manufacturing industry.

This comes at a time when we are in recession. The economy lost 80,000 jobs in March, the third consecutive month of rising unemployment. And the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program -- a safety net for displaced workers -- remains essentially dysfunctional. Passage of the Colombia FTA would add insult to injury for American workers.

President Bush and his allies in Congress have also been claiming that the Colombia FTA is a matter of national security. We couldn't agree more.

Let's review the facts. It has already been established that Colombia is the most dangerous place in the world to be a union member. But that is just the tip of the iceberg. Violence against Afro-Colombians is rampant. The Washington Post recently reported that Colombian troops are killing farmers and passing their bodies off as rebels. And three of our nation's military contractors remain hostage there.

We believe defeating the Colombia FTA, not passing it, is in the best interest of our national security.

We commend both major Democratic presidential candidates for opposing this agreement -- a testament to the will of the American people. Their interests -- not business groups or conservative think tanks -- should dictate our trade agenda.

President Bush's unprecedented decision to unilaterally submit the Colombia FTA is a slap in the face to Democratic leaders and constitutes a retreat from the bipartisan pact on trade agreed to last year -- something we were skeptical of from the outset given the President's record.

We urge House leadership to use all the tools in its arsenal to ensure this agreement's demise.

Chairman Mike Michaud (D-ME) and Rep. Phil Hare (D-IL) are both members of the House Trade Working Group.

[I only wish more people cared about the costs of free trade abroad, which have been plainly visible for decades, instead of only caring about it when it hurt Americans in the pocketbooks. Pretty pathetic. And we wonder why the rest of the world hates us?]