What exactly is wrong with proposed Columbia trade agreement that Democrats are actively seeking to block?

One thing seems to be obvious, - the hypocrisy of the left.

The benefit is plain and simple, the elimination of import taxes U.S. companies have to Columbia to get the products in.
Columbia enjoys the the benefits for quite some time already...

So where is the beef? It seems the arrangement can only help the U.S. economy by stimulating the exports (and thus raising the demand on manufacturing and other sectors) and produce more jobs, higher wages, more valuable dollar...

Some no-name left blog posted:

"The Colombia Free Trade Agreement is best summed up as a proposal to formalize U.S. support for the assassination of labor union organizers by death squads, impoverishment of workers and the undermining of farming operations that will leave more landless peasants with no alternative but to immigrate to the United States seeking work."


In attempt not to get too twisted :

We care about our labor market greatly, in fact we care about it so much, we are willing to increase the cost of business to all companies seeking higher profits by offshoring some of their processes.

But wait... - we are willing to sacrifice our economic development because Columbians don't treat their labor unions to the liking of union bosses in the US.

Since when exactly Mrs Pelosi and the associated left chose to care for well-being of those abroad? The last time I have turned the TV on, the left led on by the moveon.org gave off a definitive whiff of a notion of leaving Iraq as quickly as possible so the locals there can sort battle things out on their own.

And so it begins....

"Questioning" General Petraeus Obama has stated:

1. Al Qaeda in Iraq and increased Iranian influence in the region are a direct result of that original decision [Iraq invasion]

This only confirms my suspicion Obama missed not only 20 years worth of his pastor’s rasist speaches but an important intelligence reports prior to invasion of Iraq.

Got help me, this man should not be allowed wihtin 100 yards of a briefcase with nuclear button. What else is he going to miss?

2. "I believe we are more likely to resolve the situation by applying an increased pressure [] through timetable for withdrawal and a diplomatic surge that includes Iran because if Maliki can tolerate as normal neighbor-to-neighbor relations with Iran then we should be talking to them as well. I do not believe we will be able to stabilize the situation without them."

This came in about 20 seconds after Obama has confirmed that he is well aware of Iran's influence in the region.

So let me get this straight:

1. He knows Iran wages a proxy (and some times direct) war in Iraq

2. He knows that Iran is causing US casualties

3. He understands that Iraq is talking to Iran because they are neighbors and there is really no way for Iraq to ignore Iran.

4. He is suggesting US should talk to Iran because Iraq is talking to them...

Something looks rather dumb or cowardly....

I just got to ask - where is your pride for this nation Senator Obama? To me this looks to be more embarassing then Mogadishu, and that was pretty bad.

Jane, without any hisitation issued her support for Obama....

Quite understandable though, - Jane Fonda is used to being on the opposite side of John McCain. After all, in 1972 while she was actively betraying her country by singing in Hanoi area to north vietnamese troops and recording 10 propaganda messages for vietcom  John McCain was accepting Hanoi Hilton premium guest services that in the end left him permanently incapable of raising his arms above his head

In a few weeks Obama and Hillary will battle it out in the Pennsylvania, good luck to both of them, but more so to Hillary. Never in my wildest dreams could I have imagined myself cheering for Clintons.

GO-GO-Girl…

As many times before, this election is not only about who would be the better candidate but which one will do less damage if elected.

Hillary knows how to play ball, and with luck, the years of her being in office will result and a persistent political flip-flop based on the direction of the pollster wind. We have seen it before, why do you think Bill was so popular?  The Internet boom (of course) is one; the second one is his uncanny ability to sense what the next poll will show. From Mogadishu to Impeachment and with everything in between, - Bill managed to walk out of the office with 2/3 of the country approving his performance.

This is astonishing, never before have I seen people being loved so much for their failures.

Why Hillary?

The hunger for power can rarely be acquired most of the people are born with it. In Clinton’s case the hunger can only be compared with someone who had a misfortune of being born with Prader-Willi syndrome.

It is that hunger for power that is likely to prevent Hillary from causing too much damage. In the democratic environment one must compromise, to compromise you must retreat from the position of absolute power. Unless, of course (in Hillary’s case,) the compromise is with the truth then it is free for all.

Barack on the other hand is all about compromises. The proposed deal between GM and the feds so the latter would pick up the giant’s healthcare bill in exchange for … an attempt to make better performing vehicles smell like “A Change we Can believe in”; and a compromise with radicals having a hysterical fit to get the forces out of Iraq in favor of potential invasion of Pakistan sounds like public appeasement.

It is those compromises that will result in America’s demise and world-wide embarrassment.

The illustrative pattern of behavior is here

This nation cannot afford the universal healthcare if the care levels are to be maintained. It is not possible to give Paul access to Peter’s physician and for Peter to remain happy while fitting the two bills. Any attempt by Hillary to provide a universal coverage to everyone will result in an astounding failure that will ring in liberal ears for years to come. The compromise, however, could be implemented as it is possible to bribe Peter with promises of the future that will never materialize and through such moves this great nation will move one step closer to socialism.

I have never been a fan of numerology. In fact, I have always smiled at people that read horoscopes and sought mystical relationships in numbers.  With that, I do find it ironic that if Hillary were to loose on April 22 in Pennsylvania primaries  the resulting chain of events might push the US socio-economic development on a collision course with socialism just like Russia’s was on April 22 1870 when Lenin was born.